IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Wetlands
and Soil N 2 O
19-21 October 2010, Geneva, Switzerland

Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

1

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Wetlands
and Soil N2O
19-21 October 2010, Geneva, Switzerland

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.

Published by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan on behalf of the IPCC
© The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2011
Please cite as:
IPCC 2011, IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Wetlands and Soil N2O eds: Eggleston H.S., Srivastava N., TanabeK., Baasansuren J., and Fukuda M. Meeting Report of the IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Wetlands and Soil N2O,
Geneva, Switzerland, 19-21 October, 2010, Pub. IGES, Japan 2011
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
ISBN 978-4-88788-078-8

Printed in Japan

Table of Contents
FOREWORD ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 7
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 9
2. Wetlands...................................................................................................................................................... 11
2.1
Existing Guidance in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines ................................................................................. 11
2.2
Presentations....................................................................................................................................... 13
2.2.1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................13
2.2.2
Status and recent developments in knowledge.................................................................13
2.3
Conclusions and recommendations..................................................................................................... 16
2.3.1
Drainage and rewetting or restoration of peatlands ..........................................................16
2.3.2
Flooded lands ...................................................................................................................17
2.4
Wetlands Group Participants ............................................................................................................... 18
3. Harvested Wood Products ......................................................................................................................... 19
3.1
Presentations....................................................................................................................................... 19
3.1.1
Status and recent developments in knowledge.................................................................19
3.2
Review of existing guidance ................................................................................................................ 20
3.3
HWP Group Participants...................................................................................................................... 22
4. Soil N2O ....................................................................................................................................................... 24
4.1
Presentations....................................................................................................................................... 24
4.2
Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 25
4.3
Review of parameters used to estimate Soil N2O Emissions .............................................................. 26
4.3.1
EF1 for direct N2O emissions from N input ........................................................................26
4.3.2
EF2 for direct N2O emissions from drained organic soils ..................................................27
4.3.3
Indirect N2O methodology - Atmospheric deposition ........................................................27
4.3.4
Indirect N2O methodology -N leaching and runoff .............................................................28
4.3.5
Understudied issues, regions and gaps ............................................................................28
4.4
Comparing top-down and bottom-up global N2O budgets ................................................................... 29
4.5
Soil N2O Group Particpants ................................................................................................................. 30
5. Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................................................ 31
5.1
Wetlands.............................................................................................................................................. 31
5.2
Harvested Wood Products ................................................................................................................... 32
5.3
Soil N2O ............................................................................................................................................... 32
Annex 1.
List of Participants ........................................................................................................................ 33
Annex 2.
Meeting Agenda ............................................................................................................................ 40
Annex 3.
Co-Chairs Summary ...................................................................................................................... 42
Annex 4.
Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 44
Annex 5.
Presentations ................................................................................................................................ 54

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Wetlands and Soil N2O

FOREWORD
We are pleased to present this report, produced in reply to a request from the SBSTA in June 2010, to hold anexpert meeting to consider methodological issues related to emissions and removals of greenhouse gases from
Harvested Wood Products, Wetlands and N2O from Soils.
The Task Force Bureau was happy to be able to respond positively to the request from SBSTA, especially given
the short time scale to hold the meeting and report on it both to the UNFCCC Workshop on Annex I Reporting
Guidelines held 3rd – 4th November, 2010 in Bonn, Germany, and then to the UNFCCC COP 16 held on 29th
November to 10th December, 2010 in Cancun, Mexico.
We would like to thank all those involved in these meetings, the experts who participated and the TechnicalSupport Unit staff for taking their parts in making this meeting a success despite the short time available to plan,
hold and report this meeting.

Thelma Krug

Taka Hiraishi

Co-Chair Task Force Bureau

Co-Chair Task Force Bureau

6

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

Executive Summary
The Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA) of the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has started a work programme to revise their guidelines for the reporting on
greenhouse gases by Annex I Parties to the Convention with the aim of enabling the use of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories for reporting of emissions of the years 2013 onwards, which
would be reported in 2015. In planning their work programme the SBSTA, at its thirty-second meeting in June
2010, invited the IPCC to organize an expert meeting to explore the need and ways to clarify methodologicalissues related to reporting on harvested wood products, wetlands and nitrous oxide emissions from soils. The
SBSTA also invited the IPCC to provide information on the recommendations of this expert meeting for thesecond workshop of the work programme, and a report of the expert meeting for consideration by the SBSTA at
its thirty-third session, with a view to the SBSTA at its thirty-third session considering the need for and scope of
an invitation to the IPCC to conduct further work in these areas.
In response the IPCC’s Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI) held this expert meeting in
Geneva on 19-21 October, 2010.
This meeting considered the guidance on harvested wood products, wetlands and nitrous oxide emissions fromsoils in the light of the recent scientific literature and in general considered that the methodological advice
contained in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines still reflects the latest science. In particular, they agreed that there is noN2O from the biological nitrogen fixation process itself (this was included in earlier guidelines but assumed not to
occur in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). For HWP, it is important that the guidance is followed in its entirety toeliminate potential double- or under-counting of emissions. A few editorial issues were noted for HWP and Soil
N2O and corrigenda addressing these will be issued by the TFI.
These conclusions were summarised in a Co-Chairs Summary (Annex 3) which was presented at the second
workshop of the SBSTA work programme to revise their guidelines for the reporting on greenhouse gases byAnnex I parties to the Convention and to COP16 in Cancun, Mexico. The following sections outline the main
conclusions. The main proposals for further action are:i.

The meeting recommended that the IPCC provide additional methodological guidelines for therewetting and restoration of peat land; emissions from fires, ditches and waterborne carbon; andconstructed wetlands for waste water disposal, to fill gaps in the existing guidelines(Recommendation 1). This guidance would be additional to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines filling gaps forwhich sufficient information was not available when the guidelines were compiled. While the focus of
this work is on the wetland chapter (volume 4, chapter 7) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines it should be
remembered that drainage and conversion of wetlands to other land uses is included in other chaptersof volume 4 (e.g., forest land, cropland and grassland) and possibly the Waste volume: coherence
between these chapters and the Wetland chapter should be maintained.

ii.

The meeting recommended that an expert meeting be held to assess new EFs measurements forwetlands and develop emission factors from this information to enable more accurate countryand region-specific estimates to be made. The meeting also recommended that the TFI actively
collect such data and add it to the EFDB. (Recommendation 2)

iii.

The meeting concluded that there should be an expert meeting to discuss all the new scienceand issues surrounding the development of new guidelines for reservoirs (Recommendation 3).
The participants did not agree that there was now sufficient new information available to produce newand additional guidelines based on the latest literature. They did, however, agree on the need to
discuss a range of associated issues, such as the impact of reservoirs on total emissions from7

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

watersheds, allocation of emissions to specific drivers and how emissions may be related to specificreservoir typologies.
iv.

The participants also noted that the guidance for HWP is complex and proposed thedevelopment of FAQ (frequently asked questions) that would guide users to the correct, full
implementation of the guidelines (Recommendation 5). However, the meeting agreed that themethodological guidance in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines is correct, but noted that the entire chapter needs
to be considered to ensure there are no inconsistencies with other parts of the guidelines.

v.

The meeting proposed an expert meeting to assess recent literature on Soil N2O and consider
stratified EF1 values for the EFDB (Recommendation 7). Reviewing recent literature should allow for
the development of more regional or country specific emission factors allowing greater stratification by
climate, soil, management and leaching.

vi.

This meeting proposed a joint expert meeting with WG I to explore the gap between theatmospheric N2O increase and bottom-up estimates of anthropogenic N2O emissions(Recommendation 10). Participants noted that increased measurements of currently under represented
systems (e.g. large river deltas) may help resolve this issue.

8

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

1. Introduction
The Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA) of the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has started a work programme to revise their guidelines for the reporting ofgreenhouse gases by Annex I Parties to the Convention 1. The aim is to enable the use of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories for reporting of GHG emissions and removals of the years
2013 onwards, which would be reported in 2015.
In planning their work programme the SBSTA made a specific request to the IPCC at its thirty-second meeting in
June 2010:“The SBSTA invited the IPCC to organize an expert meeting to explore the need and ways toclarify methodological issues related to reporting on harvested wood products, wetlands andnitrous oxide emissions from soils, as specified in annex III. The SBSTA also invited the IPCC toprovide information on the recommendations of this expert meeting for the second workshop of thework programme, and a report of the expert meeting for consideration by the SBSTA at its thirtythird session, with a view to the SBSTA at its thirty-third session considering the need for andscope of an invitation to the IPCC to conduct further work in these areas.”
FCCC/SBSTA/2010/L.12, Article 7
Annex III of this document expanded on the requirements (see Box 1, below)
Box 1 UNFCCC request to the IPCC, Annex III of FCCC/SBSTA/2010/L.12

Annex III

Invitations to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to organize an expert
meeting on methodological work related to reporting when using the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
The expert meeting referred to in paragraph 7 of this document should explore the need and ways
to clarify, improve and provide updated information, as appropriate, related to, inter alia:(a) Information in chapter 7 on wetlands, in particular the methodological guidance in those areas
for which gaps are identified in table 7.1 of chapter 7 and gaps related to some uses of wetlands
which are currently not fully covered, for example the drainage of wetlands, the rewetting ofpreviously drained wetlands or wetland restoration;(b) Information in chapter 12 on harvested wood products, in particular definitions, consistency,
potential for double counting with other sectors, use of higher tier methods and any new
approach that has been proposed;(c) Information in chapter 11 relevant to direct and indirect nitrous oxide emissions from soils.

1 “Updated

UNFCCC reporting guidelines on annual inventories following incorporation of the provisions of decision
14/CP.11” FCCC/SBSTA/2006/9 (18 August 2006)

9IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

This request was considered by the Task Force Bureau (TFB) of the IPCC’s Task Force on National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories (TFI). The TFB decided to hold a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, on 19-21 October 2010 toconsider these items. The TFB also decided that for each of the three topics the general aims should be toconsider:Is the current advice in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines clear or is there a need to issue corrigenda, clarifications
or explanations?
Do more recent scientific and technical developments allow for the development of new advice? For
example, the 2006 IPCC Guidelines note that the existing guidance is incomplete for wetlands and so two
options being discussed by the UNFCCC are not covered – wetlands restoration and rewetting of peat lands.
Can these gaps be filled?
Any possible future actions

If improvements or further actions are needed, then the meeting should recommend types of actions by the TFI
for consideration by the TFB. These actions may include:

the issuance of corrigenda, Q&A and/or FAQs on the TFI web site;
additions and improvements to the Emission Factor Database (EFDB);
expert meetings producing meeting reports (as IPCC Supporting Materials) to explain specific issues;a recommendation to initiate formal IPCC consideration of the development of additional guidance by the
TFI.

10

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

2. Wetlands
2.1 Existing Guidance in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
As noted in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines the existing guidance is incomplete because of gaps in scientific andtechnical knowledge at the time the guidelines were completed. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines define wetlands as:“This category includes areas of peat extraction and land that is covered or saturated by water for
all or part of the year (e.g., peatlands) and that does not fall into the Forest Land, Cropland,
Grassland or Settlements categories. It includes reservoirs as a managed subdivision and naturalrivers and lakes as unmanaged subdivisions.”
2006 GL, Vol. 4-1, Ch.7, Page 7.5
The 2006 IPCC Guidelines provide methods for:

Peatlands cleared and drained for production of peat for energy, horticultural and other uses. The
estimation methodology includes emissions from the use of horticultural peat.
Reservoirs or impoundments, for energy production, irrigation, navigation, or recreation. Includes CO2
emissions from all lands converted to permanently Flooded Lands. Flooded Lands exclude regulated
lakes and rivers unless a substantial increase in water area has occurred.
Methods for estimating emissions from drained wetlands converted to other lands (forest lands, crop
lands, grasslands, settlements) are given in the appropriate land type chapters under “emissions fromorganic soils”.

The impact of wetland drainage is significant globally and so there is a growing interest in the impact of rewetting
wetlands and restoring peat lands as well as on the impact of draining wetlands for land use conversion.
Table 1 Wetlands Guidance (after Table 7.1 in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines)

Land use category/GHG

Peatlands

Flooded Land

Wetlands Remaining Wetlands
CO2
Section 7.2.1.1
No Guidance1
2
CH4
No GuidanceAppendix 3
N2O
Section 7.2.1.2
No Guidance3
Lands Converted to Wetlands
Section 7.2.2.1
Section 7.3.2.1 and Appendix 2
CO2
2
CH4
No GuidanceAppendix 3
N2O
Section 7.2.2.2
No Guidance3
NOTES:
1. CO2 emissions from Flooded land Remaining Flooded land are covered by carbon stock change
estimates of land uses and land use change (e.g., soils) upstream of the .Flooded Land.
2. CH4 emission from peatlands is negligible after drainage during conversion and peat extraction.
3. N2O emissions from Flooded Land are included in the estimates of indirect N2O from agricultural or otherrun-off and waste water.

11

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

Table 1, from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, indicates the coverage of the IPCC guidelines. However some of theareas where no guidance is given are assumed to be negligible or included elsewhere. Table 2 includes thisinformation and gives a clearer overview of the state of the guidance. This shows that there are significant gaps
in the guidance for flooded lands (reservoirs). Guidance in an Appendix is provided “for the future developmentof methodological guidance” in areas where guidance could not be provided at the times the guidelines were
written.
Table 2 IPCC Guidance for wetlands based on Table 1 and its assumptions

Land use category/GHG

Peatlands

Flooded Land

Wetlands Remaining Wetlands
CO2
Section 7.2.1.1
Included Elsewhere1
2
CH4
Negligible
Appendix 3
N2O
Section 7.2.1.2
Included Elsewhere 3
Lands Converted to Wetlands
CO2
Section 7.2.2.1
Section 7.3.2.1 and Appendix 2
CH4
Negligible 2
Appendix 3
N2O
Section 7.2.2.2
Included Elsewhere 3
NOTES:
1
CO2 emissions from Flooded land Remaining Flooded land are covered by carbon stock change
estimates of land uses and land use change (e.g., soils) upstream of the .Flooded Land2
CH4 emission from peatlands is negligible after drainage during conversion and peat extraction.
3
N2O emissions from Flooded Land are included in the estimates of indirect N2O from agriculturalor other runoff, and waste water.
However, even within wetlands there are gaps. Specifically rewetting and restoration are not covered. Some
specific types of wetlands are not covered:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Aquaculture
Ponds
Irrigated land (if cultivated)
Salt exploitation sites
Water storage areas
Excavations (partly)
Wastewater treatment areas (including constructed wetlands)
Canals and drainage channels, ditches.

While a few specific areas are covered:oWetlands already converted or being converted to: Cropland, including “bogs” for cranberry and other ericaceous fruits
 Managed Grassland Managed forested wetlands, including drained or un-drained, according to national
definitions
 Rice cultivation

12

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

2.2 Presentations
2.2.1

Introduction

Simon Eggleston (TFI TSU) presented the tasks of the breakout group (BOG) on wetlands during theworkshop plenary, and in more detail at the start of the work of the BOG.
Simon Eggleston reviewed the invitation to the IPCC and the existing wetlands guidance as discussed above. He
asked the group to consider how the request for additional information by SBSTA could be addressed, by






issuance of corrigenda to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
provision of Q&A/FAQs on the TFI website
provision of EFs and parameters to the IPCC EFDB
holding additional expert meetings, orrecommending the initiation of formal IPCC consideration of the development of additional guidance by the
TFI.

Finally, he asked the group to consider whether additional guidance could be given on:






wetland restoration
rewetting of peatlands
wetland drainage
wetlands used for wastewater treatment
any other wetland sector.

In responding to the questions, the BOG was to consider also the impact of possible new guidance on the timeseries.
2.2.2

Status and recent developments in knowledge

During its work, the BOG listened to five presentations on the status and recent developments in the knowledge
related to wetlands, with the focus on wetland types that are peatlands or reservoirs. The presentations areavailable on the TFI website (http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/presentation/presentation.html).
The TFI TSU had also prepared a list of recent publications as background material for the work.
Alain Tremblay (Canada) gave a presentation, GHG emissions from reservoirs where is the truth? preparedby Joel Goldenfum (International Hydropower Association, IHA).
The presentation introduced the concept of so-called net emissions as the difference between scenarios with andwithout the reservoir, with the intention to factor out emissions that are not attributed to the reservoir. This can be
estimated by the difference between pre- and post-reservoir emissions from the portion of the river basin
influenced by the reservoir. Emphasis was raised to the different focus of the IPCC and UNESCO/IHA Guidelines
on the same problem of estimating GHG emissions from freshwater reservoirs: while IPCC National GHG
Inventories are interested in the factors governing emissions and removals for estimating Anthropogenic (direct
and indirect) or Natural causes, the UNESCO/IHA Guidelines intend to assess the change in GHG emissions
caused by the creation of a reservoir.
Information on emissions from reservoirs in Switzerland, Canada and Brazil was presented to exemplify thecomplexity of the processes involved, stressing the importance of external organic load to the reservoir, the riskof double counting and the variations in emissions due to reservoir characteristics, such as age and thetypography of the reservoirs: large shallow sites showed significantly higher emissions than smaller and deeper
reservoirs; older reservoirs emit less than younger reservoirs..
13

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

Information was also given on a joint UNESCO/IHA project on GHG status of Freshwater Reservoirs. The project
has developed GHG Measurement Guidelines for Freshwater Reservoirs to promote scientifically rigorous
measurements of emissions for use in the estimation of emissions from freshwater reservoirs. The project aims
further to contribute to the development of predictive modelling tools to assess the GHG status of unmonitored
reservoirs and potential new reservoir sites.
In his presentation Emissions from peat soils, John Couwenberg (Wetlands International and University ofGreifswald, Germany) summarized data on CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions from boreal, temperate and tropicalpeatlands based on a recent review.
Peatlands cover an area of about 400 million ha, which corresponds to ~3% of the global land surface. The total
amount of carbon stored in the world’s peatlands amounts to about 450 billion tonnes, which makes peatlands
the most dense terrestrial carbon reservoir. In a natural state, peatlands are wetlands. Water saturation hampers
the decomposition of dead plant material that, as a result, accumulates in the form of peat. Conventional land
use on peat soils involves drainage, resulting in aeration and subsequent decomposition of the stored peat. Land
management options currently covered in the IPCC Guidelines (drained soils reported under forest land,
cropland, grassland, and peatlands used for peat extraction) are thus associated with considerable CO2
emissions to the atmosphere.
On a global scale ~40 million ha of peat soils are drained and their carbon stock is degrading. Total emissions
from peatland degradation and peat fires (see also below) are estimated at ~2 billion tonnes of CO2 eq per year,
which corresponds to ~6% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions or ~25% of emissions from the AFOLU sector(IPCC AR4). With their small areal extent and large impact, degrading peat soils constitute a hotspot ofgreenhouse gas emissions.
There is a wide variety of site conditions that influences GHG fluxes from peat soils, including the generalclimatic and landscape setting of the peatland, the botanical composition of the peat, peat thickness, spatial
heterogeneity of microsites, land use and former land use, the vegetation cover and various abiotic conditions
like temperature, water level, water level fluctuations, nutrient status and pH. Various studies have shown thatbesides climate the main driver for GHG fluxes is the water level. Although quantitative differences are apparent,
the general relationships described below apply across climate zones.
The annual fluxes of CO2 and CH4 mainly depend on the water level. At high water levels at or near the surface,
CO2 fluxes are near zero or negative (net sequestration); lower water levels are associated with an increase inemissions until a plateau is reached.
Methane fluxes from drained sites are negligible (except from ditches). At high mean annual water levels (above~20 cm below the surface), high emissions are observed. Low fluxes at high water levels are found at sites
where plants with coarse aerenchymous tissue (so called shunt species) are not present. For those sites whereshunt species are present, the number of aerenchymous leaves is a better proxy for annual CH4 emissions thanthe mean water level. There are only a limited number of measurements available for flooded sites. Emission of
methane from flooded sites may be linked to fresh plant materials in inflowing water.
Nitrous oxide emissions are restricted to drained nutrient rich (or fertilized) peat soils. Fluxes depend on siteparameters that vary strongly both spatially and temporally. As a result N2O fluxes are erratic and a broadly
applicable, simple proxies like mean annual water level fail to capture the variation. However, when water levels
are high (less than 20cm below the surface), N2O fluxes are near zero.
In conclusion, a broad differentiation can be made between drained and un-drained (rewetted) peat soils. CO2
and N2O emissions are high in the drained situation; CH4 emissions are highest in the wet situation. Evidence
suggests that aggregate fluxes of CO2 and N2O (addressed in CO2eq) in the drained situation are in general
14

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

larger than CH4 emissions in the wet situation, which makes peatland rewetting a viable climate mitigation
measure.
Dominique Blain’s (Canada) presentation on Science advances and estimation of wetland emissions
addressed factors affecting the carbon balance in pristine, drained, rewetted and restored peatlands based onrecent studies in Canada and elsewhere.
In pristine peatlands gross primary productivity (GPP, CO2 uptake) exceeds soil respiration (CO2 emissions),
which results in a net C sequestration. Methane emissions impacts the carbon balance, but are in terms ofcarbon relatively small (in CO2eq the importance is more significant). Also dissolved organic carbon (DOC) is lost
to waterways affecting the carbon balance; the amounts vary from 5 to 70 per cent of the net ecosystemproductivity. The fate of the DOC is not known, but a large proportion is assumed to be emitted to theatmosphere. In the long term pristine peatlands have accumulated large amounts of carbon.
Drainage of peatlands reduces GPP and increases soil respiration turning these lands into CO2 sources.
Methane emissions become insignificant. The intensity of drainage and land-use determine the emissions.
Rewetting of the drained areas reduces the soil respiration, but does not necessarily lead to the restoration of afunctional acrotelm (living moss layer) and of GPP. The acrotelm will regulate water level and prevents severe
fluctuations that enhance CO2 emissions. Hence rewetted peatlands may remain a net C source, although thelevel of emissions is reduced. These lands turn to sinks only when the functional acrotelm is re-established(restoration). The methane emissions increase through the rewetting.
Dominique Blain concluded that there is much new information available on the carbon balances in unmanaged
and managed peatlands. She also highlighted the importance of the interactions between climate, vegetation andhydrology as factors to be taken into account in the development of guidance for estimation of emissions andremovals associated with rewetting/restoration of peatlands.
Matthias Drösler (Germany) presented results from a recent project collecting data on greenhouse gas budgets
and EFs for European (EU) and German peatlands. The projects cover both drained and rewetted/restored
peatlands. The results of the projects will be published in 2011.
Drained agricultural land showed the highest emissions, whereas rewetted/restored bogs were net GHG sinks. In
drained forest land the emission level was lower than in rewetted/restored fens. The German studies showedalso that the intensity of grassland management had a significant impact on the emissions.
In rewetted/restored fen the CO2 emissions were significantly reduced compared to drained lands, but CH4
emissions were significant. On average the rewetted/restored fens had lower net greenhouse gas emissions thandrained agricultural land. The water table level was the main factor impacting emissions after rewetting. In
flooded lands the CH4 emissions were significantly higher than in land where the water table was regulated nearor at surface level.
The results of the EU and German studies can be used in the development of default EFs for temperate regions,and also for the methodology development for rewetting/restoration of peatlands.
The presentations showed that much new scientific information since the completion of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines has become available for peatlands (drained and rewetted/restored) in boreal, temperate and tropicalclimate zones. The information provides a good basis for methodology development for rewetting/restoration as
well as for compilation and provision of new data on EFs for drained lands to the IPCC Emission Factor
Database (EFDB).
Faizal Parish (Global Environment Centre) presented Peatlands, fires and emissions. Progress has been
made in documenting spatial distribution of peatland fires and developing methodologies to assess carbon
losses. In South East Asia, using a combination of satellite, LIDAR and ground assessments, it has been shown
15

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

that more than 2 million ha of peatland have been affected by fire in the last decade with average annual
emissions of 90 TgC/year and up to 480 TgC/year in extreme droughts. It was noted that fires and related
emissions can be significantly reduced through rewetting, better water management or rehabilitation of degradedsites and enhanced fire prevention and control measures.
2.3 Conclusions and recommendations
2.3.1

Drainage and rewetting or restoration of peatlands

The BOG reaffirmed that the 2006 IPCC Guidelines include limited guidelines for estimation of emissions andremovals from activities associated with wetland management. CO2 and N2O emissions from peat extraction(drainage of the lands for peat extraction and subsequent production of peat for energy, horticultural and otheruses) and CO2 emissions from conversion of land to flooded land are addressed in Chapter 7 Wetlands in the2006 IPCC Guidelines. An alternative method to estimate the CO2 emissions from flooding as well as a method
for CH4 emissions is given in the Appendix 2 and 3, respectively. Emissions from drained soils (addressed asorganic soils) in forest land, cropland and grassland are addressed in the respective chapters of the Guidelines.
The BOG concluded that since the completion of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines sufficient new science has become
available that makes it possible to provide guidance to fill methodological gaps for rewetting and restoration ofpeat lands as well as for collection, assessment and provision of new EF data to IPCC EFDB.
The group also noted that there are also other sources of emissions related to wetlands for which more
information is now available.


Ditches: CH4 emissions from drained peatlands are not zero as ditches in drained peatlands, and also
waterborne carbon in some cases, are sources of CH4 emissions. The relative importance of the methane
flux from ditches needs further study.
Waterborne Carbon: The group highlighted waterborne carbon losses as a potential additional source ofgreenhouse gas emissions from drained and un-drained organic soils. Waterborne carbon comprises
several components:
o

o

o



Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) is usually the largest component of water borne carbon fluxes
from peatlands. DOC flux is well-studied, also because of the impact of associated water colour
problems on the water supply industry. Export from temperate peatlands ranges between ~50 and~500 kg DOC ha-1 yr-1; fluxes from tropical peatlands may be considerably larger. The aerobic zoneof drained peat soils is a significant source of DOC. Current evidence suggests that drainage ofpeat soils leads to considerable increase in DOC losses. A portion of the DOC is transported
downstream and most of it is believed to be decomposed and lost to the atmosphere as CO2, orCH4 in some circumstances.
Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC) is the least studied component of the carbon flux and is arelatively small component of the overall flux. Degassing of dissolved CO2 from waters draining
peat soils may be a more important pathway of carbon loss than downstream DIC transport.
Particulate Organic Carbon (POC) fluxes are largely associated with physical erosion of the peat
surface and controlled by vegetation cover. In severely eroding peatlands, fluvial POC losses may
be the largest single component of carbon mass budgets. POC may be buried in anoxic conditions
in lakes or reservoirs, but may also be rapidly oxidised in the fluvial system.

Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: Some studies on emissions from constructed wetlands
for wastewater treatment have been published. The group was however not able to assess whether thesewould be sufficient for development of new guidance.
16

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

Peatland Fires: The BOG noted that in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines a generic methodology for estimation ofemissions from fires is given in Chapter 2. One default value for fuel biomass consumption is given to cover
all types of fires on peatlands. The group concluded that the generic methodology is applicable to peatland
fires, but EF data should be further developed to take into account more recent data on different peatland
fire types and the influence of drainage depth.

Recommendation 1

The meeting recommends that new guidance be developed for wetlands to address the identified gaps (rewettingof peatlands, wetland restoration). If possible guidance should include constructed wetlands for wastewater
treatment. It also noted that the relevant guidance is not confined to Chapter 7 Wetlands and coherence with theguidance on estimation of emissions from drained land (organic soils) under forest land, cropland and grassland
should be addressed.
The development of the guidance should:






Cover all relevant gases (CO2, CH4 and N2O);
Take into account water level (e.g., flooded and rewetted), climatic zone (e.g., boreal, temperate andtropical), vegetation, and nutrient status;
Develop default EFs for ditches and waterborne carbon, or alternatively include these emissions in an overall
EF for the lands in question;
Be applicable to the range of relevant circumstances; andBe practical.

For constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment consideration should:oooAddress possible double counting with wastewater treatment;
Include restoration of coastal wetlands, (e.g., salt marshes and mangroves);
Consider if any additional guidance is needed for fires.

Recommendation 2

The meeting recommends that the IPCC TFI organise an expert meeting to assess the new data on emissions
from drainage (all gases and land uses after drainage) and also for rewetting and/or restoration of peatland forcollection of new EFs to the IPCC EFDB for use in nationally specific higher tier methods. Peatland fires,
particularly, fuel biomass consumption, should be included.

2.3.2

Flooded lands

The BOG discussed new available information in scientific literature in regards to emissions downstream of dams(“degassing” at the dam and emissions of CO2 and CH4 along the river course), CH4 bubbling emissions, N2O
emissions, and information on the surface area of small and large reservoirs that might allow the development of
more representative EFs for different regions of the world. Also on the impact of the typology of the reservoirs on
emissions as well as the different current measuring GHG activities taking place on reservoirs in the world suchas those in Brazil, China, Malaysia, United States, Laos, Norway, Iceland and Canada. One of the major
concerns that was discussed was the contribution of the input of organic matter from other anthropogenic
activities in the upstream watershed (e.g., input of organic matter from agriculture, forestry or wastewater
treatment) leading to GHG emissions at the surface of the reservoir and how they should be attributed and/or
allocated to other activities, as they might represent a double counting.
17

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

Recommendation 3

The IPCC TFI should organize an expert meeting to discuss all the new science and issues surrounding
estimating greenhouse gas emissions from reservoirs that need to be clarified before improved and more
complete methodological guidance for flooded land can be produced. The meeting should consider, inter alia:







Integration of the new information available with Chapter 7.3 Flooded land, the Appendix 2 Possible
Approach for Estimating CO2 Emissions from Lands Converted to Permanently Flooded Land: Basis for
Future Methodological Development and Appendix 3 CH4 Emissions from Flooded Land: Basis for Future
Methodological Development in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines;
Possibilities for further guidance to reduce the uncertainties in the estimation of surface area of reservoirs;
Whether the emissions can be attributed to other human activities and, if so, under which sectors/categories
the greenhouse gas (CO2, CH4 and N2O) emissions from the reservoir should be reported (e.g. agriculture,
forestry or wastewater treatment);
How reservoirs impact emissions and removals from the entire watershed.

2.4 Wetlands Group Participants
Riitta PIPATTI, Co-chair (Finland)
Zhakata WASHINGTON, Co-chair, (Zimbabwe)
Matthias DRÖSLER, Rapporteur, (Germany)
Leif KLEMEDTSSON (Sweden)
Thelma KRUG (TFI Co-chair)
Faizal PARISH (Global Environment centre)
Jim PENMAN (UK, TFB member)
Luiz Pinguelli ROSA (Brazil)
Andrey SIRIN (Russian Federation)
Sirintornthep TOWPRAYOON (Thailand)
Alain TREMBLAY (Canada)
Kazuyuki YAGI (Japan)

Dominique BLAIN (Canada)
John COUWENBERG (Wetlands International andUniversity of Greifswald, Germany)
Simon EGGLESTON (TFI TSU)
Christopher EVANS (UK)Maya FUKUDA (TFI TSU)
Frederic GUERIN (France)
Anke HEROLD (Germany)
Linda HEATH (USA, Global Environmental Facility)

18

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

3. Harvested Wood Products
3.1 Presentations
Nalin Srivastava (TFI TSU) gave a presentation on, Harvested Wood Products in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines to provide some background to the BOG deliberations.
Nalin Srivastava discussed the guidance on HWP contained in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and the issues
to be addressed in light of the UNFCCC request. He described the various elements of guidance on HWP
including:Alternate approaches to reporting and accounting for the HWP contribution to the Agriculture Forestry
and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector;
The five variables needed to use any of these approaches;
Guidance on different methodological tiers for the five variables for estimating and reporting the
HWP contribution;
Guidance on reporting “zero” HWP contribution and the assumptions behind this.

He further discussed the UNFCCC request and the questions that need to be addressed in the meeting:






Are there any errors for which corrigenda should be issued and how they should be addressed, e.g.,
the issue of “insignificant” HWP contribution (p. 12.8, Chapter 12)?
Are there any inconsistencies in the existing guidance and if so, how these should be addressed, e.g.,
issues relating to consistency with AFOLU and potential double-counting with Energy and Waste
sectors?
Can any clarifications be given to make the existing chapter easier to understand such as the use ofhigher tier methods, stock methods and detailed country data?
Are there any new accounting approaches being proposed for which additional material should be
provided?

3.1.1

Status and recent developments in knowledge

There were two more presentations by experts on the recent advancements in the scientific knowledge on
HWP and the developments in international climate negotiations related to HWP.
Sebastian Rüter (Germany) gave a presentation titled, 2006 IPCC Guidance on estimating net
emissions from HWP that dealt with the different reporting and accounting approaches in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines, the new accounting approaches being proposed in the UNFCCC negotiations and the
additional guidance that would be needed to report the HWP contribution using them.
The presentation described the various methods that are commonly used for estimating the HWP poolover time, such as direct inventories and flow data methods. The inventory based methods use direct
inventories of HWP e.g., building statistics. The flow data methods use the inflow (e.g., from direct
estimation or data on trade and removals) and outflow (using direct estimation or different decay curves)
data from the HWP pool to estimate the changes in the HWP pool. The presentation also dealt with theguidance in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on HWP on topics such as: decision tree for selecting amethodological tier; when to report zero HWP contribution (IPCC default approach); and the conceptual
framework and data requirements for the flow data method using service(half) life (IPCC tier 1 method).
19

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

The presentation also went into the various previously proposed accounting approaches and the new
proposal for HWP accounting in the UNFCCC negotiations.
The presenter concluded that the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, Chapter 12 on HWP does not contain sufficient
information on accounting for HWP according to the latest proposals currently under negotiation in the
UNFCCC. It does not provide methodological guidance on tier 3 methods especially with regard toensuring comparability of reporting amongst countries. Additional guidance on deriving country specificdata, e.g., on half life assumptions, should be provided. Some typographical and minor errors in Chapter
12, 2006 IPCC Guidelines on HWP should be corrected; potential double-counting with the Waste sector
also needs to be addressed.
In his presentation titled, The 2006 IPCC Guidance on Harvested Wood Products and Some Possible
Refinements, Gregg Marland (USA) discussed the various refinements that could be incorporated in themethodologies on HWP in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Gregg Marland recommended two basic refinements: i) dealing separately with various approaches
proposed to date; and, ii) providing a more accurate description of the rate of oxidisation of the products.
On the second point, he proposed a gamma distribution decay function to better represent the probabilistic
nature of the decay of products. He explained that HWP follow a distributed decay function with theprobability of decay or replacement of the HWP depending on the age of the product. He presented the
gamma parameters for various wood products based on his research.
3.2 Review of existing guidance
The group reviewed the HWP chapter in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, paying particular attention to the
topics identified in the SBSTA request: definitions, consistency, potential for double counting with othersectors, use of higher tier methods and if they are consistent with any new accounting approach that has
been proposed.
In general the group confirmed that the existing guidance is correct and complete but emphasised that itneeds to be implemented in its entirety to ensure that complete estimates are made without any double
counting or omissions. However the group did note some editorial issues with the text which should becorrected.
Recommendation 4

The expert group identified that there were some editorial issues in the guidance for HWP and that acorrigendum should be issued. These are:

Page 12.8, para 12.2.1: “The term ‘insignificant’ in this context means that the annual change incarbon in HWP stocks, using one of the measures of carbon change above, is of a comparable size toa key category.” The experts concluded that the term “is of a comparable size to a key category”
should be replaced with “less than the size of any key category”.



Table 12.5, footnote 2 the last term in the equation should be “-CPEX “.



Table 12.5, footnote 3 the last term in the equation should be “-CPEX “.

Page 12.11: Equation 12.2, wrong usage of “produced”. The experts concluded that the term
“produced” was incorrect and should be replaced by “placed in use”.

The experts discussed possible inconsistencies between the HWP, the waste sector and the energy
sector and concluded that although there was the possibility for inconsistency, this situation would only
20

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

arise from incomplete application of the guidelines. If there is a concern regarding consistency with the
Waste sector estimates please see section 12.2.1.5 and 12.4 item 3. Additional clarification, particularly on
QA/QC, may be provided in the form of FAQ.
The experts discussed the HWP guidance and noted how a general knowledge of all the material in theguidance was required because in some cases, the information relevant to a particular topic could befound in different sections. A way to aid in developing understanding of the methods and datarequirements is to use the spreadsheet provided with the 2006 IPCC Guidance that provides default
parameters and indicates how to obtain default data from the UN FAO forest sector database.
Experts also noted that not all of the five variables may be required for all the reporting approaches;
however they are required to make valid comparisons with estimates across all countries reporting using
other approaches.
Recommendation 5

The experts concluded that an FAQ could be developed by the TSU to aid inventory compilers with advice
on common issues. The experts also identified some specific issues where more advice would be
beneficial to inventory compilers:












How to derive country specific service life data e.g.,o Using market information on the fate of products for calibrationo Using information on housing stocks
Examples of the use of tier 3 methodologies
Guidance on calibration and verification for tier 3 methodologies, e.g.:o Comparing flow estimates with a stock inventory estimates, e.g., comparing estimates of
housing stocks derived from use of carbon in housing with separate housing stock estimateso Comparing using different decay curves
o Comparing HWP estimates of discards to SWDS to Waste sector activity data on discards
o Use of alternative decay curves for tier 3 e.g., Gamma curve or lognormal curve instead ofthe exponential decay curve
Clarification on the use of eq. 12.3: The eq. 12.3 assumes that round wood exports are being used in
the same proportion in the solid wood and paper products in the importing countries as domestically;
this estimate could be improved if the countries have more detailed data.
Clarification on correlation of HWP in the SWDS with the Waste sector categories, e.g., garden andpark waste
Eq. 12.5, the first sentence from the following paragraph: “The carbon release variables are defined in
Section 12.1”. The experts noted that most of the definitions for Eq. 12.5 were in table 12.1. The
experts considered that it should be specified in the FAQ that most of the variables are in table 12.1,
within section 12.1.
Section 12.2.1.1: The line “The decay of HWP is assumed to be of first order” needs to be clarified. In
the context of this chapter, decay is considered as all loss of carbon from a pool and does not justmean biological decay.

The experts noted that the current default values in the guidelines are applicable to make tier 1 estimates
for the accounting approaches included in the Annex to the HWP Guidelines. The experts also considered
the guidance and information required for the two additional approaches being discussed:
21

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

A. Estimates of HWP contribution restricted to domestically produced and consumed HWP commonly
known as “Stock Change of Domestic Origin (SCAD) approach”.
B. Estimates of HWP contribution of domestically produced with partitioning of exports to individual
countries known as “Production Approach with Partitioning of Exports”
These approaches are not entirely new and build upon the approaches already discussed in the 2006
IPCC Guidelines. However, the experts noted that these approaches have been suggested for accounting
purposes and may not meet the requirements for convention reporting e.g. to neither over nor
underestimate to the extent possible. Associated with these approaches may be a restriction on origin of
the HWP that can be included in the calculation
The experts considered to what degree the existing guidance could be used to estimate and report the
HWP contribution for each proposal and what additional methods and data would be required to makeestimates for these new approaches.
Stock Change of Domestic Origin (SCAD) Approach (proposed by Cowie et al., 2006 & taking into
account FCCC/ KP/AWG/2010/CRP.3)


Existing guidance could be used provided there is a modification of eq. 12.3 so that only HWP that isdomestically produced and consumed are included.
In order to restrict HWP to particular harvest/land sources additional data would be needed on theamount and types of HWP (e.g., solidwood and paper products) from those sources.

Production Approach with Partitioning of Exports (taking into account FCCC/ KP/ AWG/2010/CRP.3)


Existing guidance could be used provided there is a modification of eq. 12.3 to estimate the HWP
contribution from domestically produced and consumed HWP (this is one component of the estimate
necessary).
For exported HWP it is also necessary to make estimates of HWP contribution separately for exports
to each importing country in the case it is included. Implementing this approach would requireconsistent information across countries on parameters and decay functions, e.g.:
o
o
o
o
o

Common aggregates of HWP e.g., using FAO product categories
Common form of decay function for all countries for each aggregate of HWP e.g., First Order
Decay (FOD), eq. 12.1
Half or service life for each country and aggregate
Guidance may be needed on how to develop country-specific data
Countries using tier 3 methods could be asked to translate their methods in to a common
decay curve and half lives for other countries to use in tracking the disposition and fate of
their exports.

The experts suggested that development of additional methodological guidance that would build upon theexisting guidance in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines may be needed to make estimates for the two approaches.
3.3 HWP Group Participants
Emmanuel MPETA, Co-chair (Tanzania)
Leonard BROWN, Co-chair (New Zealand)
Sebastian RUETER, Rapporteur (Germany)
Annette Louise COWIE (Australia)

Fabiano XIMENES (Australia)
22

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

Seiji HASHIMOTO (Japan)
Mario TONOSAKI (Japan)
Nikolay SMIRNOV (Russian Federation)
Rehab HASSAN (Sudan)
Robert William MATTHEWS (UK)

Gregg MARLAND (USA)
Kenneth SKOG (USA)
Daniel MARTINO (Uruguay)
Carol GROSSMAN (Australia)
Nalin SRIVASTAVA (TFI TSU)

23

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

4. Soil N2O
4.1 Presentations
Jamsranjav Baasansuren (IPCC TFI TSU) introduced the guidance given in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
on estimating N2O emissions from soil. She elaborated on the changes relative to Revised 1996 IPCC
Guidelines with regard to emission factors (EF) and parameters and highlighted the questions to beconsidered in the BOG including:If methods and default factors in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines still reflect the latest science;
Can new methods or default emission factors be provided;
Are there any improvements to existing guidance that can be provided; andAre there any EFs that should be entered into the EFDB.

Beata Emoke Madari (Brazil) presented on Soil management and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. N2Oemissions from soil (Rhodic Ferralsol) under different management practices (zero tillage versus
conventional tillage) and nitrogen sources (mineral N, bovine excreta) were measured using staticchambers and a manual vacuum pump (-80 kPa). Results of N2O (g N–N2O ha-1) from the two different
crop rotations under zero and conventional tillage showed that zero tillage did not promote higher N2Oemissions compared to conventional tillage. Linear correlations between averages of N2O and NH3 fluxes
and C and N content in microbial biomass were found. In this study N2O emissions from different mineral
N sources (urea, ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulphate etc.) were different, and urine was a major
source of direct and indirect N2O emission from bovine excreta. In conditions of extensive pasture grazing
rarely more than 60% of the N is excreted in the urine that would lead to an emission factor (EF) of 0.50.7%. In addition, the field measurements in Brazil revealed lower EF (0.28%) for N2O emissions from N
inputs compared to IPCC default EF1 (1%).
Philippe Rochette (Canada) gave a presentation on Soil N2O Emissions: Possible refinements to the2006 IPCC Guidelines. The presentation summarized the information on recent literature and findings
related to direct and indirect emissions of N2O from soil. It was highlighted that regional variation exists
even within a country for EF1 and noted that IPCC EF1 might be biased towards the wet climate. Climate
and soil properties are important factors that affect the soil N2O emissions, for example, in Canada, theemissions on clay soils are double those on sandy soils. The presentation indicated the increasing numberof data and information available for soil N2O and suggested to revisit the literature. However, few studies
addressed the organic N sources and indirect emissions of N2O.
Xiaoyuan Yan (China) presented on Estimating N2O emission from Chinese croplands by statisticalmodeling. The N2O emissions from uplands in China were simulated based on field data considering theeffect of different organic amendments, crop types and rainfall. The field measurements showed that fresh
manure tends to emit more N2O. Annual mean temperature, water regime and type of organic amendment
were considered for simulating N2O emissions from rice paddy. Simulated N2O emissions showed that
fertilizer induced EFs for China are slightly lower (0.82% and 0.26% for uplands and rice paddy,
respectively) than the default value in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. It was noted that background emission
constitutes a significant proportion of the total emissions.
Keith Smith (UK) presented on N2O emission factors: top-down vs bottom-up assessments. For
thousands of years the N2O concentration in Earth’s atmosphere was constant. In last 30 years, a linear
24

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

increase of N2O concentration in the atmosphere has been observed and the recent increase inconcentration indicates excess of global emissions over the N2O sinks. However, default values do notaccount for the observed atmospheric increase. He noted that the ranges of default EFs are logarithmic:
e.g., EF1 = 1% (range 0.3-3.0%), and possibly tropical/irrigated systems are skewed to the high end.
4.2 Summary
The group concluded that the current advice in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines is clear and correct. However it
recommended some corrigenda should be issued to resolve a few editorial issues. The overall
methodology and the sources of nitrogen input for calculating direct and indirect N2O emissions are inaccordance with the current status of science. The group noted that, due to limited measurements
available when the 2006 IPCC Guidelines were finalised, emission factors were based on measurements
for temperate climate zones.
More than 1000 field studies for soil N2O research have been published in peer reviewed papers since thefinalization of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. While the group does not believe this would invalidate the default
values in the guidelines, this new evidence should be exploited to refine the methodologies and allow
some stratification e.g., by climate type and soil type, N sources and management. Models could aid byderiving regional emission factors for Tier 1 and Tier 2 approaches.
Additional assistance to users of the guidelines should be provided, for example, links to additional data
sources should be included, e.g., for guidance for estimating releases of NH3 and soil properties.
Some direct and indirect sources of N2O emission may be missing due to lack of scientific knowledge(e.g., N2O from managed forest soils, small-scale hotspots on farms, permanent grass-legume pastures).
The group recommends these as priority areas for further research and synthesis.
The 2006 IPCC Guidelines removed the process of biological nitrogen fixation as a direct source of N2O(this was included as a source in earlier guidelines). Additional scientific evidence, available since thepublication of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines supports the assumption that there are no emissions from theprocess of biological nitrogen fixation itself (Carter and Ambus 2006, Fernández Luqueño et al. 2009,
Yang and Cai 2005, Zhong et al. 2009).
The group confirmed the usefulness of the approach that “anthropogenic N2O” equals all N2O emissions
from all managed land, including Forest Land (page 11.5).
The BOG noted as a generic issue that the observed atmospheric N2O increase is not matched by bottomup estimates of anthropogenic N2O emissions (Crutzen et al. 2008, Davidson 2009). The different
approaches used in these papers and the earlier bottom-up approaches (e.g. Nevison 2000) are not easily
reconciled but the most recent papers raise concerns that the anthropogenic N2O emissions may beunderestimated.

25

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

Recommendation 6

The group recommended issuing four corrigenda:
A. Page 11.5, last bullet: “removal of biological nitrogen fixation as a direct source of N2O becauseof the lack of evidence of significant emissions arising from the fixation process.” was formulated
in an unclear manner. Recommendation: rephrase the sentence to “removal of biological nitrogen
fixation as a direct source of N2O because of the evidence that no significant emissions arise
from the fixation process”.
B. Page 11.15: Equation 11.7A Alternative approach to estimate FCR (using Table 11.2): Thisequation should be equivalent to equation 11.6. However there is a units mismatch. AGDM(T)calculated from Table 11.2 is in Mg/ha while FCR is defined as being in kg/ha. Also root biomass
N is underestimated in Equation 11.7A compared to Equation 11.6 because root biomass ismultiplied with aboveground residue biomass AGDM(T) instead of total aboveground biomass
AGDM(T) * 1000 + Crop(T). Recommendation: Revise equation 11.7A. to:

EQUATION 11.7A (REVISED)ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO ESTIMATE FCR (USING TABLE 11.2)

Area(T) - Areaburnt(T)  CF FracRenew(T)

FCR = ∑
T 
 AGDM(T) 1000 NAG(T)  1- FracRemove(T)  AGDM(T) 1000 Crop(T)  R BG BIO(T) NBG(T) 

C. Page 11.17, Table 11.2: Crop(T) as used in Table 11.2 is in Mg/ha but units are not clearly stated,while Crop(T) as used in the text on page 11.14 is kg/ha. Recommendation: The correct equationon the top of Table 11.2 is:
AGDM(T) (Mg/ha) = (Crop(T) /1000) * slope(T) + intercept(T)D. Page 11.19: N mineralisation associated with loss of soil organic matter resulting from change ofland use or management on mineral soils is only included in the leaching/runoff component of
indirect N2O emission. Recommendation: insert link to footnote “20” after “(FSOM).”

4.3 Review of parameters used to estimate Soil N2O Emissions
4.3.1

EF1 for direct N2O emissions from N input

EF12 is based on 50% of presently available literature. While literature for EF1 is biased to papers from
Temperate Europe and North America, many new papers from all other regions and climate zones, in

2 EF1 is the emission factor for emissions of N2O (expressed as mass of N) per

N additions from mineral fertilisers,
organic amendments and crop residues, and N mineralised from mineral soil as a result of loss of soil carbon

26

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

particular from China and other parts of Asia, and South America have appeared since 2005. Recent
evidence presented at the experts meeting suggests that the EF1 may be too high for croplands in many
world regions.
Nitrogen input to soil is an important driver of N2O emissions, but the observed correlation between N
fertilizer input and annual N2O emissions is often weak because it is masked by other N sources and soil
and climate factors. The science is mature enough to derive regionally stratified values for the EF1 that
account for climate and soil type.
Scientific evidence from the reviewed literature and recent work discussed at the meeting supports theimportant role of regional climate (in particular of the gradients from arid to humid and from oceanic tocontinental), soil type and texture, and often also crop type, the form of nitrogen (in particular properties oforganic fertilizers) and water management for EF1.
Successful examples showed that statistical and process-based models can help to estimate local EFs
and to stratify agricultural systems by establishing typical relations between driving factors and N2Oemissions but the inclusion of management practices for large-scale estimates remains difficult.
Countries are increasingly developing higher Tier methods based on national measured data combinedwith statistical or process-based models.
Recommendation 7

The participants recommend holding an expert meeting to discuss the implications of recent literature for a
possible further stratification of EF1 and the possible use of models to derive regional EF1 for Tier 1
approaches.
The participants recommend providing additional technical advice for aggregating measured data tonational estimates in the Q&A section of the TFI website (Annex 2).
4.3.2

EF23 for direct N2O emissions from drained organic soils

There is new evidence available that allows a further stratification and update of the EF2.
Recommendation 8

The EF2 should be updated jointly with the emission factors for CO2 and eventually CH4 from drainedorganic soils (see recommendation 2).
4.3.3

Indirect N2O methodology - Atmospheric deposition

There is additional guidance and data available to stratify FracGASF 4 and FracGASM 5 by N source andmanure management type, maybe also by temperature or climate zone. Information on manure

3 EF2 is the emission factors for emissions of N2O (as mass of N) per unit area of organic soils.
4 FracGASF = fraction of synthetic fertiliser N that volatilises as NH3 and NOx, kg N volatilised per kg of N applied
5 FracGASM = fraction of applied organic N fertiliser materials and of urine and dung N deposited by grazing animals

that volatilises as NH3 and NOx, kg N volatilised per kg of N applied or deposited27

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

management systems could be taken from the calculations in the livestock sector. The EF46 is in line with
the EF1, which is scientifically plausible. There is too little new scientific evidence to review the EF4. An
area based approach based on direct measurement of N2O emissions from managed and unmanaged
soils could be a useful and transparent alternative to the present methodology for N2O related toatmospheric N deposition.
4.3.4

Indirect N2O methodology -N leaching and runoff

The 2006 IPCC Guidelines only consider two extreme situations for nitrogen leaching – either completely
humid conditions with a FracLEACH7 of 0.3 or zero. This was considered too coarse to reflect the situation in
many semiarid or seasonally arid regions. The methodology uses soil water holding capacity as input,
which may be difficult to obtain for some regions. The revised value of the EF58 is confirmed for thoseenvironments where there is recent scientific evidence but the scientific basis for the EF5, in particular fortropical environments where scientific evidence is not available, remains weak.
Recommendation 9

Q&A should be developed for the TFI website providing additional technical advice on:Stratifying FracGASF and FracGASM, including matching the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory
guidebook 20099 and an eventual adaptation of the emission factors for NH3 to tropical conditions.
Exploring the possibility to further stratify FracLEACH by using climate indices, e.g. P/PE (ratio between
precipitation and potential evapotranspiration).
Calculating soil water holding capacity, including a table with default values consistent with the soil
types used in the Guidelines and with rooting depth.
Adding the dry matter fraction of additional crop types, e.g., sugar cane, in the Q&A section of the TFI
website

4.3.5

Understudied issues, regions and gaps

The group noted that there are a number of potential sources of N2O that have not been adequately
researched and this may lead to the methods in the 2006 Guidelines being incomplete or underestimating
N2O emissions. These areas include:

Systems with organic fertilizers: Less than 10% of the published field studies include organic
fertilizers. The relation between organic amendment properties (e.g. fraction between mineral andorganic N, C/N ratio, quality of organic carbon) and N2O emissions needs to be further explored

6 EF4 = emission factor for N2O emissions from atmospheric deposition of N on soils and water surfaces, [kg N2O

volatilised expressed as N per kg N deposited as NH3 or NOx]
7 FracLEACH-(H) = fraction of all N added to/mineralised in managed soils in regions where leaching/runoff occurs that islost through leaching and runoff, kg N per kg of N additions
8 EF5 = emission factor for N2O emissions from N leaching and runoff, kg N2O expressed as N per kg N leached andrunoff9 http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emepeeaemissioninventoryguidebook2009/28

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands











because of possible strong effects on N2O emissions and a significant potential for N2O mitigation bychanges in land management.
Pastures and perennial legumes: There is emerging evidence that permanent pastures have higher
N2O emissions than unmanaged land. These additional N2O emissions from managed permanent
grasslands and perennial legumes are not considered in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for unfertilized
pastures, which are relevant in many tropical, dry temperate and wet cold climate regions, and in
improved pastures without legumes and grass-legume pastures. However, existing data is
incomplete.
EF3PRP: There is emerging evidence that urine is associated with much higher N2O emissions thanfaeces. The ratio of nitrogen excreted as urine and faeces depends on grazing and mowing intensity,
feed quality and animal type. The EF3PRP in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines seems to be representative ofurine only and may overestimate N2O emissions from excreta from extensive grazing systems.
N2O from managed forest and coppice: the participants noted that the 2006 IPCC Guidelines do
not consider direct N2O emissions from managed forest and coppice except for N2O from soil organic
matter and organic soils although, according to page 11.5, all N2O from managed land is consideredanthropogenic. Measurements of N2O emissions from managed forest soils suggest that N2Oemissions can be significant. A review of available literature and further measurements should
support the elaboration of area-based EFs for managed forests and EFs for specific management
activities including fertilization, liming, clear cutting, and renewal of coppice systems.
Small-scale features and hotspots on farms: extreme hotspots on particular farm places haverecently been reported, Matthews et al. (2010). Although these features can have a very small extent
they accounted for an additional emission of +15% at farm level. The omission of these small-scalefeatures in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines leads to a systematic underestimation of N2O emissions fromfarms, in particular from farms with animals. Further measurements are needed to corroborate theresults and better quantify the relevance of such hotspots.
Agricultural regions with high seasonality of rainfall: Dominance of emission peaks in annual N2O
emissions – particularly difficult to measure and quantify, and generalize.

4.4 Comparing top-down and bottom-up global N2O budgets
Using a global top-down approach (based on measured concentrations and overall nitrogen inputs), taking
account of the steady increase in the N2O concentration in the atmosphere (corresponding to 3.9 Tg N2ON/yr), Crutzen et al (2008) estimated that 3–5 per cent of all new reactive N input into terrestrial systems isconverted to N2O. This N2O conversion range (or emission factor) was based on data compiled by Prather
et al (2001) and Galloway et al (2004). New nitrogen input includes fertilizer nitrogen produced by theHaber-Bosch process, nitrogen oxides emitted as a result of fossil fuel combustion, and biological nitrogen
fixation (BNF). Based on data from the same sources, Crutzen et al (2008) also showed that this emission
factor was similar to that for terrestrial ecosystems in preindustrial times, when the nitrogen inputs werefrom natural sources: mainly BNF, plus NOx from lightning.
The IPCC bottom-up approach (based on identifying and estimating each source sector) provides adefault EF1 for direct emissions of 1%. The defaults for N loss by volatilization (10% of fertilizer N, 20% of
manure N), combined with the EF4 (1%) for N2O from this N once re-deposited, are equivalent to another
0.1-0.2% of the N applied to the field. Similarly, the default leaching fraction of 30%, combined with theindirect EF5 (0.75%), adds a further 0.23%. Thus in total the default fraction of applied N that is emitted as
N2O adds up to 1.33-1.43%. This is only one-third of the mean emission factor of 4% obtained via the
Crutzen et al (2008) approach.
29

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

The top down method of Crutzen et al (2008) considered only new reactive N input and found that 3-5% of
the new reactive N is emitted as N2O. However, this is an accumulated emission factor as some newreactive N can be recycled several times in a year. Del Grosso et al (2008), made another comparision
between the IPCC 2006 method and the top down method. Using IPCC 2006 method, they estimated 5.8
Tg N2O-N from agricultural system, which is close to the middle of the range (4.2– 7.0 Tg) based on the
top-down approach. This implies that on sufficiently large scales, the top-down and bottom-up approaches
used to calculate N2O emissions from agricultural systems may yield similar estimates.
In addition to the gaps noted above, these differences may, in part, be due to the fact that theenvironments studied up to now (on which the guidelines methods and parameters are necessarily based)
are not globally representative. Unstudied areas include hot countries; big slow-moving rivers; majordeltas, in particular tropical rivers with high organic carbon load; estuaries and anoxic high-nitrogen
offshore zones to which the leached nitrogen is finally transported; all of which are potentially significant
sources of N2O. There is a need for new methods (e.g. aircraft/balloon/satellite-based) to target theseregions, and to make measurements at the necessary regional scale to determine their emissions.
Recommendation 10

An expert meeting with land, ocean and atmospheric scientists should explore the gap between top-down
and bottom-up global N2O budgets; identify possible reasons of this mismatch; identify potential additionalsources and sinks of N2O; and explore ways to improve methodologies.
Encouragement should be given for measurement programmes to be strengthened for these understudied
regions and issues.

4.5 Soil N2O Group Particpants
Annette FREIBAUER, Co-Chair (Germany)
Mamadou KHOUMA, Co-Chair (Senegal)
Leandro BUENDIA, Rapporteur (Philippines)
Beata Emoke MADARI (Brazil)
Zhijian MU (China)
Astrid OLSSON (UNFCCC)
Philippe ROCHETTE (Canada)
Keith A. SMITH (United Kingdom)
Miguel Angel TABOADA (Argentina)
Jaak TRUU (Estonia)
Xiaoyuan YAN (China)
Lingxi ZHOU (China)

Marta ALFARO (Chile)
Amnat CHIDTHAISONG (Thailand)
Rui DU (China)
Leonidas Osvaldo GIRARDIN (Argentina)
Taka HIRAISHI (TFI Co-chair)Jamsranjav BAASANSUREN (TFI TSU)
Jurgen KERN (Germany)
Sadeddin KHERFAN (Syria)
Sonoko Dorothea KIMURA (Japan)

30

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

5. Conclusions and Recommendations
In June 2010, SBSTA 32, as part of its work programme to revise their reporting guidelines forGreenhouse Gas Emissions and removals from Annex I Parties to allow the use of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines, invited the IPCC to hold an Expert Meeting to “explore the need and ways to clarify
methodological issues related to reporting on harvested wood products, wetlands and nitrous oxide
emissions from soils” (FCCC/SBSTA/2010/L.12). In response, the IPCC Task Force on National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories held this meeting in Geneva on the 19th-21st October.
The meeting considered the three separate topics, harvested wood products, wetlands and nitrous oxide
emissions from soil, and, in general considered that the methodological advice contained in the 2006
IPCC Guidelines still reflects the latest science. A few editorial issues were noted for HWP and Soil N2O
and corrigenda addressing these will be issued by the TFI.
These conclusions were summarised in a Co-Chairs Summary (Annex 3) which was presented at thesecond workshop if the SBSTA work programme to revise their guidelines for the reporting on greenhousegases by Annex I Parties to the Convention and to COP16 in Cancun, Mexico. The following sections
outline the main conclusions.
5.1 Wetlandsi.

The meeting recommended that the IPCC provide additional methodological guidelines for therewetting and restoration of peat land; emissions from fires, ditches and waterborne carbon;
and constructed wetlands for waste water disposal, to fill gaps in the existing guidelines(Recommendation 1). This guidance would be additional to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines filling gaps forwhich sufficient information was not available when the guidelines were compiled. While the focus of
this work is on the wetland chapter (volume 4, chapter 7) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines it should be
remembered that drainage and conversion of wetlands to other land uses is included in otherchapters of volume 4 (e.g. forest land, cropland and grassland) and possibly the waste volume:
coherence between these chapters and the wetland chapter should be maintained. The developmentof the guidance should:







Cover all relevant gases (CO2, CH4 and N2O);
Take into account water level (e.g. flooded and rewetted), climatic zone e.g. boreal,temperate and tropical, vegetation, and nutrient status;
Develop default EFs for ditches and waterborne carbon, or alternatively include theseemissions in an overall EF for the lands in question
Be applicable to the range of relevant circumstances, andBe practical.
For constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment consideration should include:
o
o


ii.

Possible double counting with wastewater treatment;
Restoration of coastal wetlands, e.g. salt marshes and mangroves

Consider if any additional guidance is needed for fires.

The meeting recommended that an expert meeting be held to assess new EFs measurements
and develop emission factors from this information to enable more accurate country- and
31

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

region-specific estimates to be made. The meeting also recommended that the TFI actively
collect such data and add it to the EFDB. (Recommendation 2)
iii.

The meeting concluded that there should be an expert meeting to discuss all the new scienceand issues surrounding the development of new guidelines for reservoirs (Recommendation 3).
The participants did not agree that there was now sufficient new information available to produce newand additional guidelines based on the latest literature. They did, however, agree on the need to
discuss a range of associated issues, such as the impact of reservoirs on total emissions fromwatersheds, allocation of emissions to specific drivers and how emissions may be related to specificreservoir typologies.
5.2 Harvested Wood Products

iv.

The participants also noted that the guidance is complex and proposed the development of
FAQ (frequently asked questions) that would guide users to the correct, full implementation of
the guidelines (Recommendation 5). The meeting agreed that the methodological guidance in the2006 IPCC Guidelines is correct, but noted that the entire chapter needs to be considered to ensure
there are no inconsistencies with other parts of the guidelines.

v.

The participants noted that to produce estimates for HWP according to the approaches currently
being discussed in the UNFCCC AWG-KP negotiations (FCCC/KP/AWG/2010/CRP.3) may require
some modification to the existing guidelines (particularly equation 12.3).
5.3 Soil N2Ovi.

The participants agreed that the methods in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines reflect the latest scientific
literature, but the emission factors were based mainly on information from temperate regions (mostimportantly for EF1 but this is also true for all emission factors for soil N2O emissions). In particularthey agreed that there is no N2O from the biological nitrogen fixation process itself (this was includedin earlier guidelines but removed from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines).

vii.

The meeting proposed an expert meeting to assess recent literature and consider stratified EF1
values for the EFDB (Recommendations 7). Reviewing recent literature should allow for thedevelopment of more regional or country specific emission factors allowing greater stratification by
climate, soil, management and leaching.

viii.

This meeting proposed a joint expert meeting with WG I to explore the gap between theatmospheric N2O increase and bottom-up estimates of anthropogenic N2O emissions(Recommendation 10). Participants noted that increased measurements of currently under
represented systems (e.g. large river deltas) may help resolve this issue.

32

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

Annex 1.

List of Participants

Argentina
Leonidas Osvaldo GIRARDIN
Fundación Bariloche
Piedras 482 2H - Buenos Aires, 1070
Argentina
Tel & Fax: +54 11 4331 2021
logirardin@fundacionbariloche.org.ar
logirardin@gmail.com

Fabiano XIMENES
Industry and Investment NSW
121-131 Oratava Avenue, West Pennant Hills,
New South Wales, 2125 Australia
Tel: +61 2 9872 0143
Fax: +61 2 9871 6941
fabianox@sf.nsw.gov.au
BrazilThelma KRUG (TFI Co-chair)
INPE-Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais
Av. dos Astronautas, 1758 - Jardim da Granja,
SJCampos - SP, 12227-010 Brazil
Tel: +55 12 3208 6005
Fax: +55 12 3941 2077
thelmakrug@dir.inpe.br
thelma@dir.iai.int

Miguel Angel TABOADA
INTA, CIRN, Instituto de Suelos
Los Reseros y Las Cabañas (S/N),
Hurlingham, Provincia de Buenos Aires,
B1686 Argentina
Tel: +54 11 4621 3207
Fax: +54 11 4481 1688
mtaboada@cnia.inta.gov.armtaboada@agro.uba.ar

Beata Emoke MADARI
Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, National
Rice and Beans Research Center (Embrapa Riceand Beans)
Rodovia GO-462, km 12, Santo Antônio deGoiás-GO, 75375-000 Brazil
Tel: +55 62 3533 2181 / 2119
Fax: +55 62 3533 2206
madari@cnpaf.embrapa.br

Australia
Annette Louise COWIE
University of New EnglandPrimary Industries Innovation Centre
UNE Armidale, 2351 Australia
Tel: +61 4 03071044
Fax: +61 2 67733238
Annette.cowie@une.edu.au

Luiz Pinguelli ROSACOPPE/UFRJ
Rua Moniz de Aragão s/n,Prédio CGTEC - Cidade Universitária,Ilha do Fundão - Rio de Janeiro,
21941-972 Brasil
Tel: +55 21 36223477
Fax: +55 21 36223463
lpr@adc.coppe.ufrj.br

Carol GROSSMAN
Australian Government Department of
Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
GPO Box 854, Canberra ACT, 2601
Australia
Tel: +61 2 6159 7186
Fax: +61 2 6159 7013
Carol.Grossman@climatechange.gov.au

33

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

CanadaDominique BLAIN
Environment Canada
200 boul Sacré-Coeur, Gatineau (Qc),
K1A 0H3 Canada
Tel: +1 819 994 0888
Fax: +1 819 953 3006
Dominique.Blain@ec.gc.ca

Zhijian MU
College of Resources and Environment,
Southwest University
No.2 Tianshenglu, Beibei, Chongqing
400716 China
Tel: +86 23 68250484
Fax: +86 23 68250444
muzj@swu.edu.cn
muzj01@gmail.com

Philippe ROCHETTE
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
2560, Hochelaga Blvd, Quebec City, QC,
G1V 253 Canada
Tel: +1 418 210 5042
Fax: +1 418 648 2402
rochettep@agr.gc.ca
philippe.rochette@agr.gc.ca

Xiaoyuan YAN
Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academyof Sciences
71# East Beijing Road, Nanjing, 210008
China
Tel: +86 25 8688 1530
Fax: +86 25 8688 1000
yanxy@issas.ac.cn

Alain TREMBLAY
Hydro-Qubec
75 Boul Rene Levesque, Montreal,
H2Z 1A4 Canada
Tel: +1 514 289 2211 ext:4416
Fax: +1 514 289 5038
Tremblay.alain@hydro.qc.ca

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
zhoulx@cams.cma.gov.cn
zhoulx2007@gmail.com

Chile
Marta ALFARO
Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias(INIA)
Ruta 5 Norte, KM 8, Osorno, 24-O
Chile
Tel: +56 64 450420, ext. 737
Fax: +56 64 237746
malfaro@inia.cl

Estonia
Jaak TRUU
University of Tartu
46 Vanemuise Str., Tartu, 5101
Estonia
Tel: +372 7 376 038
Fax: +372 7 420 286
jaak.truu@ut.ee

China
Rui DU
College of Resources and Environment of Chinese
Academy of Sciences
No.19 (A) Yuquanlu road, Shijingshan district,
Beijing, 100049 China
Tel: +86 10 88256543
Fax: +86 10 88256415
ruidu@mail.iap.ac.cn
ruidu2000@yahoo.com

34

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

Finland
Riitta PIPATTI
Statistics Finland
P.O. Box 6A, FI-00022 Tilastokeskus
00022 Finland
Tel: +358 50 500 5247
Fax: +358 9 1734 3429
Riitta.Pipatti@stat.fi

Annette FREIBAUER
Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry
and Fisheries (VTI)
Institute of Agricultural Climate Research (AK)
Bundesallee 50, Braunschweig, 38116
Germany
Tel: +49 531 5962634
Fax: +49 531 5962699
annette.freibauer@vti.bund.de

FranceFrederic Pierre Christian Axel GUERIN
Institut de Recherche pour le Développement(IRD)
Laboratoire des Mécanismes et transferts
en Géologie (LMTG)
14, Avenue Edouard Belin, F-31400
Toulouse France
Tel: +33 5 61332648
Fax: +33 5 61332560
Frederic.guerin@lmtg.obs-mip.fr

Anke HEROLD
Oeko-Institut e.V.
Schicklerstr. 5-7, D 10179 Berlin, 10179
Germany
Tel: +49 30 405085 386
Fax: +49 30 405085 388
a.herold@oeko.de
Jurgen KERN
Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering
Potsdam-Bornim
14469 Potsdam, Max-Eyth-Allee 100, 14469
Germany
Tel: +49 331 5699 123
Fax: +49 331 5699 849
jkern@atb-potsdam.deGermany
Sebastian RUETER
Johann Heinrich von Thuenen-Institute (vTI)
Leuschnerstrasse 91c, Hamburg, 21029
Germany
Tel: +49 40 73962 619
Fax: +49 40 73962 699
sebastian.rueter@vti.bund.deJapan
Seiji HASHIMOTO
National Institute for Environmental Studies(NIES)
16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba, 305-8506 Japan
Tel: +81 29 850 2842
Fax: +81 29 850 2917
hashimoto.seiji@nies.go.jp

Matthias DRÖSLER
Munich University of Technology(TUM)
Chair of Restoration Ecology,
Emil Ramann Str. 6, Freising, 85354
Germany
Tel: +49 8161 713715
Fax: +49 8161 714143
droesler@wzw.tum.deTaka 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
hiraishi@iges.or.jp

35

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

RussiaAndrey Arturovich SIRIN
Institute of Forest Science Russian Academyof Sciences
Sovetskaya 21, Uspenskoye, Moscow Region,
143030 Russia
Tel: +7 495 6345257 / 916 5430838
Fax: +7 495 9306777 / 495 6345257
sirin@proc.ru

Sonoko Dorothea KIMURATokyo University of Agriculture and Technology
Saiwaicho 3-5-8, Fuchu, Tokyo, 183-8509
Japan
Tel & Fax: +81 42 367 5952
skimura@cc.tuat.ac.jp
Mario TONOSAKIForestry and Forest Products Research Institute
1 Matsunosato, Tsukuba-city, Ibaraki,305-8687 Japan
Tel: +81 29 829 8299
Fax: +81 29 874 3720
tonosaki@ffpri.affrc.go.jp

Nikolay SMIRNOVIGCE of ROSHYDROMET and RAS
Moscow, Glebovskaya str., 20B,
107258 Russia
Tel: +7 499 169 2198
Fax: +7 499 160 0831
Smns-80@rambler.ru

Kazuyuki YAGINational Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences
3-1-3 Kannondai, Tsukuba, 305-8604
Japan
Tel: +81 29 838 8430
Fax: +81 29 838 8199
kyagi@affrc.go.jp

Senegal
Mamadou KHOUMAInternational Development Consulting (IDEV)
B.P. 50037 Dakar R.P. Senegal
Tel: +221 77 632 13 88
Fax: +221 33 855 95 92
khoumamamadou@yahoo.fr

New Zealand
Leonard BROWN
Ministry for the Environment
23 Kate Sheppard Place, Wellington 6143
New ZealandTel: +64 4 439 7504
Fax: +64 4 439 7706
Len.Brown@mfe.govt.nz

Sudan
Rehab HASSAN
Higher Council for Environment andNatural Resources
Gama'a Street, P.O.BOX 10488, Khartoum,
1111 Sudan
Tel: +249 9 12377973
Fax: +249 183 787617
rehabkhatmi@hotmail.com

Philippines
Leandro BUENDIA
Freelance Consultant
2113A Pula St., College Ville, Barangay PuthoTuntungin, Los Banos, Laguna
4030 Philippines
Tel: +63 49 536 3380
leandro.buendia@gmail.com

Sweden
Leif KLEMEDTSSON
University of Gothenburg
Department of Plant and Environmental
Sciences
Carl Skottbergs gata 22B, P.O Box 461,
SE 405 30 Gothenburg Sweden
Tel: +46 31 786 26 32
leif.klemedtsson@dpes.gu.se

36

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

Syria
Sadeddin KHERFAN
Arab University of Science & Technology
Hama - Tal Kartel, P.O. Box 74, 033
Syria
Tel: +963 944 458468
Fax: +963 33 884903
skherfan@yahoo.com

United Kingdom
Christopher EVANS
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
Environment Centre Wales, Deiniol Road, Bangor
LL57 2UW United Kingdom
Tel: +44 1248 374500
Fax: +44 1248 355363
cev@ceh.ac.uk

Tanzania
Emmanuel Jonathan MPETA
Tanzania Meteorological Agency
Ubungo Plaza, Morogoro Road,
P.O. BOX 3056, Dar es Salaam
Tanzania
Tel: +255 22 2460706/8
Fax: +255 22 2460735
empeta@meteo.go.tz
empeta@yahoo.co.uk

Robert William MATTHEWS
Forest Research
Alice Holt Lodge, Farnham, Surrey,
GU10 4LH United Kingdom
Tel: +44 1420 526235
Fax: +44 1420 23450
robert.matthews@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
Jim PENMAN
UK Dept of Energy and Climate Change
3 Whitehall Place, London SW1A 2AW
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 7717 541289
Jim.penman@decc.gsi.gov.uk

ThailandAmnat CHIDTHAISONG
The Joint Graduate School of Energy andEnvironment,
King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi
126 Pracha Uthit Rd., Bangmod, Tungkru,
Bangkok 10141 Thailand
Tel: +66 2 4708309/10
Fax: +66 2 8729805
amnat_c@jgsee.kmutt.ac.th

Keith A. SMITH
University of Edinburgh
Woodlands One, Pomeroy Villas, Totnes, Devon
TQ9 5BE United Kingdom
Tel: +44 1803 865013
keith.smith@ed.ac.uk
Uruguay
Daniel L. MARTINO
Carbosur
Misiones 1372/304, Montevideo,
11.000 Uruguay
Tel: +598 2915 3514
Fax: +598 2915 4124
daniel.martino@carbosur.com.uy

Sirintornthep TOWPRAYOON
The Joint Graduate School of Energy andEnvironment,
King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi
126 Prachauthit Rd., Bangmod, Tungkru, Bangkok,
10140 Thailand
Tel: +662 4708309 ext:4126
Fax: +662 8739805
sirin@jgsee.kmutt.ac.th

37

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

USA
Linda S. HEATH
Global Environmental Facility
1818 H St NW, MSN G6-602, Washington, DC
20433 USA
Tel: +1 202 473 6730
Fax: +1 202 522 2720
lheath@thegef.org

Wetlands International
John COUWENBERG
University of Greifswald / DUENE eV,
Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology
Grimmer Str. 88, D-17487 Germany
Tel: +49 3834 864177
Fax: +49 3834 864114
couw@gmx.net

Gregg MARLAND
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Environmental Sciences Division
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6301 USA
Tel: +1 865 241 4850
Fax: +1 865 574 2232
marlandgh@ornl.gov

Faizal PARISH
Global Environment Centre
2nd Floor Wisma Hing, 78 Jalan SS2/72, Petaling
Jaya, Selangor, 47300 Malaysia
Tel: +60 12 32 7350
Fax: +60 3 7957 7003
fparish@gec.org.my

Kenneth SKOG
USDA Forest Service
Forest Products Laboratory
One Gifford Pinchot Drive, Madison,
WI 53726 USA
Tel: +1 608 231 9360
Fax: +1 608 231 9508
kskog@fs.fed.us

IPCC TSU
C/o Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies (IGES)
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kanagawa,
240-0115 Japan
Simon EGGLESTON
Tel: +81 46 855 3751
Fax: +81 46 855 3808
eggleston@iges.or.jp

Zimbabwe
Washington ZHAKATA
Climate Change Office, Ministry ofEnvironment and Natural Resources Management
P. BAG 7753, Causeway, Harare
Zimbabwe
Tel: +263 4 701681/3
Fax: +263 4 702758
climate@ecoweb.co.zw
washingtonzhakata@hotmail.com

Nalin SRIVASTAVA
Tel: +81 46 855 3754
Fax: +81 46 855 3808
srivastava@iges.or.jp
Jamsranjav BAASANSUREN
Tel: +81 46 855 3757
Fax: +81 46 855 3808
baasansuren@iges.or.jp

UNFCCC
Astrid OLSSONUNFCCC secretariat
P.O. Box 260 124, D-53153 Bonn
Germany
Tel: +49 228 815 14 50
Fax: +49 228 815 19 99
AOlsson@unfccc.int

Maya FUKUDA
Tel: +81 46 855 3753
Fax: +81 46 855 3808
m-fukuda@iges.or.jp

38

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

Eriko NAKAMURA
Tel: +81 46 855 3750
Fax: +81 46 855 3808
nakamura@iges.or.jp

39

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Wetlands and Soil N2O

Annex 2.

Meeting Agenda

Tuesday 19th October
9:00-10:00
Registration
Meeting Opening – Co-Chairs
10:00–
Welcome – IPCC Secretariat
11:00
Introduction – Meeting Background, Aims, Outputs – TSUGroupsWetlands
HWP
Presentations:
Presentations: Wetlands in the 2006 IPCC
 Harvested Wood Products
Guidelines
in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines(Nalin Srivastava, TSU)
(Simon Eggleston, TSU)
 2006 IPCC Guidance on GHG emissions fromestimating net-emissions
reservoirs – where is thefrom HWP
truth ?
(Sebastian
Rüter,(Alain Tremblay, IHA)
Germany) Emissions from peat soils(John
Couwenberg,  The 2006 IPCC Guidanceon Harvested Wood
Wetlands International and
Products and some possible
University of Greifswald)
refinements (Gregg
 Science advances andMarland, USA)estimation of wetland
emissions(Dominique Blain, Canada)
Peatland GHG-fluxes
11:00-13:00(Matthias Drösler, Germany)Peatlands, fires and
LUNCH
emissions
13:00–(Faizal Parish, Wetlands
14:00
International)
14:00– Breakout group discussion
Can additional guidance be
17:00
given on:
1. Wetland Restoration
2. Re-wetting Peat lands
3. Wetlands Drainage
4. Wetlands used for
wastewater treatment
5. Any other wetland sector--

Can guidance in the 2006
IPCC Guidelines be
updated?
Are there more information
for EFs, defaults or for
EFDB?

Breakout group discussion:
Are there any errors forwhich corrigenda should be
issued?
Are there any
inconsistencies in theexisting guidance? If so,
how should these be
addressed?
Can any clarifications begiven to make the existing
chapter easier tounderstand?
Are there any new
accounting approaches
being proposed for which
additional material should
be provided?

40

Soil N2O
Presentations: Soil N2O emissions in the2006 IPCC Guidelines(Jamsranjav Baasansuren,
TSU) Soil management andnitrous oxide (N2O)
emissions(Beáta Emőke Madari,Brazil) Soil N2O Emissions:
Possible refinements to the2006 IPCC Guidelines.
(Philippe Rochette, Canada) Estimating N2O emission
from Chinese croplands bystatistical modeling(Xiaoyuan Yan, China)
 N2O emission factors: topdown vs bottom-up
assessments(Keith Smith, UK)
Breakout group discussion:
Can new methods or default
emission factors beprovided?
Are there any improvements
to existing guidance that canbe provided?
Are there any emission
factors that should beentered into the EFDB?

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

Wednesday 20th OctoberGroupsWetlands
09:00 -13:00
Lunch 13:0014:00
14:00
17:00

HWP

Soil N2O

Breakout group discussions continue–

Thursday 21st OctoberGroupsWetlands

HWP

09:00 - 12:00

Breakout group discussions continue

12:00 - 13:00

Plenary – each Breakout Group to present conclusions

13:00
14:00

–

14:00
17:00

–

LUNCH

Breakout group discussions continue (if needed)

41

Soil N2O

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

Annex 3.

Co-Chairs Summary

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Wetlands and Soil N2OWMO Geneva, 19-21 October 2010
Co-Chairs Summary

In June 2010, SBSTA 32, as part of its work programme to revise their reporting guidelines forGreenhouse Gas Emissions and removals from Annex I parties to allow the use of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines, invited the IPCC to hold an Expert Meeting to “explore the need and ways to clarify
methodological issues related to reporting on harvested wood products, wetlands and nitrous oxide
emissions from soils” (FCCC/SBSTA/2010/L.12). In response, the IPCC Task Force on National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories held this meeting in Geneva on the 19th-21st October.



The meeting considered the three separate topics, harvested wood products, wetlands and nitrous
oxide emissions from soil, and, in general considered that the methodological advice contained in the2006 IPCC Guidelines still reflects the latest science. A few editorial issues were noted for HWP and
Soil N2O and corrigenda addressing these will be issued by the TFI.



A meeting report will be produced that describes the discussions and conclusions in more detail andalso highlights areas where additional scientific research could contribute to future improvements inestimates of greenhouse gas fluxes.

Wetlands


The Wetland chapter (volume4, chapter 7) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines identifies gaps which could not
be filled at the time the 2006 IPCC Guidelines were compiled. These include rewetting of peat lands
and wetland restoration (conversion of land to wetlands, and wetlands remaining wetlands), and CO2
and CH4 emissions from reservoirs (flooded land remaining flooded lands, and lands converted toflooded lands). It should be remembered that drainage and conversion of wetlands to other land uses is
included in other chapters of volume 4 (e.g. forest land, cropland and grassland): coherence between
these chapters and the wetland chapter should be maintained.



Since the 2006 IPCC Guidelines were completed much new scientific information is now available
about various wetlands that enable emissions and removals to be estimated from wetland restoration
and rewetting especially for peat lands. The meeting recommended that the IPCC provide
additional methodological guidelines for the rewetting and restoration of peat land; emissions
from fires, ditches and waterborne carbon; and constructed wetlands for waste water disposal,
to fill gaps in the existing guidelines.



The meeting also noted that there are now a large number of new EFs measurements and otherinformation available across climate zones for wetlands and drainage addressed in other land use
chapters. The meeting recommended that an expert meeting be held to assess these data anddevelop emission factors from this information to enable more accurate country- and regionspecific estimates to be made. The meeting also recommended that the TFI actively collect suchdata and add it to the EFDB.



For reservoirs (flooded lands), in the 2006 Guidelines there is only a method for the estimation of CO2
from the conversion of land to flooded lands. Methods for CH4 are in appendices “for the development
42

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlandsof future methodological guidance” as is a different approach for CO2 from land converted to flooded
lands. The meeting discussed whether there was now sufficient new information available to produce
new and additional guidelines based on these appendices and the latest literature. The participants
discussed a range of associated issues, such as the impact of reservoirs on total emissions fromwatersheds, allocation of emissions to specific drivers and how emissions may be related to specificreservoir typologies. The meeting concluded that there should be an expert meeting to discuss all
the new science and issues surrounding the development of new guidelines for reservoirs.
Harvested Wood Products•

The meeting agreed that the methodological guidance in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines is correct, but notedthat the entire chapter needs to be considered to ensure there are no inconsistencies with other parts ofthe guidelines. The participants also noted that the guidance is complex and proposed thedevelopment of FAQ (frequently asked questions) that would guide users to the correct, full
implementation of the guidelines.

•

The participants noted that to produce estimates for HWP according to the approaches currently being
discussed in the UNFCCC AWG-KP negotiations (FCCC/KP/AWG/2010/CRP.3) may require somemodification to the existing guidelines (particularly equation 12.3).

Soil N2O•

The participants agreed that the methods in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines reflect the latest scientific
literature, but the emission factors10 were based mainly on information from temperate regions.

•

They agreed that there is no N2O from the biological nitrogen fixation process itself (this was included inearlier guidelines but removed from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines).

•

There has been a lot of work published on N2O emissions from soils since the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
were published and this should allow for the development of more regional or country specific emission
factors. This would allow greater stratification by climate, soil, management and leaching. The meeting
proposed an expert meeting to assess recent literature and consider stratified EF1 values for
the EFDB.

•

The meeting also noted that the atmospheric N2O increase is not matched by bottom-up estimates ofanthropogenic N2O emissions but the reasons for this are unclear. Increased measurements ofcurrently under represented systems (e.g. large river deltas) may help resolve this issue. This meeting
proposed a joint expert meeting with WG I to explore this gap.

TFI Co-Chairs, Geneva,
21st October 2010

10 Most importantly for EF1 but this also applies to all emission factors for soil N2O emissions

43

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

Annex 4.

Bibliography

This bibliography contains references used or available to the participants and is not intended to be an
exhaustive review of the available literature.
Wetlands
Armstrong, A., J. Holden, et al. (2010) The impact of peatland drain-blocking on dissolved organic carbon
loss and discolouration of water; results from a national survey Journal of Hydrology 381(1-2):
112-120.
Augustin, J. and W. Merbach (1998) Greenhouse gas emissions from fen mires in Northern Germany:
quantification and regulation. Beiträge aus der Hallenser Pflanzenernährungsforschung. W. Merbachand Lwittenmayer, Grauer Beuren: 97-110.
Augustin, J., W. Merbach, et al. (1996) Lachgas- und Methanemission aus degradierten
Niedermoorstandorten Nordostdeutschlands unter dem Einfluß unterschiedlicher
Bewirtschaftung. In: Von den Ressourcen zum Recycling. S. Alfred Wegener. Berlin, Ernst & Sohn:
131-139.
Augustin, J., W. Merbach, et al. (1996) Effect of changing temperature and water table on trace gas
enission from minerotrophic mires. J Angewandte Botanik. 70: 45-51.
Augustin, J., W. Merbach, et al. (1998) Nitrous oxide fluxes of disturbed minerotrophic peatlands.
Agribiological Research 51: 47-57.
Ballhorn, U. and et al. (2009) Derivation of burn scar depths and estimation of carbon emissions with
LIDAR in Indonesian peatlands. PNAS online.
Basiliko, N., A. Khan, et al. (2009) Soil greenhouse gas and nutrient dynamics in fertilized western
Canadian plantation forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 39(6): 1220–1235.
Berryman, E. M., R. T. Venterea, et al. (2009) Phosphorus and greenhouse gas dynamics in a drained
calcareous wetland soil in Minnesota. J. Environ. Qual. 38: 2147–2158.
Bortoluzzi, E., D. Epron, et al. (2006) Carbon balance of a European mountain bog at contrasting stage ofregeneration. New Phytologist 172: 708-718.
Brazil (2010) Second National Communication of Brazil to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. Brasília.
Bridgham, S. D., J. P. Megonigal, et al. (2006) The carbon balance of North American wetlands. Wetlands
26(4): 889-916.
Brumme, R., W. Borker, et al. (1999) Hierarchical control on nitrous oxide emissions in forest ecosystems.
Global Biogeochemical Cycles 13: 1137-1148.
Cheng, X., Y. Luo, et al. (2010) Seasonal variation in CH 4 emission and its 13 C-isotopic signature from
Spartina alterniflora and Scirpus mariqueter soils in an estuarine wetland. Plant and Soil 327(1-2):
85-94.
Clark, J. M., P. J. Chapman, et al. (2005) Influence of drought-induced acidification on the mobility ofdissolved organic carbon in peat soils. Global Change Biology 11(5): 791–809.
Clymo, R. S. and C. L. Bryant (2008) Diffusion and mass flow of dissolved carbon dioxide, methane, anddissolved organic carbon in a 7-m deep raised bog. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 27: 20482066.
Comas, X., L. Slater, et al. (2007) In situ monitoring of free-phase gas accumulation and release inpeatlands using ground penetrating radar (GPR). Geophysical Research Letters 34: L06402.

44

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

Comas, X., L. Slater, et al. (2008) Seasonal geophysical monitoring of biogenic gases in a northernpeatland: Implication for temporal and spatial variability in free phase gas production rate.
Journal of Geophysical Research 113: G01012.
Couwenberg, J. (2009) Emission factors for managed peat soils (organic soils histosols). An analysis of
IPCC default values. I. Wetlands: 14.
Couwenberg, J. et al. (2010) Greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical peatlands in south-east Asia. Global
Change Biology 16(6): 1715-1732.
Cui, J., C. Li, et al. (2005) Linkage of MIKE SHE to Wetland-DNDC for carbon budgeting and anaerobic
biogeochemistry simulation. Biogeochemistry 72(2): 147-167.
Cui, J., C. Li, et al. (2005) Modeling biogeochemistry and forest management practices for assessing
GHGs mitigation strategies in forested wetlands. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 10(1):43-53.
Danevčiča, T., I. Mandic-Mulec, et al. (2010) Emissions of CO2, CH4 and N2O from southern European
peatlands. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 42(9): 1437-1446.
Daniels, S. M., M. G. Evans, et al. (2008) Sulphur leaching from headwater catchments in an eroded
peatland, South Pennines, U.K. Science of The Total Environment 407(1): 481-496.
Denmead, P. T. (2008) Approaches to measuring fluxes of methane and nitrous oxide between
landscapes and the atmosphere. Plant Soil 309.
Ding, W.-X. and Z.-C. Cai (2008) Methane emission from natural wetlands in China: summary of years
1995–2004 studies. Pedosphere 17(4): 475-486.
Dinsmore, K. J., U. M. Skiba, et al. (2009) Effect of water table on greenhouse gas emissions from peatland
mesocosms. Plant and Soil 318(1-2): 229-242.
Dinsmore, K. J., U. M. Skiba, et al. (2009) Spatial and temporal variability in CH4 and N2O fluxes from a
Scottish ombrotrophic peatland: Implications for modelling and up-scaling. Soil Biology andBiochemistry 41(6): 1315-1323.
Dowrick, D. J., C. Freeman, et al. (2006) Sulphate reduction and the suppression of peatland methane
emissions following summer drought. Geoderma 132(3-4): 384-390.
Drösler, M. (2005) Trace gas exchange and climatic relevance of bog ecosystems Southern Germany,
Technische Universität München: 182.
Drösler, M., A. Freibauer, et al. (2008) Observation and status of peatland greenhouse gas emission in
Europe. The Continental-Scale Greenhouse Gas Balance of Europe. H. Dolman, R. Valentini and A.
Freibauer. 203 &@ 978-0-387-76568-6: 237-255.
Ernfors, M., U. Sikström, et al. (2010) Effects of wood ash fertilization on forest floor greenhouse gas
emissions and tree growth in nutrient poor drained peatland forests. Science of The Total
Environment In Press.
Erwin, K. L. (2009) Wetlands and global climate change: the role of wetland restoration in a changing
world. Wetlands Ecology and Management 17(1): 71-84.
FAO (2005) Helping Forests Take Cover. RAP Publication. 2005/13.
Flessa, H., U. Wild, et al. (1997) C- und N-Stoffflüsse auf Torfstichsimulationsflächen im Donaumoos.
Zeitschrift für Kulturtechnik und Landentwicklung 38: 11-17.
Flessa, H., U. Wild, et al. (1998) Nitrous oxide and methane fluxes from organic soils under agriculture.
European Journal of Soil Science 49: 327-335.
Fujita, H., Y. Igarashi, et al. (2009) An inventory of the mires of Hokkaido, Japan—their development,
classification, decline, and conservation. Plant Ecology 200(1).
45IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

Furukawa, Y., K. Inubushi, et al. (2005) Effect of changing groundwater levels caused by land-use changes
on greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical peat lands. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 71(1).
Gleasona, R. A., B. A. Tangena, et al. (2009) Greenhouse gas flux from cropland and restored wetlands in
the Prairie Pothole Region. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 41(12): 2501-2507.
Global Environment Centre and Wetlands International (2008) Assessment on Peatlands Biodiversity andClimate Change: Main Report. F. Parish, A. Sirin, D. Charman et al. Kuala Lumpur and Wageningen.
Granda, M. and E. Gaidosb (2009) Methane emission from a tropical wetland in Ka'au Crater, O'ahu,
Hawai'i. University of Hawai`i.
Hadi, A., K. Inubushi, et al. (2005) Greenhouse gas emissions from tropical peatlands of Kalimantan,
Indonesia. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 71: 73-80.
Hass, S. E. and A. H. Gromnicki (2007) Ecosystem restoration and global climate change: the role ofwetlands in combating global warming, National Audubon Society.
Heil, A. and et al. (2007) Indonesian peat and vegetation fire emissions: Study on factors influencing
Large-scale smoke haze pollution using a regional atmospheric chemistry model. Mitig Adapt
Strat Glob Change 12: 113-133.
Hendriks, D. M. D., J. van Huissteden, et al . (2007) The full greenhouse gas balance of an abandoned peatmeadow. Biogeosciences 4: 411-424.
Holden, J. (2005) Peatland hydrology and carbon release: why small-scale process matters. Phil. Trans. R.
Soc. A 363: 2891-2913.
Hooijer, A., S. Page, et al. (2010) Current and Future CO2 Emissions from Drained Peatlands in Southeast
Asia. Biogeosciences 7: 1505-1514.
Hooijer, A., M. Silvius, et al. (2006) PEAT-CO2 assessment of CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in SE
Asia, WL delft hydraulics.
Huotari, N., E. Tillman-Sutela, et al. (2009) Ground vegetation exceeds tree seedlings in early biomass
production and carbon stock on an ash-fertilized cut-away peatland. Biomass and Bioenergy 33(9):1108-1115.
IHA (2010) Greenhouse Gas Measurement Guidelines for Freshwater Reservoirs: Derived from the
UNESCO/IHA Research Project on the GHG Status of Freshwater Reservoirs.
Inubushi, K. and A. Hadi (2007) Effect of land-use management on greenhouse gas emissions fromtropical peatlands. -.
J Limpens, F Berendse, et al. (2008) Peatlands and the carbon cycle: from local processes to global
implications? a synthesis. Biogeosciences Discussions 5(2): 1379-1419.
Jackowicz-Korczynski, M. (2009) Land-atmosphere interactions at a subarctic palsa mire. Lund Sweden,
Lund University: 102.
Jacobs, C. M. J., E. J. Moors, et al. (2003) Invloed van waterbeheer op gekoppelde broeikasgasemissies inhet veenweidegebied bij ROC Zegveld. Alterra-rapport 840. Wageningen: 93pp.
Jager, D. F., M. Wilmking, et al. (2009) The influence of summer seasonal extremes on dissolved organiccarbon export from a boreal peatland catchment: Evidence from one dry and one wet growing
season. Science of The Total Environment 407(4): 1373-1382.
Jauhiainen, J., H. Takahashi, et al. (2005) Carbon fluxes from a tropical peat swamp forest floor. Global
Change Biology 11: 1788–1797.
Jerman, V., M. Metje, et al. (2009) Wetland restoration and methanogenesis: the activity of microbial
populations and competition for substrates at different temperatures. Biogeosciences 6: 1127–
1138.
46

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

Joosten, H. and D. Clarke (2002) Wise use of mires and peatlands – Background and principles including aframework for decision-making. G. International Mire Conservation. Totnes, NHBS Ltd.
Jungkunst, H. F. and S. Firdler (2007) Latitudinal Differentiated water table control of carbon dioxide,
methane and nitrous oxide fluxes from hydromorphic soils: feedbacks to climate change. Global
Change Bioligy 13: 2668-2683.
Kang, H., S.-Y. Kim, et al. (2005) Shifts of soil enzyme activities in wetlands exposed to elevated CO2.
Science of The Total Environment 337(3): 207-212.
Kayranli, B., M. Scholz, et al. (2010) Carbon storage and fluxes within freshwater wetlands: a critical review.
Wetlands 30(1): 111-124.
Kechavarzi, C., Q. Dawson, et al. (2007) Water-table management in lowland UK peat soils and its potential
impact on CO2 emission. Soil Use and Management 23(4): 359–367.
Kim, S.-Y. and H. Kang (2007) Climate effects on greenhouse gas emissions and microbial communities inwetlands. Korean Journal of Agricultural and Forest Meteology 9(3): . 161-169.
Klemedtsson, L., K. von Arnold, et al. (2005) Soil CN ratio as a scalar parameter to predict nitrous oxide
emissions. Global Change Biology 11: 1142-1147.
Kløve, B., T. E. Sveistrup, et al. (2010) Leaching of nutrients and emission of greenhouse gases frompeatland cultivation at Bodin, Northern Norway. Geoderma 154(3-4): 219-232.
Kluge, B., G. Wessolek, et al. (2008) Long-term carbon loss and CO2-C release of drained peatland soils innortheast Germany. European Journal of Soil Science 59(6): 1076–1086.
Knieß, A., B. Holsten, et al. (2010) Prediction of long-term changes in ecosystem functions of a peatland
site with the semi-quantitative decision support system PMDSS. Geoderma 154(3-4): 233-241.
Knorra, K.-H. and C. Blodau (2009) Impact of experimental drought and rewetting on redox transformations
and methanogenesis in mesocosms of a northern fen soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 41(6):1187-1198.
Kuzyakov, Y. (2006) Source of CO2 efflux from soil and review of partitioning methods. Soil Biology andBiochemistry 38: 425-448.
Lafleur, P. M. (2009) Connecting Atmosphere and Wetland: Trace Gas exchange. Geography Compass 3(2):560–585.
Lai, D. Y. F. (2009) Methane dynamics in northern peatlands: a Review. Pedosphere 19(4): 409-421.
Lavoie, M., D. Paré, et al. (2005) Impact of global change and forest management on carbon sequestrationin northern forested peatlands. Environmental Reviews 13: 199-240.
Lewis, S. L., G. Lopez-Gonzalez, et al. (2009) Increasing carbon storage in intact African tropical forests.
Nature 457: 1003-1007.
Li, C., C. Cao, et al. (2009) Nitrous oxide emissions from wetland rice–duck cultivation systems insouthern China. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 56(1): 21-29.
Li, T., Y. Huang, et al. (2010) CH4MODwetland: A biogeophysical model for simulating methane emissions
from natural wetlands. Ecological Modelling 221(4): 666-680.
Liikanen, A., J. T. Huttunen, et al. (2006) Temporal and seasonal changes in greenhouse gas emissions
from a constructed wetland purifying peat mining runoff waters. Ecological Engineering 26(3): 241251.
Lindsay, R. (2010) Peatbogs and carbon. University of East London.
Lloyd, C. R. (2006) Annual carbon balance of a managed wetland meadow in the Somerset Levels, UK.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 138(1-4): 168-179.
47

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

Lloyd, J. and J. A. Taylor (1994) On the temperature dependence of soil respiration. Funct. Ecol 8: 315-323.
Lucchese, M. C., J. M. Waddington, et al. (2010) Organic matter accumulation in a restored peatland:
Evaluating restoration success. Ecological Engineering 36: 482–488.
Lund, M. (2009) Peatlands at a Threshold. Lund Sweden, Lund University: 163.
Lund, M., P. M. Lafleur, et al. (2010) Variability in exchange of CO2 across 12 northern peatland and tundrasites. Global Change Biology 16: 2436–2448.
Maljanen, M., J. Hytönen, et al. (2010) Cold-season nitrous oxide dynamics in a drained boreal peatlanddiffer depending on land-use practice. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 2010 (in press).
Maljanen, M., B. D. Sigurdsson, et al. (2009) Land-use and greenhouse gas balances of peatlands in theNordic countries- present knowledge and gaps. Biogeosciences Discuss. 6: 6271–6338.
Mander, Ü., K. Lõhmus, et al. (2008) Gaseous fluxes in the nitrogen and carbon budgets of subsurface flow
constructed wetlands. Science of The Total Environment 404(2-3): 343-353.
Matthews, C. J. D., E. M. Joyce, et al. (2005) Carbon dioxide and methane production in small reservoirs
flooding upland boreal forest. Ecosystems 8(3): 267-285.
McNamara, N. P., T. Plant, et al. (2008) Gully hotspot contribution to landscape methane (CH4) and carbon
dioxide (CO2) fluxes in a northern peatland. Science of The Total Environment 404(2-3): 354-360.
McNeil, P. and J. M. Waddington (2003) Moisture controls on Sphagnum growth and CO2 exchange on acutover bog. Journal of Applied Ecology 40(2): 354–367.
Melling, L., R. Hatano, et al. (2005) Methane fluxes from three ecosystems in tropical peatland of Sarawak,
Malaysia. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 37(8): 1445-1453.
Mitra, S., R. Wassman, et al. (2005) An appraisal of global wetland area and its organic carbon stock.
Current Science 88(1).
Mitsch, W. J., J. Tejada, et al. (2008) Tropical wetlands for climate change research, water quality
management and conservation education on a university campus in Costa Rica. EcologicalEngineering 34(4): 276-288.
Müller, N., M. Bauche, et al. (1997) Zeitliche und räumliche Variabilität der CO2-C-Emissionen in einem
ombrotrophen Hochmoor des Hochharzes. Telma 27: 131-146.
Mundel, G. (1976) Untersuchungen zur Torfmineralisation in Niedermooren. Archiv für Acker- und
Pflanzenbau und Bodenkunde. 20: 669-679.
Nayak, D. R., D. Miller, et al. (2008) Calculating carbon savings from wind farms on Scottish peat lands–a
new approach. (National Report).
Nayak, D. R., D. Miller, et al. (2009) Calculating carbon budgets of wind farms on Scottish peatlands. Mires
and Peat 4(9).
Nieveen, J. P., C. M. J. Jacobs, et al. (1998) Diurnal and seasonal variation of carbon dioxide exchange
from a former true raised bog. Global Change Biol 4: 823–850.
Page, A. E. and et al. (2002) The amount of carbon released from peat and forest fires in Indonesia during
1997. Nature 420: 61–65.
Pangala, S. R., D. S. Reay, et al. (2010) Mitigation of methane emissions from constructed farm wetlands.
Chemosphere 78(5): 493-499.
Peltoniemi, K., H. Fritze, et al. (2009) Response of fungal and actinobacterial communities to water-leveldrawdown in boreal peatland sites. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 41(9): 1902-1914.
Pennock, D., T. Yates, et al. (2010) Landscape controls on N2O and CH4 emissions from freshwater mineralsoil wetlands of the Canadian Prairie Pothole region. Geoderma 155(3-4): 308-319.
48

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

Poulin, M., L. Rochefort, et al. (2005) Spontaneous revegetation of mined peatlands in Eastern Canada.
Canadian Journal of Botany 83: 539-557.
Price, J. S. and G. S. Whitehead (2004) The influence of past and present hydrological conditions on
Sphagnum recolonization and succession in a block-cut bog Québec. Hydrological Processes
18(2): 315–328.
Quinty, F. and L. Rochefort (2003) Peatland Restoration Guide. Second edition.
Rhee, J. S. and J. Iamchaturapatr (2009) Carbon capture and sequestration by a treatment wetland.
Ecological Engineering 35(3): 393-401.
Saarnio, S., W. Winiwarter, et al. (2009) Methane release from wetlands and watercourses in Europe.
Atmospheric Environment 43(7): 1421-1429.
Schulze, E. D. and et al. (2009) Importance of methane and nitrous oxide for Europe's terrestrial
greenhouse-gas balance. Nature Geoscience 22.
Scottish Executive (2007) Scotland - estimating carbon in organic soils, sequestration and emissions. . :177.
Seiler, W. and P. J. Crutzen (1980) Estimates of gross and net fluxes of carbon between the biosphere andthe atmosphere from biomass burning. Climatic Change 2(3): 207-247.
Shurpali, N. J., N. P. Hyvonen, et al. (2009) Cultivation of a perennial grass for bioenergy on a borealorganic soil - carbon sink or source? GCB Bioenergy 1: 35-50.
Siegenthaler, A., A. Buttler, et al. (2010) Litter- and ecosystem-driven decomposition under elevated CO2
and enhanced N deposition in a Sphagnum peatland. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 42(6): 968-977.
Sommer, M., S. Fiedler, et al., Eds. (2003) First estimates of regional (Allgäu, Germany) and global CH4
fluxes from wet colluvial margins of closed depressions in glacial drift areas. Peatlands andClimate Change, Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment. Saarijärven Of fset Oy, Saarijärvi, Finland,International Peat Society.
Song, C., X. Xu, et al. (2009) Ecosystem–atmosphere exchange of CH4 and N2O and ecosystem
respiration in wetlands in the Sanjiang Plain, Northeastern China. Global Change Biology 15(3):692–705.
Sontro, D. and et al. (2010) Extreme Methane Emissions from a Swiss Hydropower Reservoir: Contribution
from Bubbling Sediments. Environmental Science & Technology 44(7): 2419–2425.
Søvik, A. K. and B. Kløve (2007) Emission of N2O and CH4 from a constructed wetland in southeastern
Norway. Science of The Total Environment 380(1-3): 28-37.
Strack, M. (2008) Peatlands and climate change. (IPS Report).
Strack, M., J. M. Waddington, et al. (2008) Effect of water table drawdown on peatland dissolved organiccarbon export and dynamics. Article first published online:.
Strack, M., J. M. Waddington, et al. (2006) Response of vegetation and net ecosystem carbon dioxide
exchange at different peatland microforms following water table drawdown. Journal ofGeophysical Research 111: G02006.
Taggart, M. J. (2010) Surface shading, soil temperature, and soil moisture effects on C loss in a temperate
peatland.
Tarnocai, C., I. M. Kettles, et al. (2000) Peatlands of Canada, Geological Survey of Canada.
Tauchnitz, N., R. Brumme, et al. (2008) Nitrous oxide and methane fluxes of a pristine slope mire in theGerman National Park Harz Mountains. Plant and Soil 303: 131-138.
49

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

Teiter, S. and Ü. Mander (2005) Emission of N2O, N2, CH4, and CO2 from constructed wetlands for
wastewater treatment and from riparian buffer zones. Ecological Engineering 25(5): 528-541.
Thiere, G., J. Stadmark, et al. (2009) Nitrogen retention versus methane emission: Environmental benefits
and risks of large-scale wetland creation. Ecological Engineering In Press.
Tiemeyer, B., J. Frings, et al. (2007) A comprehensive study of nutrient losses, soil properties andgroundwater concentrations in a degraded peatland used as an intensive meadow – Implications
for re-wetting. Journal of Hydrology 345(1-2): 80-101.
Trepel, M. (2007) Evaluation of the implementation of a goal-oriented peatland rehabilitation plan.
Ecological Engineering 30(2): 167-175.
Turetsky, M. R., C. C. Treat, et al. (2008) Short-term response of methane fluxes and methanogen activity
to water table and soil warming manipulations in an Alaskan peatland. Journal of GeophysicalResearch 113: G00A10.
Twilley, R. R. (2007) Coastal Wetlands & Global climate change. ( Louisiana State University).
United Nations Environment Programme (2010) Dead Planet Living Planet – Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Restoration for Sustainable Development. A Rapid Response Assessment. C. Nellemann and E.
Corcoran. Birkeland Trykkeri AS Norway, GRID-Arendal.
van den Akker, J. J. H. and et al (2008) Emission of CO2 from agricultural peat soils in the Netherlands andways to limit this emission % B Proceedings of the 13th International Peat Congress After Wise
Use – The Future of Peatlands, Vol. 1 Oral Presentations, Tullamore, Ireland, 8 – 13 June 2008,
Jyväskylä, Finland, International Peat Society.
van den Bos, R. (2003) Human influence on carbon fluxes in coastal peatlands:process analysis,
quantification and prediction. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam: 129.
van den Pol-Van Dasselaar, A., M. L. V. Beusichem, et al. (1999) Methane emissions from wet grasslands onpeat soil in a nature reserve. Biogeochemistry 44: 205-220.
van der Werf, G. R. and et al. (2008) Climate regulation of fire emissions and deforestation in equatorial
Asia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105(51): 20350–20355.
van Huissteden, J., A. M. R. Petrescu, et al. (2009) Sensitivity analysis of a wetland methane emission
model based on temperate and Arctic wetland sites. Biogeosciences Discuss. 6: 9083–9126.
van Huissteden, J., R. van den Bos, et al. (2006) Modelling the effect of water-table management on CO2
and CH4 fluxes from peat soils. Geologie en Mijnbouw 85: 3-18.
Veenendaal, E. M., O. Kolle, et al. (2007) CO2 exchange and carbon balance in two grassland sites on
eutrophic drained peat soils. Biogeosciences 4: 1027-1040.
Velthof, G. L. and et al. (1996) Effects of type and amount of applied nitrogen fertilizer on nitrous oxide
fluxes from intensively managed grassland. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 46(3): 257-267.
Velty, S., J. Augustin, et al. (2007) Greenhouse gas fluxes during rewetting of peatlands by use ofeffluents–a lysimeter study. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 53: 629 - 643.
Verhagen, A., J. J. H. van den Akker, et al. (2009) Peatlands and carbon flows. National Report of Netherlands,
National Report of Netherlands.
Verwer, C., R. M. van der Meer, et al. (2008) Review of carbon flux estimates and other greenhouse gas
emissions from oil palm cultivation on Tropical peatlands-Identifying the gaps in Knowledge.
ALTERRA WAGENINGEN (Netherlands).
von Arnold, K. (2004) Forests and greenhouse gases - fluxes of CO2, CH4 and N2O from drained forests onorganic soils. Linköping Studies in Arts and Science 302: 1-48.
50

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

von Arnold, K., B. Hanell, et al. (2005) Greenhouse gas fluxes from drained organic forestland in Sweden.
Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 20: 400-411.
von Arnold, K., M. Nilsson, et al. (2005) Fluxes of CO2, CH4 and N2O from drained organic soils in deciduous
forests. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 37: 1059-1071.
von Arnold, K., P. Weslien, et al. (2005) Fluxes of CO2, CH4 and N2O from drained coniferous forests onorganic soils. Forest Ecology and Management 210: 239-254.
Waddington, J. M. and S. M. Day (2007) Methane emissions from a peatland following restoration. Journalof Geophysical Research G: Biogeosciences 112(3).
Waddington, J. M., K. Tóth, et al. (2008) Dissolved organic carbon export from a cutover and restored
peatland. Hydrological Processes 22(13): 2215–2224.
Waddington, J. M., K. D. Warner, et al. (2002) Cutover peatlands: A persistent source of atmospheric CO2.
Global Biogeochemical Cycles 16(1): 1002.
Wang, L., C. Song, et al. (2010) Effects of reclamation of natural wetlands to a rice paddy on dissolved
carbon dynamics in the Sanjiang Plain, Northeastern China. Ecological Engineering In Press.
Wang, X., X. Li, et al. (2010) Effect of temperature and moisture on soil organic carbon mineralization of
predominantly permafrost peatland in the Great Hing'an Mountains, Northeastern China. Journalof Environmental Sciences 22(7): 1057-1066.
Watanabe, A., B. H. Purwanto, et al. (2009) Methane and CO2 fluxes from an Indonesian peatland used forsago palm (Metroxylon sagu Rottb.) cultivation: Effects of fertilizer and groundwater level
management. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment(1-2): 14-18.
Weslien, P. (2010) Land use effects on green house gas emission from drained organic soils. Göteborgs
universitet. Naturvetenskapliga fakulteten.
Wild, U., T. Kamp, et al. (2001) Cultivation of Typha spp. in constructed wetlands for peatland restoration.
Ecological Engineering 17: 49-54.
Wilson, D., J. Alm, et al. (2009) Rewetting of cutaway peatlands: Are we re-creating hot spots of methane
emissions? Restoration Ecology 17(6): 796 - 806.
Wilson, D., J. Alm, et al. (2010) A high resolution green area index for modelling the seasonal dynamics of
CO2 exchange in peatland vascular plant communities. Plant Ecology 190(1): 37-51.
Worralla, F., M. J. Bella, et al. (2010) Assessing the probability of carbon and greenhouse gas benefit fromthe management of peat soils. Science of The Total Environment 408(13): 2657-2666.
Xiang, W. and C. Freeman (2009) Annual variation of temperature sensitivity of soil organic carbon
decomposition in north peatlands: implications for thermal responses of carbon cycling to
global warming. Environmental Geology 58(3): 499-508.
Xiaonan, D., W. Xiaoke, et al. (2008) Primary evaluation of carbon sequestration potential of wetlands in
China. Acta Ecologica Sinica 28(2): 463-469.
Xua, S., P. R. Jafféb, et al. (2007) A process-based model for methane emission from flooded rice paddy
systems. Ecological Modelling 205(3-4): 475-491.
Yang, J.-s., J.-s. Liu, et al. (2005) Effects of water table and nitrogen addition on CO2 emission fromwetland soil. Chinese Geographical Science 15(3): 262-268.
Zhao, L., J. Li, et al. (2009) Seasonal variations in carbon dioxide exchange in an alpine wetland meadow
on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Biogeosciences Discuss. 6: 9005–9044.
Zhenga, J., X. Zhanga, et al. (2007) Effect of long-term fertilization on C mineralization and production of
CH4 and CO2 under anaerobic incubation from bulk samples and particle size fractions of atypical paddy soil. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 120(2-4): 129-138.
51

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

Zhou, L., G. Zhou, et al. (2009) Annual cycle of CO2 exchange over a reed (Phragmites australis) wetland innortheast China. Aquatic Botany 91(2): 91-98.
Harvested Wood Products
IPCC (1997) Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse 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 (2003) Good practice guidance for land use, land use change and forestry. IPCC National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Japan.
IPCC (2006) IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Prepared by the National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K.
(Eds). IGES, Japan.
Marland, E., and Marland, G. (2003) The treatment of long-lived, carbon-containing products in inventories
of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. Environmental Science and Policy 6: 139-152.
Marland, E., K. Stellar, and Marland, G. (2010) A distributed approach to accounting for carbon in wood
products. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 15: 71-91.
Shirley, K., E. Marland, J. Cantrell, and Marland, G. (2011) Managing the cost of emissions for durable,
carbon-containing products. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 16 no 3, 325346
UNFCCC (1992) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. FCCC/INFORMAL/84.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf (accessed 1/17/2011)
UNFCCC (2003) Estimating, reporting and accounting of harvested wood products. Technical paper.
FCCC/TP/2003/7, 27 October 2003. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/tp/tp0307.pdf
UNFCCC (2010) Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under
the Kyoto Protocol on its tenth session, held in Copenhagen from 7 to 15 December 2009.
FCCC/KP/AWG/2009/17, 28 January 2010. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awg10/eng/17.pdf(accessed 18/1/2011)
UNFCCC (2010) The Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the
Kyoto Protocol Twelfth session Bonn, 1–11 June 2010. FCCC/KP/AWG/2010/6/Add.2, 29 April 2010.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/awg12/eng/06a02.pdf (accessed 18/1/2011)
UNFCCC (2010) The Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the
Kyoto Protocol Thirteenth session Bonn, 2–6 August 2010. FCCC/KP/AWG/2010/CRP.2, 6 August2010 http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/awg13/eng/crp02.pdf (accessed 18/1/2011)
Winjum, J.K., S. Brown, and Schlamadinger, B. (1998) Forest Harvests and Wood Products: Sources andSinks of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Forest Science 44: 272-284.
Soil N2O
Carter, M.S. and Ambus, P. (2006) Biologically fixed N2 as a source for N2O production in a grassclover
mixture, measured by N2. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 74:1326.
Crutzen, P.J., Mosier, A.R., Smith, K.A. and Winiwarter, W. (2008) N2O release from agrobiofuel production
negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 8,389395.
52

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

Davidson, E. A. (2009) The contribution of manure and fertilizer nitrogen to atmospheric nitrous oxide
since 1860. Nature Geoscience, doi: 10.1038/NGEO608.
Del Grosso, S. J., Wirth, T., Ogle, S. M., and Parton, W. J.(2008) Estimating agricultural nitrous oxide
emissions. Eos 89(51):529-530.
FernándezLuqueño, F., ReyesVarela, V., MartínezSuárez, C., ReynosoKeller, R.E., MéndezBautista, J.,
RuizRomero, E., LópezValdez, F., LunaGuido, M.L., and Dendooven, L. (2009) Emission of CO2 andN2O from soil cultivated with common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) fertilized with different N
sources. Science of the Total Environment , 407:42894296.
Galloway, J. N., Dentener, F. J., Capone, D. G., Boyer, E. W., Howarth, R. W., Seitzinger, S. P., Asner, G. P.,
Cleveland, C.C., Green, P. A., Holland, E. A., Karl, D. M., Michaels, A. F., Porter, J.H., Townsend, A.R.,
and Vόrόsmarty, C.J. (2004) “Nitrogen cycles: past, present, and future”. Biogeochemistry 70: 153–
226.
Matthews, R. A., Chadwick, D. R., Retter, A. L., Blackwell, M. S. A., and Yamulk, S. (2010) Nitrous oxide
emissions from small-scale farmland features of UK livestock farming systems. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment 136(3-4): 192-198.
Mosier, A., Kroeze, C., Nevison, C., Oenema, O., Seitzinger, S. and van Cleemput, O. (1998) Closing the
global N2O budget: nitrous oxide emissions through the agricultural nitrogen cycle –OECD/IPCC/IEA phase II development of IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventory
methodology. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 52, 225248.
Nevison, C. (2000) Review of the IPCC methodology for estimating nitrous oxide emissions associatedwith agricultural leaching and runoff. Chemosphere: Global Change Science, 2, 493500.
Porter, J. H., Townsend, A. R. and Vörösmarty, C. J. (2004) Nitrogen cycles: past, present, and future.
Biogeochemistry, 70, 153226.
Prather, M., Ehhalt, D., Dentener, F., Derwent, R., Dlugokencky, E., Holland, E., Isaksen, I., Katima, J., Kirchhoff,V., Matson, P., Midgley, P., Wang, M., and many contributing authors (2001) Atmospheric chemistry
and greenhouse gases, in J. T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P. J. van der Linden, X.
Dai, K. Maskell and C. A. Johnson (eds) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, pp239–287,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Yang, L., and Cai, Z. (2005) The effect of growing soybean (Glycine max. L.) on N2O emission from soil.
Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 37:12051209.
Zhong, Z., Lemke, R.L., and Nelson, L.M. (2009) Nitrous oxide emissions associated with nitrogen fixation
by grain legumes. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 41: 22832291.

53

IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Soil N2O and Wetlands

Annex 5.

Presentations

The presentation given during the meeting are all available on our website (http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/presentation/presentation.html). They are:Wetlands:
Wetlands in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, (Simon Eggleston, TSU)
GHG emissions from reservoirs – where is the truth ? (Alain Tremblay, IHA)
Emissions from peat soils (John Couwenberg, Wetlands International and University of Greifswald)
Science advances and estimation of wetland emissions (Dominique Blain, Canada)
Peatland GHG-fluxes (Matthias Drösler, Germany)
Peatlands, fires and emissions (Faizal Parish, Global Environment Centre)
Harvested Wood Products
Harvested Wood Products in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Nalin Srivastava, TSU)
2006 IPCC Guidance on estimating net-emissions from HWP (Sebastian Rüter, Germany)
The 2006 IPCC Guidance on Harvested Wood Products and some possible refinements (Gregg Marland, USA)
Soil N2O
Soil N2O emissions in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Jamsranjav Baasansuren, TSU)
Soil management and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions (Beáta Emőke Madari, Brazil)
Soil N2O Emissions: Possible refinements to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. (Philippe Rochette, Canada)
Estimating N2O emission from Chinese croplands by statistical modeling (Xiaoyuan Yan, China)
N2O emission factors: top-down vs bottom-up assessments (Keith Smith, UK)54