DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Overview
Final Draft

5

2013 REVISEDSUPPLEMENTARY METHODSAND GOOD PRACTICEGUIDANCE ARISING FROM THE
KYOTO PROTOCOL6OVERVIEW

1
2
3
4

7

Draft KP Supplement

O.1

Overview

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

8

Lead Authors

9
10
11

Takahiko Hiraishi (Japan), Thelma Krug (Brazil), Rizaldi Boer (Indonesia), Sergio Gonzalez (Chile), Jim
Penman (UK), Robert Sturgiss (Australia), Washington Zhakata (Zimbabwe), Kiyoto Tanabe (TFI-TSU), andNalin Srivastava (TFI-TSU)

12

Review Editors

13

William Irving (USA) and Lingxi Zhou (China)

O.2

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Overview
Final Draft

Contents

14

15

Overview

16

1

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

2

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

18

3

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

19

4

Structure and content of the KP Supplement ................................................................................................ 11

20

5

Policy Relevance ........................................................................................................................................... 14

21

Tables22

23
24

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

25

Table 2 Table of Contents of the KP Supplement ........................................................................................ 12

26

Draft KP Supplement

O.3

Overview

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
27

1 INTRODUCTION

28
29
30
31
32

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

33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

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

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49

Under the provisions of Articles 7.1 and 7.2 of the KP, Parties are required to incorporate, in their annual GHG
inventories and national communications, supplementary information relating to anthropogenic emissions bysources and removals by sinks of CO2 and other GHG associated with LULUCF activities under Articles 3.3 and3.4 of the KP 4. For the second commitment period, the activities included under Article 3.3 are Afforestation(A), Reforestation (R) and Deforestation (D) since 1990, which remain mandatory. Activities under Article 3.4
are Forest Management (FM), which becomes mandatory for the second commitment period, and elective
activities, namely Cropland Management (CM), Grazing Land Management (GM), Revegetation (RV), andWetland Drainage and Rewetting (WDR)5.

1

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

2

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

3

Decision of the IPCC Plenary at its 35th Session.

4

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

5

LULUCF related requirements are contained in Decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) and Decision
2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in documents FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.3 and
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.13 respectively. Decision 2/CMP.6 establishes that for the second commitment period
definitions of forest, afforestation, reforestation, deforestation, forest management, cropland management grazing land
management and revegetation shall be the same as in the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. The activities
are defined as follows:“Afforestation” is the direct human-induced conversion of land that has not been forested for a period of at least 50 years
to forested land through planting, seeding and/or the human-induced promotion of natural seed sources.
“Reforestation” is the direct human-induced conversion of non-forested land to forested land through planting, seeding
and/or the human-induced promotion of natural seed sources, on land that was forested but that has been converted to
non-forested land. For the first commitment period, reforestation activities will be limited to reforestation occurring on
those lands that did not contain forest 31 December 1989.
“Deforestation” is the direct human-induced conversion of forested land to non-forested land.
“Forest management” is a system of practices for stewardship and use of forest land aimed at fulfilling relevant ecological(including biological diversity), economic and social functions of the forest in a sustainable manner.
“Cropland management” is the system of practices on land on which agricultural crops are grown and on land that is set
aside or temporarily not being used for crop production.
“Grazing land management” is the system of practices on land used for livestock production aimed at manipulating theamount and type of vegetation and livestock produced.
“Revegetation” is a direct human-induced activity to increase carbon stocks on sites through the establishment ofvegetation that covers a minimum area of 0.05 hectares and does not meet the definitions of afforestation and reforestation
contained here.

O.4

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Overview
Final Draft

50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

The KP Supplement builds on methods and guidance provided by the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006 IPCC Guidelines). The 2006 IPCC Guidelines were themselves prepared in
response to an invitation from the Parties to the UNFCCC, and are now agreed for use for reporting from 2015
by Annex I Parties to the UNFCCC and the KP6. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines build upon IPCC’s previously
developed Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories7 (1996 IPCC Guidelines)
which, together with the Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories8 (GPG2000) and the GPG-LULUCF, provide the internationally agreed9 methodologies that Annex I
countries currently are required to use to estimate anthropogenic greenhouse gas inventories to report under the
UNFCCC and the KP. The KP Supplement will be used in conjunction with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and, once
agreed, with the 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories:
Wetlands (Wetlands Supplement)10.

61

2 BACKGROUND

62
63

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

64
65
66
67
68

…review and, if necessary, update supplementary methodologies for estimating
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting fromland use, land-use change and forestry activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the
Kyoto Protocol, related to the annex to this decision, on the basis of, inter alia, chapter 4 of
its Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry11.

69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77

In response to the UNFCCC’s invitation, the need to update Chapter 4 was considered at the IPCC Scoping
Meeting to consider the Invitation from UNFCCC CMP 7 that took place in Geneva in May 2012. The Scoping
Meeting concluded that, whilst much of the structure and the content of Chapter 4 remains relevant and useful,
there was a need for significant updating to take account of the Decision 2/CMP.7 (LULUCF), other relevant
decisions by Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC and CMP, the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, IPCC’s
work on wetlands12, and other IPCC products, and developments in the scientific literature. The Subsidiary Body
for Scientific and Technological Advice at its thirty-sixth session (SBSTA 36) invited the IPCC to consider
completing the work on the KP Supplement within a revised time frame, by October 2013, to allow for adoptionof a decision on this matter by the CMP at its ninth session (CMP 9).

78
79

The IPCC at its 35th Session decided to produce the KP Supplement by the revised target date of October 2013
and agreed Terms of Reference, a Table of Contents and a Workplan13. The Workplan envisages completion in“Wetland drainage and rewetting” is a system of practices for draining and rewetting on land with organic soil that covers
a minimum area of 1 hectare. The activity applies to all lands that have been drained since 1990 and to all lands that havebeen rewetted since 1990 and that are not accounted for under any other activity as defined above, where drainage is the
direct human-induced lowering of the soil water table and rewetting is the direct human-induced partial or total reversalof drainage.
6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10The IPCC is currently preparing the 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories: Wetlands (Wetlands Supplement) in parallel to this document.

11

See paragraph 8 of Decision 2/CMP.7 in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1.

12

Wetlands Supplement (see footnote 10)

13

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

Draft KP Supplement

O.5

Overview

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
80
81
82
83
84

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

86

3 THE NEED TO UPDATE CHAPTER 4 OF GPG
LULUCF

87
88
89
90
91

Chapter 4 of the GPG-LULUCF provides supplementary methods and good practice guidance related to
LULUCF activities, based on the general GHG inventory guidance provided in other chapters of the GPGLULUCF and the rules governing the treatment of LULUCF activities in the first commitment period of KP14.
The need to review and update Chapter 4 of the GPG-LULUCF for the second commitment period arises
because:92
93

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

94
95

secondly, updating is needed in the light of the CMP decision to use the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for the second
commitment period under the KP15.

96
97
98
99
100

The new rules for the treatment of LULUCF in the second commitment period of KP agreed by CMP 7 contain,
amongst other things, new provisions on FM, natural disturbances in FM and AR areas; and harvested wood
products (HWP) and WDR, which are not covered in the existing Chapter 4 of the GPG-LULUCF. Table 1
summarizes the important changes in the treatment of LULUCF activities in the second commitment period of
the KP under Decision 2/CMP.7.

101

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

102
103



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

104



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

85

105
106

(i)

Consequential changes such as making reference to the “second commitment period” and updatingreferences to CMP decisions;

107
108
109
110

(ii)

Substantive changes reflecting the revised rules governing the treatment of LULUCF in the second
commitment period of KP. These are summarized in Table 1 and include making FM mandatory,
provisions on HWP and natural disturbances, and including WDR as an elective activity. The changes
involve adding new guidance and updating the existing guidance including decision trees and figures.

111

14

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

15

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

O.6

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Overview
Final Draft

112
TABLE 1
CHANGES IN THE TREATMENT OF LULUCF IN THE SECOND COMMITMENT PERIOD OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL PURSUANT TODECISION 2/CMP.7
Element

2/CMP.7 (Second commitment period)

16/CMP.1 (First commitment
period)FMFM shall be mandatorily accounted for along with Art. 3.3
activities and Art. 3.4 activities elected in the firstcommitment period16.
Accounting for FM shall be done on the basis of the Forest
Management Reference Level (FMRL) 17 inscribed in the
appendix to the Decision 2/CMP.718.
Annex I Parties that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol shalldemonstrate methodological consistency between the FMRL
and reporting for FM during the second commitment period,
including in the area accounted for; the treatment of HWP;
and in the accounting of any emissions from natural
disturbances19.
Parties shall make technical corrections, if necessary, toensure methodological consistency between the FMRL andreporting for FM during the commitment period, including
applying IPCC methods for ensuring time-seriesconsistency19.
Technical corrections shall be applied after adoption of the
FMRL if the reported data used to establish the FMRL aresubject to recalculations, to include in the accounting theimpact of the recalculations on the reported data that havebeen used by the Party to set the FMRL20.



Emissions from HWP removed from a Party’s forests which
are accounted for under Article 3 paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be
accounted for by the Party itself; imported HWP shall not be
accounted by the importing Party21.
Accounting of HWP shall be on the basis of instantaneousoxidation, unless other provisions set out in Decision
2/CMP.7 (summarized below) apply. Instantaneous oxidation
shall not be used in the construction of projected FMRL22.











Accountingof harvested
wood
products
(HWP)







FM is an elective activity under
Article 3.4.
Accounting of FM is on a grossnet basis.

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

113
114

16

Paragraph 7 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.14

17

The FMRL is a value of annual net emissions and removals from Forest Management, against which the net emissions andremovals reported for Forest Management during the second commitment period will be compared for accounting purposes.
Guidance on how to construct the FMRL is provided by the Appendix II to Decision 2/CMP.6. An overview of approaches,
methods and elements used in construction of FMRLs is provided in Section 2.7.5.1 of this supplement.

18

Paragraph 12 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.14

19

Paragraph 14 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.15

20

Paragraph 15 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.15

21

Paragraph 27 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.16

22

Paragraph 28 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.16

Draft KP Supplement

O.7

Overview

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)CHANGES IN THE TREATMENT OF LULUCF IN THE SECOND COMMITMENT PERIOD OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL PURSUANT TODECISION 2/CMP.7
Element

2/CMP.7 (Second commitment period)

Accountingof harvested
wood
products
(HWP)











Treatment of
naturaldisturbances

16/CMP.1 (First commitment
period)If transparent and verifiable activity data (AD) for the
specified categories (paper, wood panels and sawn wood) areavailable, accounting of HWP shall be on the basis of thechange in HWP pool during the second and subsequent
commitment periods, estimated using the first-order decayfunction with default half-lives provided in the Decision
2/CMP.7 (based on GPG-LULUCF)23.
Parties may also use country-specific half-lives or to accountfor HWP in accordance with the definitions and estimation
methodologies in the most recently adopted IPCC guidelines
and any subsequent clarifications agreed by the COP, if
verifiable and transparent AD are available and that themethodologies used are at least as detailed or accurate as theabove24.
HWP resulting from deforestation, solid waste disposal sites(where carbon dioxide emissions are separately accounted)
and wood used for energy purposes shall be accounted for on
the basis of instantaneous oxidation25.
Emissions from HWP in the second commitment period from
HWP removed from forests prior to the start of the second
commitment period shall also be accounted for. Emissions
from HWP already accounted for during the first commitment
period on the basis of instantaneous oxidation shall be
excluded26.
Parties may choose not to account for the emissions from
HWP from forests prior to the start of the second
commitment period if the FMRL is based on a projection but
shall ensure consistency in the treatment of the HWP pool inthe second commitment period26.
Natural disturbances are defined as non-anthropogenic eventsor non-anthropogenic circumstances. For the purposes of thisdecision, these events or circumstances are those that causesignificant emissions in forests and are beyond the control of,and not materially influenced by, a Party. These may include
wildfires, insect and disease infestations, extreme weather
events and/or geological disturbances, beyond the control of,and not materially influenced by, a Party. These exclude
harvesting and prescribed burning27.

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

115
116

23

Paragraph 29 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.16-17

24

Paragraph 30 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.17

25

Paragraphs 31 & 32 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.17

26

Paragraph 16 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.15

27

Paragraph 1(a) of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.13

O.8

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Overview
Final Draft

117
TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)CHANGES IN THE TREATMENT OF LULUCF IN THE SECOND COMMITMENT PERIOD OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL PURSUANT TODECISION 2/CMP.7
Element

2/CMP.7 (Second commitment period)

Treatment of
naturaldisturbances













16/CMP.1 (First
commitment period)

Parties may exclude from accounting of ARD and FM (either annuallyor at the end of second commitment period) emissions from natural
disturbances that in any single year exceed the FM background-level(including the margin, where one is needed). (In the case of FM, thisbackground level is to be included in its FMRL)28, 29.
Background level (BL) has to be derived without expectation of net
debits or credits including the use of margins, if needed28.
Subsequent removals during the commitment period on lands affectedby natural disturbance shall also be excluded from accounting28.
Parties that intend to apply the natural disturbance provision shallprovide country-specific information in their national inventory report(NIR) due in the year 201530 on the BL of emissions associated withnatural disturbances; how the BL has been estimated; and information
on how to avoid the expectation of net credits/debits during thecommitment period30.
Parties shall account for emissions associated with salvage logging andshall not exclude from accounting emissions from natural disturbanceson those lands that are subject to land-use change following the
disturbance28.
Annex I Parties that apply the natural disturbance provision shallcalculate the net emissions and removals subject to those provisions
and shall provide transparent information on31:
 Identification of the lands subject to natural disturbance (including
geo-referenced location, year and types of natural disturbance);
 How annual emissions resulting from disturbances and thesubsequent removals in those areas are estimated.
Parties shall also provide transparent information demonstrating that31: No land-use change has occurred on land for which the natural
disturbance provision is applied and explaining the methods andcriteria for identifying any future land-use changes on those land
areas during the commitment period; Occurrences were beyond the control of, and not materiallyinfluenced by the Party in the commitment period;
 Efforts were taken to rehabilitate, where practicable, the lands forwhich the natural disturbance provision is applied ; Salvage logging emissions were not excluded from accounting.

118
119

28

Paragraph 33 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.17-18

29

According to Decision 2/CMP.8, Annex I, paragraph 1.(k), the choice as to whether to apply the exclusion provision is to
be indicated in the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount pursuant to Article 3, paragraphs 7bis, 8 and8bis, of the KP for the second commitment period. The additional reporting provisions linked to the natural disturbanceprovision only for Parties that have indicated their choice to apply it.

30

According to Decision 2/CMP.8, Annex I, paragraph 1.(k)(ii) the information on the estimation of the background level isto be a part of the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount pursuant to Article 3, paragraphs 7bis, 8 and8bis, of the KP for the second commitment period.

31

Paragraph 34 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.18

Draft KP Supplement

O.9

Overview

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)CHANGES IN THE TREATMENT OF LULUCF IN THE SECOND COMMITMENT PERIOD OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL PURSUANT TODECISION 2/CMP.7
Element

2/CMP.7 (Second commitment period)

16/CMP.1 (First
commitment period)

Treatment ofemissionsfrom harvest
andconversion offorestplantations
to non-forest
lands



Parties included in Annex I may include in its accounting of FM under
Article 3.4 anthropogenic GHG emissions by sources and removals bysinks resulting from the harvest and conversion of forest plantations,accounted for under FM, to non-forest land provided the following
requirements are met32:
 The forest plantation was first established through direct humaninduced planting and/or seeding of non-forest land before 1
January 1990 and, if re-established, that this occurred on forest
land through direct human-induced planting and/or seeding after 1
January 1960;
 A new forest of at least equivalent area as the harvested forest
plantation is established through direct human-induced planting
and/or seeding on non-forested land on 31 December 1989.
 A debit under Article 3.4 is generated if the newly establishedforest does not reach at least the equivalent carbon stock that was
contained in the harvested forest plantation at the time of harvest,
within the normal harvesting cycle of the harvested forest
plantation.
 All lands and pools associated carbon pools subject to theprovision shall be identified, monitored and reported (including
the geo-referenced location and the year of conversion) andaccounted for under FMInclusion of
Wetland
Drainage
andRewetting(WDR) as anelective
activity
under Article
3.4



WDR was added as a new elective activity under Article 3.4 byDecision 2/CMP.733.
Wetland drainage and rewetting is defined as a system of practices fordraining and rewetting on land with organic soil that covers aminimum area of 1 hectare. The activity applies to all lands that havebeen drained since 1990 and to all lands that have been rewetted since1990 and that are not accounted for under any other activity as
defined in this annex where drainage is the direct human-induced
lowering of the soil water table and rewetting is the direct humaninduced partial or total reversal of drainage34.
Estimation methodologies for WDR shall be based on the mostrecently adopted or encouraged IPCC guidelines and any subsequentclarifications agreed by the COP35.
Accounting for WDR shall be done on a net-net basis, while avoiding
double counting36.

WDR is not part of theelective activities under
Article 3.437.









Emissions/removals
from all AR are to bereported and accounted
for under Article 3.3.
Emissions/removals
fromharvestandconversion of forest
plantations are to beaccounted for underdeforestation(D)
activity.

120

32

Paragraph 37-39 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.19.

33

Paragraph 10 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.14.

34

Paragraph 1(b) of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.13.

35

Paragraph 11 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.14.

36

Paragraph 12 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.14.

37

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

O.10

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Overview
Final Draft

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

2/CMP.7 (Second commitment period)

OtherchangesParties shall report and account for all emissions from conversion ofnatural forests to planted forests38.

16/CMP.1 (First
commitment period)
Reportingandaccounting for all
emissionsfromconversions of naturalforests
toplantedforests is to be included
under FM.

122

4 STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF THE KP
SUPPLEMENT

123
124
125
126
127

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

128
129

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

130
131
132
133

Chapter 1: Introduction

121

This chapter deals with overview of steps to estimate and report supplementary information for Article 3.3 and3.4 activities; general rules for categorisation of lands under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 activities; and relationshipbetween Annex I national inventories and Article 6 projects39. Updates include:

134
135
136

(i)

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

137

(ii)

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

138
139
140
141
142
143
144

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, measurement, monitoring and reporting of
LULUCF activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4
This chapter includes generic and activity-specific methodological guidance on area identification, stratification
and reporting; and estimation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions. Some new sections havebeen added and the existing guidance in Chapter 4 of GPG-LULUCF has been extensively revised and expanded
to reflect the changes stemming from Decision 2/CMP.7 and the use of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Main changes
include:

145
146
147

(i)

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

148
149

(ii)

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

150

(iii)

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

151

(iv)

Addition of a new section on WDR (Section 2.12).

152

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

153

38

Paragraph 5 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.13.

39

The discussion of projects contained in the KP Supplement is about avoidance of double accounting with Articles 3.3 and3.4 and does not affect represent an update of the material in the Section 4.3, Chapter 4 of the GPG-LULUCF (Projects).

Draft KP Supplement

O.11

Overview

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
TABLE 2TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE KP SUPPLEMENT
ChapterContents

Chapter1:
Introduction

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

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

2.1
2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

Relationship between UNFCCC land-use categories and Kyoto Protocol (Articles 3.3
and 3.4) activities
Generic methodologies for area identification, stratification and reporting
2.2.1
Reporting requirements
2.2.2
Reporting Methods for lands subject to Article 3.3 and Article 3.4 Activities
2.2.3
Reporting Methods for lands subject to additional accounting provisions for
CP2 *
2.2.4
Relationship between Approaches in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines and Reporting Methods in Section 2.2.2
2.2.5
Choice of Reporting Method
2.2.6
How to identify lands in general
Generic methodological issues for estimating carbon stock changes and Non-CO2 GHG
emissions
2.3.1
Pools to be reported
2.3.2
Years for which to estimate carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG
emissions
2.3.3
Correct implementation of C stock change estimation methods when areas
are changing*
2.3.4
Relationship between measurement and reporting intervals
2.3.5
Interannual variability*
2.3.6
Choice of method
2.3.7
Factoring out indirect, natural and pre-1990 effects
2.3.8
Reference Levels*
2.3.9
Disturbances
Other generic methodological issues
2.4.1
Developing a consistent time series
2.4.2
Recalculation of time series*
2.4.3
Uncertainty assessment
2.4.4
Reporting and documentation
2.4.5
Quality assurance and quality control
2.4.6
Verification
Afforestation and Reforestation
2.5.1
Definitional issues and reporting requirements
2.5.2
Choice of methods for identifying lands subject to direct human-induced
Afforestation/ Reforestation
2.5.3
Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG
emissionsDeforestation
2.6.1
Definitional issues and reporting requirements
2.6.2
Choice of methods for identifying lands subject to direct human-induced
Deforestation
2.6.3
Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG
emissions

154

O.12

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Overview
Final Draft
TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE KP SUPPLEMENT

ChapterContents

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

2.7

2.8

2.9

2.10

2.11

2.12

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

155
156

Draft KP Supplement

O.13

Overview

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
157

5 POLICY RELEVANCE

158
159

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

160
161
162
163
164
165



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

166
167
168
169



Provides advice on achieving transparency where, in continuing to apply the 16/CMP.1 definition of forest,
certain types of land e.g. fruit orchards, grazed savannas, urban trees, and some types of plantations, areexcluded, e.g. to achieve consistency with reporting to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) and with national forest inventories.

170
171
172



Assumes that the date of 31 December 1989 in the definition of R continues to apply for the second
commitment period. This is intended to be a completely neutral formulation, making clear that the choice of
this date is an assumption.

173
174
175
176



Clarifies the guidance on hierarchies between Articles 3.3 and 3.4 activities, but maintains the prioritisationin the ordering of D under Article 3.3. This has the consequence (revealed by secondary classification) that
D land can contain trees, if it has been subsequently subject to afforestation and reforestation. The approachshows transparently the sequences that have occurred.

177
178
179
180



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

181
182
183



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

O.14

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Glossary
Final Draft

184

GLOSSARY

185

Draft KP Supplement

G.1

Glossary

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
186
187

Accounting

188
189
190
191

Approach

192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199

The rules for comparing emissions and removals as reported with commitments.

The way in which areas are represented and reported for land-use categories, and conversions between land-use
categories, so that they are applied as appropriately and consistently as possible in inventory calculations. The
IPCC identifies Approaches 1, 2 and 3 of increasing geographic specificity.

Background level
Under default assumptions, this is in forests the mean annual level of emissions from natural disturbances,
excluding statistical outliers, during a period before the second commitment period, called the calibration period.
The intention of using such a background level is to exclude, under specific conditions set by Decision 2/CMP.71,
emissions from natural disturbances in forests that exceed the background level plus a margin from accounting
during the commitment period. Providing the expectation of net credits or debits is avoided, countries may
develop other types of background levels using their country-specific methods for excluding natural disturbanceemissions from accounting.

200
201
202
203

Base year

204
205
206
207
208

Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion (CEFC)
The conversion of forest plantation to non-forest while simultaneously establishing a “Carbon Equivalent Forest”
on non-forest land elsewhere, under the terms of Decision 2/CMP.72. The “Carbon Equivalent Forest” must beof at least equal area and at least equal stock at the end of the normal rotation of the plantation forest cleared, ora debit will be incurred.

209
210

CEF-ne land: Land on which a Carbon Equivalent Forest is newly established as part of a Carbon Equivalent
Forest Conversion under the terms of Decision 2/CMP.7.

211
212

CEF-hc land: Land on which a forest plantation is harvested and converted to non-forest as part of a Carbon
Equivalent Forest Conversion under the terms of Decision 2/CMP.7.

213
214
215

Cropland

216
217
218

Cropland Management 3

219
220
221
222

Elective activities

223
224

Estimation

225
226
227

Statistical definition: Estimation is the assessment of the value of a quantity or its uncertainty through theassignment of numerical observation values in an estimation formula, or estimator. The results of estimation canbe expressed as follows:

A year with a historical level of anthropogenic emissions or removals of greenhouse gases not controlled by theMontreal Protocol used as a reference under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or
Kyoto Protocol.

Arable and tillage land, and agro-forestry systems where vegetation falls below the threshold used for the Forest
Land category, consistent with the selection and application of national definitions.

The system of practices on land on which agricultural crops are grown and on land that is set aside or
temporarily not being used for crop production.

Article 3.4 activities that are not mandatory, but can be elected by a country for a commitment period. For thesecond commitment period these are Cropland Management, Grazing Land Management, Revegetation, andWetland Drainage and Rewetting.

Inventory definition: The process of calculating emissions.

1

Paragraphs 33-36 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 17-18.

2

Paragraphs 37-39 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use Change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 19.

3

In the context of the Kyoto Protocol, as stipulated by Decision 16/CMP.1, cf. paragraph 1 of the Annex to Decision
16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.5.

G.2

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Glossary
Final Draft

228
229



a point estimation which provide a number which can be used as an approximation to a parameter (such as
the sample standard deviation which estimates the population standard deviation), or230



an interval estimate specifying a confidence level.

231
232
233
234

Example: A statement like ‘The total emission is estimated to be 100 kt and its coefficient of variation is 5%’ isbased upon point estimates of the sample mean and standard deviation, whereas a statement such as ‘The total
emission lies between 90 and 110 kt with probability 95%’ expresses the results of estimation as a confidence
interval.

235
236
237

Forest cover

238
239

Forested land

240
241
242
243

Forest Management Reference Level (FMRL)

244
245
246
247

Georeferencing

Tree cover which exceeds the country-specific thresholds for defining forest, consistent with Decision
16/CMP.14.
Land containing forest according to the country-specific definition of forest, consistent with Decision 16/CMP.15.

Value of annual net emissions and removals from Forest Management against which the net emissions andremovals reported for Forest Management will be compared for accounting purposes during the second
commitment period.

Georeferencing is the process of identifying the physical location of a particular area of land (e.g., that subject to
Article 3.3 or 3.4 activities) in terms of map projections or coordinate systems. It determines the spatial locationof geographical features in terms of size and configuration.

248
249
250
251

Good practice

252
253
254

Good Practice covers choice of estimation methods appropriate to national circumstances, quality assurance andquality control at the national level, quantification of uncertainties and data archiving and reporting to promotetransparency.

255
256
257
258
259
260

Grassland

261
262
263

Grazing Land Management 6

264
265
266
267

Gross-net accounting

268
269

Half-life

Good Practice is a set of procedures intended to ensure that greenhouse gas inventories are accurate in the sensethat they are systematically neither over- nor underestimates so far as can be judged, and that uncertainties are
reduced so far as practicable.

This category includes rangelands and pasture land that is not considered as Cropland. It also includes systems
with vegetation that fall below the threshold used in the Forest Land category and is not expected to exceed,
without human intervention, the thresholds used in the Forest Land category. This category also includes all
grasslands from wild lands to recreational areas as well as agricultural and silvo-pastural systems, subdivided
into managed and unmanaged, consistent with national definitions.

The system of practices on land used for livestock production aimed at manipulating the amount and type ofvegetation and livestock produced.

Accounting based on greenhouse gas emissions or removals in the reporting year without subtracting base year
emissions or removals. This is the accounting method used for Afforestation, Reforestation and Deforestation
activities under Article 3.3.

The number of years it takes to lose one-half of the material currently in the carbon pool.
4

Paragraph 1 (a) of the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.5.

5Paragraph 1 (a) of the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.5.

6

In the context of the Kyoto Protocol, as stipulated by Decision 16/CMP.1, cf. paragraph 1 of the Annex to Decision
16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.5.

Draft KP Supplement

G.3

Glossary

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
270
271

Hierarchical order

272
273
274
275
276

Indirect effects

277
278
279
280
281
282

Interannual variability

283
284
285
286
287

Land 8

288
289
290

Land rehabilitation

291
292
293

Management practice

294
295
296
297

Mandatory activities

298
299
300
301
302

Margin (for background level under Decision 2/CMP.7)

303
304
305
306

Natural disturbances 9

307
308
309
310

Net-net accounting

See Reporting Hierarchy.

The effects on emissions by sources and removals by sinks caused by climate change, raised CO2 concentrations,age legacy and atmospheric nitrogen deposition. According to Decision 16/CMP.1 removal resulting fromindirect effects are to be excluded from accounting of LULUCF activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the
Kyoto Protocol7.

Variation of GHG emissions by sources and removals by sinks, or a shift from being a net sink to a net sourcefrom year to year, caused by significant fluctuations or abrupt changes in environmental conditions due tonatural disturbances and climatic abnormality, such as wild fire, pest and pathogen attacks, drought, flooding,extreme temperatures. Interannual variability in emissions and removals can also be caused by fluctuations inhuman activities such as timber harvesting or land-use change.

Areas subject to the activities defined under Article 3.4, namely Forest Management, Cropland Management,
Grazing Land Management, Revegetation, and Wetland Drainage and Rewetting. The methodological treatmentof land identification in Chapter 4 of the GPG-LULUCF is the same for units of land (see below) and land, andthis KP Supplement unites the concepts to simplify the text.

The process of returning land back to the state it had prior to a natural disturbance. This process can, but notnecessarily must, involve active management, planning or legal processes, or abstention from activities.

An action or set of actions that affect the land, the stocks of pools associated with it or otherwise affect theexchange of greenhouse gases with the atmosphere.

Activities defined under Article 3.3, namely Afforestation, Reforestation and Deforestation, as wells as (for thesecond commitment period) Forest Management, and those Article 3.4 activities that were elected by a country
in the previous commitment period.

This is a specific value that is to be used in combination with the background level as a combined threshold to
identify years during the commitment period in which emissions from natural disturbances in forests are larger
than the background level plus the margin, and in which the country may exclude emissions from natural
disturbances in forests from accounting, under specific conditions set by the Decision 2/CMP.7.

Non-anthropogenic events or non-anthropogenic circumstances that cause significant emissions in forests andare beyond the control of, and not materially influenced by, a Party. These may include wildfires, insect anddisease infestations, extreme weather events and/or geological disturbances.

Greenhouse gas emissions or removals in the reporting year minus the greenhouse gas emissions or removals inthe base year. This is the accounting method for Grazing Land Management, Cropland Management,
Revegetation and Wetland Drainage and Rewetting under Article 3.4.

311

7

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

8

In the context of the Kyoto Protocol, as stipulated by Decision 15/CMP.1, cf. paragraph 6 of the Annex to Decision
15/CMP.1 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.2, p.57.

9

In the context of the Kyoto Protocol, as stipulated by Decision 2/CMP.7, cf. paragraph 1 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7(Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p 13.

G.4

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Glossary
Final Draft

312
313
314

Other Land

315
316

Pasture

317
318
319

Planted forest

320
321
322
323

Remote sensing

324
325

Reporting

326
327
328
329
330
331

Reporting hierarchy

332
333
334
335
336
337

Reporting Method 1

338
339
340
341

Reporting Method 2

342
343
344
345
346
347
348

Salvage logging

349
350
351
352

Technical Correction

This category includes bare soil, rock, ice, and all unmanaged land areas that do not fall into any of the other fivecategories. It allows the total of identified land areas to match the national area, where data are available.

Grassland planted and/or managed for grazing.

Land meeting the country definition of planted forest, which include forest plantations as defined in the 2006
IPCC Guidelines.

Practice of acquiring and using data from satellites and aerial photography to infer or measure land cover or infer
land use. May be used in combination with ground surveys for estimation, or to check the accuracy ofinterpretation.

The process of providing estimates to the UNFCCC.

A ordered assignment of all activities under Article 3.3 and 3.4 and land subject to those activities. According to
Decision 2/CMP.610 and Decision 2/CMP.7 for reporting consistency and transparency, mandatory activities takeprecedence over elective activities, Afforestation, Reforestation and/or Deforestation activities over Forest
Management activity. Parties determine the hierarchy among elected Article 3.4 activities. (See Section 1.2 forfurther explanation).

Method of reporting information on geographical boundaries of areas encompassing lands subject to Article 3.3
and 3.4 activities that entails delineating areas that include multiple lands subject to Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities
by using legal, administrative, or ecosystem boundaries. This stratification is based on sampling techniques,administrative data, or grids on images produced by remote sensing techniques. The identified geographic
boundaries must be georeferenced.

Method of reporting information on geographical boundaries of areas encompassing lands subject to Article 3.3
and 3.4 activities that is based on the spatially-explicit and complete geographical identification of all lands
subject to Article 3.3 activities and all lands subject to Article 3.4 activities.

Is the practice of harvesting and removing trees or parts of trees (living or dead) from disturbed areas. This
management activity is also known as salvage cutting, salvage harvesting, sanitation cutting, and otherdesignations. If it is conducted on areas not subject to the application of the natural disturbance provisions, it canbe part of the regular forest management emissions and removals estimation and accounting framework,
i.e. salvage logging would then be treated as harvest. In case the Party chooses to exclude emissions due tonatural disturbances, it shall account for emissions associated with salvage logging11.

Value of net emissions and removals, which is added at the time of accounting to the original Forest
Management Reference Level to ensure that accounted emissions and removals will not reflect the impact of
methodological inconsistencies.

353

10

FCCC/KP/CMP/2010/12/Add.1

11

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

Draft KP Supplement

G.5

Glossary

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
354
355
356
357

Units of lands 12

358
359

Wall-to-wall mapping

360
361
362
363

Wetlands

364
365
366
367
368
369

Areas subject to the activities defined under Article 3.3, namely Afforestation, Reforestation and Deforestation.
The methodological treatment of land identification in Chapter 4 of the GPG-LULUCF is the same for units ofland and land, and this KP Supplement unites the concepts to simplify the text.

Complete spatial coverage of a land area, e.g., by satellite data.

This category includes areas of peat extraction and land that is covered or saturated by water for all or part of theyear (e.g., peatlands) and that does not fall into the Forest Land, Cropland, Grassland or Settlements categories.
It includes reservoirs as a managed sub-division and natural rivers and lakes as unmanaged sub-divisions.

Wetland Drainage and Rewetting

13

System of practices for draining and rewetting on land with organic soil that covers a minimum area of 1 hectare.
The activity applies to all lands that have been drained since 1990 and to all lands that have been rewetted since1990 and that are not accounted for under any other activity as defined in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7, where
drainage is the direct human-induced lowering of the soil water table and rewetting is the direct human-induced
partial or total reversal of drainage.

12

In the context of the Kyoto Protocol, as stipulated by Decision 15/CMP.1, cf. paragraph 6 of the Annex to Decision
15/CMP.1 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.2, p.57.

13

In the context of the Kyoto Protocol, as stipulated by Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry), cf.
paragraph 1 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p 13.

G.6

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Abbreviations & Acronyms

Final Draft

370
371

ABBREVIATIONS AND
ACRONYMS

372
373
374
375

Draft KP Supplement

A&A.1

Abbreviations & Acronyms

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Final Draft

376

AR

Afforestation and Reforestation

377

C

Carbon378

CDM

Clean Development Mechanism

379

CEF

Carbon Equivalent Forest

380

CEFC

Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion

381

CEF-hcCarbon Equivalent Forest (harvested and converted)382

CEF-neCarbon Equivalent Forest (newly established)

383

CER

Certified Emission Reduction

384

CH4

Methane385

CM

Cropland Management

386

CMP

Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties

387

CO2

Carbon Dioxide

388

CP

Commitment Period

389

CRF

Common Reporting Format

390

D

Deforestation

391

DOM

Dead Organic Matter

392

EFI

European Forest Institute

393

EIT

Economies-in-Transition

394

ERU

Emission Reduction Unit

395

ESL

Estimated Service Life

396

EU

European Union

397

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

398

FAOSTAT

Database produced by the Statistics Division of the FAO

399

FL-FL

Forest Land Remaining Forest Land

400

FM

Forest Management

401

FMRL

Forest Management Reference Level

402

FMRLcorr

Recalculated Forest Management Reference Level

403

FOD

First-Order Decay

404

FT

Full Tillage

405

GHG

Greenhouse Gas

406

GM

Grazing Land Management

407
408

GPG2000

Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories

409

GPG-LULUCF Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry

410

HS

Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System

411

HWP

Harvested Wood Products

412

IIASA

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis

413

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

414

JFSQ

Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire

415

JRC

Joint Research Centre

416

KP

Kyoto Protocol

A&A.2

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Abbreviations & Acronyms

Final Draft
417

LULUCF

Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry

418

N

Nitrogen

419

N 2O

Nitrous Oxide

420

ND

Natural Disturbance

421

NFI

National Forest Inventory

422

NH3

Ammonia

423

NIR

National Inventory Report

424

NOx

Nitrogen Oxides (NO and NO2)

425

NPP

Net Primary Production

426

NT

No-till

427

QA/QC

Quality Assurance and Quality Control

428

Rh

Heterotrophic Respiration

429

RMU

Removal Unit

430

RSL

Reference Service Life

431

RV

Revegetation

432

SBSTA

Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice

433

SD

Standard Deviation

434

SL

Salvage Logging

435

SOC

Soil Organic Carbon

436

SWDS

Solid Waste Disposal Sites

437

TC

Technical Correction

438

UNECE

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

439

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

440

WCO

World Customs Organization

441

WDR

Wetland Drainage and Rewetting

Draft KP Supplement

A&A.3

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1 Introduction
Final Draft

442

CHAPTER 1

443
444
445
446
447

INTRODUCTION

448
449
450
451

Coodinating Lead Authors

452

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

453

Lead Authors

454
455
456
457

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

458

Review Editors

459

Robert William Matthews (UK) and Emmanuel Jonathan Mpeta (Tanzania)

Draft KP Supplement

1.1Chapter 1 Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

Contents

460

461

1.1

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

462
463

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

464

1.3

General rules for categorisation of land areas under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 ............................................ 10

465

1.4

Relationship between Annex I Parties’ national inventories and Article 6 LULUCF projects ............ 18

466

Figures467

468

Figure 1.1

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

469
470
471

Figure 1.2
Decision tree for classifying land in the reporting year under Article 3.3 (AR, D), FM, any
elected Article 3.4 activity (CM, GM, RV and WDR), or not at all (“Other”). Secondary classifications are notshown in the figure................................................................................................................................................ 11

472

473

Box

474

Box 1.1 Examples for the assignment of lands to Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities over time ................................... 14

475

1.2

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1 Introduction
Final Draft

476

1.1

INTRODUCTION

477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487

The 2013 Revised Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol (KP
Supplement) describes the supplementary methods and good practice guidance for measuring, estimating andreporting of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals resulting from land use, land-use
change and forestry (LULUCF) activities covered by the Kyoto Protocol (KP) for the second commitment period(CP). The document addresses activities under Article 3.3, Forest Management and elective activities under
Article 3.4. The supplementary methods and good practice guidance of this document are relevant to each Party
included in Annex I that have ratified the KP for the second CP and for other countries interested in the updated
guidance. This document does not provide good practice guidance for LULUCF projects hosted by Parties listed
in Annex B (Article 6 projects) and Afforestation/Reforestation projects hosted by Parties not listed in Annex Bof the KP (Article 12, Clean Development Mechanism or CDM projects), which are addressed in Section 4.3 of
the Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (GPG-LULUCF).

488
489
490
491
492
493

To ensure compliance with emission limitation and reduction commitments1 in the CP, Parties are required toprovide supplementary information related to LULUCF under the provisions of the KP2. This information isrequired in addition to the annual National Inventory Reports (NIR) using Common Reporting Format (CRF)
tables to report GHG emissions by sources and removals by sinks. The annual reporting requirement does not
imply a need for annual measurements, but Parties are expected to develop systems that combine measurements,
models and other tools that enable them to report on an annual basis.

494
495
496
497
498
499

The supplementary information required includes reporting emissions by sources and removals by sinks of CO2
and other specified GHGs resulting from Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities. These include activities for which
reporting is mandatory under Article 3.3, i.e. Afforestation (A), Reforestation (R) and Deforestation (D) that
occurred since 1990; and under Article 3.4, Forest Management (FM), and any other Article 3.4 activities electedby the Party. These can include: Cropland Management (CM), Grazing Land Management (GM), Revegetation(RV), and Wetland Drainage and Rewetting (WDR).3500

1

See Article 2.1 of the Kyoto Protocol (http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf)

2

See Articles 3.3, 3.4, 3.7, 6 and 12 of the Kyoto Protocol and Decisions 16/CMP.1, 15/CP.17, 4/CMP.7, 2/CMP.7, and
2/CMP.8.

3

LULUCF related requirements are outlined in Decision 16/CMP.1 and Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change andforestry) contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.3 and FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.13 respectively:“Afforestation” is the direct human-induced conversion of land that has not been forested for a period of at least 50 years
to forested land through planting, seeding and/or the human-induced promotion of natural seed sources.
“Reforestation” is the direct human-induced conversion of non-forested land to forested land through planting, seeding
and/or the human-induced promotion of natural seed sources, on land that was forested but that has been converted to
non-forested land. For the first commitment period, Reforestation activities will be limited to Reforestation occurring on
those lands that did not contain forest on 31 December 1989.
“Deforestation” is the direct human-induced conversion of forested land to non-forested land.
“Forest management” is a system of practices for stewardship and use of forest land aimed at fulfilling relevant ecological(including biological diversity), economic and social functions of the forest in a sustainable manner.
“Cropland management” is the system of practices on land on which agricultural crops are grown and on land that is set
aside or temporarily not being used for crop production.
“Grazing land management” is the system of practices on land used for livestock production aimed at manipulating theamount and type of vegetation and livestock produced.
“Revegetation” is a direct human-induced activity to increase carbon stocks on sites through the establishment ofvegetation that covers a minimum area of 0.05 hectares and does not meet the definitions of Afforestation and
Reforestation contained here.
“Wetland drainage and rewetting” is a system of practices for draining and rewetting on land with organic soil that covers
a minimum area of 1 hectare. The activity applies to all lands that have been drained since 1990 and to all lands that havebeen rewetted since 1990 and that are not accounted for under any other activity as defined above, where drainage is the
direct human-induced lowering of the soil water table and rewetting is the direct human-induced partial or total reversalof drainage.

Draft KP Supplement

1.3Chapter 1 Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
501
502
503
504

This supplementary methods and good practice guidance document builds on methods and guidance provided by
the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006 IPCC Guidelines) and it replaces
Chapter 4 (except Section 4.3 on projects) of the GPG-LULUCF. The structure and general content of Chapter 4of the GPG-LULUCF have been maintained wherever possible for reasons of consistency.

505
506
507
508

By definition good practice GHG inventories are those which do not contain overestimates or underestimates so
far as can be judged, and in which uncertainties are reduced, as far as is practicable. The words “it is goodpractice to...” indicate that the guidance that follows contributes to producing GHG inventories consistent withgood practice.

509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516

Relationship between UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol reporting:

517
518
519
520
521

National circumstances, and specifically the technical details of the GHG reporting systems put into place byeach country, will determine the sequence in which the reporting information is compiled. In practice, it ispossible to start with the UNFCCC inventory (with the additional spatial information required for KP reporting)and expand it to the KP inventory, or it is possible to use a national system that generates the information forboth UNFCCC and KP reporting at the same time.

522
523
524
525
526
527
528

For example when a Party that has elected CM under Article 3.4 prepares its UNFCCC inventory for Cropland,
it is efficient to use the same geographical boundaries for stratification (Section 2.2.2). When preparing the
supplementary information to be reported under the KP, the Party would delineate those UNFCCC Croplandareas that originated from forests since 1 January 1990 (Chapter 5.3, Volume 4, of 2006 IPCC Guidelines, Land
converted to Cropland), report these under D according to Article 3.3, with the exception of those lands that havebeen cleared under the provision of Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion (CEFC)5 which should be reported
under FM. All remaining UNFCCC croplands will be reported under CM.

529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536

This document covers supplementary estimation and inventory reporting requirements needed for accounting
under the KP in the second CP. Estimation refers to the way in which inventory estimates are calculated,
reporting refers to the presentation of estimates in the tables or other standard formats used to transmit inventory
information, and accounting refers to the way the reported information is used to assess compliance withcommitments under the KP. This document does not address the implementation of accounting rules as agreed in
relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties (CMP) of the KP (suchas caps on accounted removals from FM, annual vs. CP accounting and other specific provisions related toaccounting).

537
538
539
540
541

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

542
543
544
545

This document uses the terms “mandatory” and “elective”. Mandatory refers to activities defined under Article
3.3, namely AR, and D, as well as FM and those 3.4 activities that were elected by a country in the previous CP.
Elective refers to those 3.4 activities that can be elected by a country for the second CP, namely CM, GM, RV
and WDR if not already elected in the first CP.

546
547
548

Parties are encouraged to harmonize UNFCCC and KP reporting in order to increase transparency, accuracy andconsistency. For the second CP, Parties are required to use the same definition of forest that they selected for the
first CP6. It is good practice to apply the same forest definition for both UNFCCC and KP reporting. Under the

The information to be reported under the KP is supplementary to the information reported under the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). A Party included in Annex I to the KP does notneed to submit two separate annual inventories but is required to provide supplementary information under the
KP, within the inventory report.4 Each Party included in Annex I to the Convention which is also a Party to the
KP will be subject to the review of submitted information in accordance with relevant decisions under Article 8of the KP.

4Article 7, paragraph 1 of the Kyoto Protocol: Each Party included in Annex I shall incorporate in its annual inventory […]the necessary supplementary information for the purposes of ensuring compliance with Article 3 […].
Article 7, paragraph 2 of the Kyoto Protocol: Each Party included in Annex I shall incorporate in its national
communication, submitted under Article 12 of the Convention, the supplementary information necessary to demonstratecompliance with its commitments under this Protocol.

5

See paragraphs 37 – 39 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.16.

6

Paragraph 1(f) of Annex I to Decision 2/CMP.8 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1., p. 16.

1.4

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1 Introduction
Final Draft

549
550
551
552
553

KP Parties are requested to apply a forest definition, within the thresholds of the forest parameters defined by the
KP, that is consistent with that used to submit historical information to the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations (FAO) and other international bodies, including the UNFCCC. Where the definitions differ
for KP reporting and other reporting, Parties are required by Decision 2/CMP.8 to provide an explanation of why
and how such values were chosen, in accordance with Decisions 16/CMP.1 and 2/CMP.7.

554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561

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

562
563

1.2

564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571

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

This section gives an overview of the steps required to measure, estimate and report anthropogenic emissions bysources and removals by sinks, including non-CO2 GHG emissions associated with LULUCF activities covered
by Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the KP. This overview is summarized as a flowchart in Figure 1.1. Detailed methods
and good practice guidance for each individual activity are provided in subsequent Chapters and Sections of thisdocument.

572

STEP 1:
Definitions and parameter values of forests, and hierarchical orderof elected Article 3.4 activities.

573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581

Parties that have elected any eligible activity under Article 3.4 in a previous CP shall account for8 the activity
during subsequent CPs, and consistently apply the definition of Article 3.4 activities to their national
circumstances as was done in a previous CP. Parties decide and report which, if any, additional activities under
Article 3.4 they elect for the second CP. It is good practice that Parties document, for each elected activity andfor FM, how the definitions will be applied to national circumstances. It is good practice to choose criteria on
how to apply definitions in such a way as to avoid overlap and to be consistent with the guidance provided in thedecision tree in Figure 1.2 in Section 1.3.

582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592

STEP 1.1:
D ecide the numerica l va lu es of pa ramet ers to def ine “fo rest” fo r AR a nd
D a ct iv it i es und e r A rt ic l e 3.3 a nd fo r FM 9.
Parties that have already selected the parameters of the forest definition in the first CP are required to apply thisdefinition consistently in the second CP. Parties that have not yet done so need to select the parameters that define
forest, i.e., the minimum area (0.05 – 1 ha), the minimum tree crown cover at maturity (10 – 30%), and theminimum tree height at maturity (2 – 5 m). Areas that meet these minimum criteria are considered forest, as arerecently disturbed forests or young forests that are expected to reach these parameter thresholds at maturity. The
numerical values selected for those parameters cannot be changed during or between CPs. Each Party has todemonstrate in its reporting that selected values are consistent with the information that has historically beenreported to the FAO or other international bodies, including the UNFCCC, and if they differ, explain how and why
differing values were chosen.
7

The IPCC is currently preparing the 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories: Wetlands (Wetlands Supplement) in parallel to this document.

8

See paragraph 7 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 14.

9

According to the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1, paragraph 1(a), “forest” is a minimum area of land of 0.05 – 1.0 hectareswith tree crown cover at maturity in situ (or equivalent stocking level) of more than 10 – 30 per cent with trees with thepotential to reach a minimum height of 2 – 5 metres at maturity in situ. A forest may consist either of closed forest
formations where trees of various storeys and undergrowth cover a high proportion of the ground, or open forest. Youngnatural stands and all plantations which have yet to reach a crown density of 10 – 30 per cent or tree height of 2 – 5
metres are included under forest, as are areas normally forming part of the forest area which are temporarily unstocked asa result of human intervention such as harvesting or natural causes but which are expected to revert to forest.

Draft KP Supplement

1.5Chapter 1 Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
593
594

In addition to the minimum area of forest, it is good practice that countries specify the minimum width that they
will apply to define forest and land subject to AR, D and FM activities, as explained in Section 2.2.6.

595
596

Figure 1.1

Flowchart of the activities outlined in this chapter

597
STEP 1.1
Forest (Minimum of: area (ha), tree crown cover & tree height at maturity,
width (m))

STEP 1.2
Natural & Planted forest

STEP 1
Definitions, parameter valuesof forests, andhierarchical order ofelected Article 3.4 activities

STEP 1.3
Natural disturbances (type & background level for AR and FM activities)

STEP 1.4
Hierarchy among elected Article 3.4 activities

Level 1: Stratify the country into areas subject to the 6Land-use categories, and associated subcategories, as
defined in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines

STEP 2.1
Stratification

Level 2: stratify the land-use categories into areas ofLand subject to mandatory or elected activities or not
subject to any activity
Level 3: Stratify the area subject to activities into areasof mineral soils and organic soils

STEP 2

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

Land identification for
mandatory and elected activities
under Article 3.4
STEP 2.2
Compilation
STEP 2.3
Identification
and areaestimation oflands

Compilation of land-use and land-cover information in1990 for the mandatory and elected activities.

Subject to mandatory activities (AR, D and FM)
Elected activites (CM, GM, RV and/or WDR)
Lands subject to Article 6 project activities

STEP 3
Estimate GHG emissions and removals on identified lands

598
599

1.6

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1 Introduction
Final Draft

600
601
602

In applying Decision 16/CMP.1 definition of forest during the first CP, some countries excluded certain types ofland e.g. fruit orchards, grazed savannas, urban trees, and some types of plantations, even if these lands meet thethresholds for forest.

603

In cases where countries apply these exclusions, to achieve transparency in reporting it is good practice:

604
605
606



To document the rationale of criteria used to exclude from forest those areas which meet the thresholds forforest (e.g., consistency with national forest inventories, with reporting to FAO), and how these criteria areapplied consistently across the country and CPs;

607
608



To report the extent of the area which meets the thresholds for forest, but is not reported as forest and todescribe the consequences of this exclusion for reported emissions and removals; and

609
610
611



That any harvested wood product (HWP) from timber harvested from forests where the emissions andremovals are not accounted under Article 3.3 AR or Article 3.4 FM not be included in HWP carbon stockreporting.

612
613
614
615
616
617
618

Countries that exclude in this way land that would otherwise meet the definition of forest, where this land is stillreported under an elected Article 3.4 activity, have to report, and account, carbon emissions and removals
associated with carbon stock changes in woody biomass, including emissions associated with the removal of tree
cover below the forest threshold. Where this land is not reported under an elected Article 3.4 activity, neither
emissions nor removals associated with tree growth or loss are accounted. It is good practice to describe theconsequences of this exclusion for reported emissions and removals by providing information about theirmagnitude and net balance.

619
620
621
622

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

623
624
625

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

626
627

STEP 1.4:
Establish a hierarchy among Article 3.3, FM and elected Article 3.4 activities to provide aframework for consistent attribution.

628



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

629
630



Once land has been reported and accounted under the KP it cannot be excluded from reporting andaccounting and the hierarchy needs to recognise this; and631

Double counting needs to be avoided.

632
633
634
635

In addition to the framework established by the CMP decisions it is good practice to establish a hierarchy among
elected Article 3.4 activities: CM, GM, and/or RV, noting that WDR is by definition the lowest level of thehierarchy. It is also good practice to apply the same hierarchy among elected activities under Article 3.4 across
CPs.

636

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

637
638
639
640



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

641

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

642
643



AR, D and FM activities take precedence in the reporting hierarchy over any other elected Article 3.4
activity644

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

645
646
647



Since Wetland Drainage and Rewetting is limited to lands that are not accounted for under any otheractivity10, lands not already reported under any of the above activities in a given year, on which drainage
and rewetting of organic soils take place are reported under WDR, if elected by the Party.

10

See definition of WDR in paragraph 1(b) of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 13.

Draft KP Supplement

1.7Chapter 1 Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
648

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

649
650
651
652



Land subject to direct human-induced conversion from forest to non-forest is reported under D (Article 3.3)
unless a Party chooses to use the provision for CEFC and all requirements (paragraph 37 in Annex toDecision 2/CMP.7) are met, in which case it is reported under FM (see Section 2.7.7 for details andrequirements);

653
654
655
656
657



Land subject to direct human-induced conversion from non-forest to forest is reported under AR (Article 3.3)
unless this land is used to compensate the harvest of forest plantations and conversion to non-forest land
under the provisions for CEFC and all requirements (paragraph 37 in Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7) are met,in which case it is reported under FM as explained in the previous paragraph (see Section 2.7.7 for details
and requirements).

658
659
660
661

Where elected activities under Article 3.4 overlap, it is good practice to apply consistently the specified
hierarchy to determine under which activity the land is to be reported. For example, if land could fall into both
CM and RV (such as for new orchards), then it is good practice to report over time that land under one and only
one activity according to the established hierarchy.

662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669

Agricultural land use may rotate between Cropland and Grassland associated with grazing. Where a Party has
elected both Article 3.4 CM and GM activities 11 , to reduce reporting complexity and to avoid artefacts or
inaccuracies in CM and GM reporting associated with rotation of land between Cropland and Grassland use, aParty may report all land subject to CM and GM under a single activity, normally CM. Although the reporting
could occur under one activity, estimation of emissions and removals has to follow the methodologies
established for CM or GM, consistent with the activity on the area. Where a Party has elected only one activity,
either CM or GM (Article 3.4), it is good practice to report and account the land subject to rotation under theelected activity.

670
671
672
673
674
675

STEP 2:
Article 3.4

Land identification for mandatory and elected activities under

676
677
678
679

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

680
681



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

682
683



Level 2: stratify the land-use categories into areas of land subject to mandatory or elected activities or not
subject to any mandatory or elected activity;684



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

685
686



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

687

STEP 2.2:

688
689
690
691
692

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

The second step of the inventory assessment is to determine the areas on which the activities have taken placesince 1990 (and for which emissions and removals will be estimated). This step builds on the approaches
described in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

Initial conditions: Compile initial land-use and land-cover information for 31 December 1989.

693

11

Reporting requirements and accounting rules for CM and GM are identical

1.8

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1 Introduction
Final Draft

694
695

STEP 2.3:
Identify lands that are subject to mandatory (STEP 2.3.1) activities (since 1 January 1990) andelected activities (STEP 2.3.2), and estimate the total area of these lands within each geographic boundary.

696
697
698
699

STEP 2.3.1:
Mandatory activities (AR, D and FM)
Identify lands that, since 1 January 1990, are subject to activities that are mandatory for reporting (AR, D andFM), and estimate the total area of these lands within each geographic boundary. Under Reporting Method 2(Section 2.2.2) the estimation of land areas will be carried out individually for all lands affected.

700
701
702
703
704
705

It is good practice to identify the land area subject to FM in each inventory year of the CP. A country could
interpret the definition of forest management in terms of specified forest management practices undertaken since
1990, such as fire suppression, harvesting or thinning (narrow approach). Alternatively, a country could interpretthe definition of forest management in terms of a broad classification of land subject to a system of forest
management practices, without the requirement that a specified forest management practice has occurred on eachland (broad approach) (for details see Section 2.7.1).

706
707
708
709
710
711

Parties are required12 to estimate and report the area of lands that have been subject to AR and D and the area oflands subject to FM within the boundaries mentioned in STEP 2 above (for details see Sections 2.2.2, 2.5 and 2.6).
Furthermore, each Party is required to estimate and report areas of lands that fall into categories defined by decision
2/CMP.7: it is therefore good practice to identify and report, for each year in the CP, lands with natural forests thathave been converted to planted forests. Countries which have selected to use the provisions of natural
disturbance or CEFC need to provide the georeferenced locations of

712
713



those lands affected by natural disturbances in the CP for which Parties chose to exclude from theaccounting emissions and subsequent removals, and

714
715
716



where Parties chose to implement and meet the provision of CEFC, those lands of forest plantation whichhave been harvested and converted to non-forest land as well as those lands that have been converted toforest to compensate for harvesting of forest plantation.

717
718
719
720

STEP 2.3.2:
Elected activities (CM, GM, RV, and/or WDR)
Identify and estimate the area of lands subject to elected activities under Article 3.4 within each geographic
boundary. Under Reporting Method 2 (Section 2.2.2) the estimation of areas of land is carried out individuallyfor all lands subject to elected Article 3.4 activities.

721
722
723

For CM or GM as discussed in more depth in Sections 2.9 – 2.10, each Party identifies the land area subject tothe activity in each inventory year of the CP as well as in 1990 (or the applicable base year), because GHG
emissions and removals in the base year are used in the accounting.

724
725

For WDR and RV each Party identifies the land area subject to the activity since 1990. The GHG emissions andremovals in the base year (1990) are used in the accounting.

726
727
728
729
730
731

STEP 2.3.3:
Lands subject to Article 6 project activities
Some lands subject to Article 3.3 or Article 3.4 activities can also be subject to projects under Article 6 of the KP.
These have to be reported under Article 3.3 or Article 3.4. In addition, these lands need to be delineated and the
GHG emissions and removals reported separately as part of project reporting (see Section 4.3 of the GPGLULUCF). The relationship between estimation and reporting of activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4, andprojects under Article 6, is discussed in Section 1.4.

732
733
734
735

STEP 3: Estimate GHG emissions and removals on lands identified under Step 2
above.

736
737
738

STEP 3.1:
Estimate GHG emissions and removals for each year of the CP, on all areas subject to the
mandatory and elected activities (as identified in steps 2.3.1 and 2.3.2) while ensuring that there are no gaps andno double counting.

739
740

The estimation of GHG emissions and removals for an activity begins with the onset of the activity or the
beginning of the CP, whichever comes later.

741

12

See paragraph 2 of Annex II to Decision 2/CMP8 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1, p.18.

Draft KP Supplement

1.9Chapter 1 Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

743

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

744
745
746
747
748

Chapter 3 (Consistent representation of lands) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines describes approaches to classifying
and representing land areas associated with six land-use categories. This is the basis for the good practiceguidance in this KP Supplement for identifying all relevant lands, for KP reporting, and for avoiding double
counting of lands. It is good practice to follow the decision tree in Figure 1.2 for each reporting year of the CP in
order to:

749
750



Distinguish between AR and D activities under Article 3.3, and FM, CM, GM, RV and WDR activities
under Article 3.4, as well as to remove potential overlaps and gaps between them; and to

751
752
753
754
755



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

756
757
758
759
760
761
762

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

763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771

There are two main branches in the decision tree in Figure 1.2. If land is covered by trees in the reporting year,
then the questions in the “centre” branch should be answered to determine whether the land was subject toactivities under Article 3.3, FM, or any elected Article 3.4 activities. If land is not covered by trees in thereporting year, then the questions in the “left” branch should be answered to determine whether the land was
subject to deforestation at any time since 1st January 1990, or subject to any other activities which could beclassified as Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities. This is required to fulfil the reporting needs specified in the Annex toDecision 2/CMP.7, and to demonstrate that there is no double counting, which could occur if full enumeration
was not applied. More detailed decision trees and examples to determine whether or not land is subject tospecific activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 are presented in Sections 2.5 through 2.12.

772
773
774
775
776
777

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

742

1.3

778

1.10

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1 Introduction
Final Draft

779
780
781

Figure 1.2

Decision tree for classifying land in the reporting year under Article 3.3 (AR,D), FM, any elected Article 3.4 activity (CM, GM, RV and WDR), or not atall (“Other”). Secondary classifications are not shown in the figure.
Report the land under
Article 3.3 as

START

Yes

Yes

Has the land
been subject to D activities
at any time since
1 January 1990?

Report the land under
Article 3.3 as

No

Is the land
covered by trees in thereporting year?

No

Has the land
been subject to D
activities at any time since
1 January 1990?

Yes

Report the land under
Article 3.3 asNoNo

Has the land been
harvested?

Has the land been
subject to AR activities at
any time since 1 January
1990?

Yes

Yes

Has the land been
subject to AR activities aspart of CEFC 2 ?

No
Yes

No
Yes

Has the land
been affectedby any ND?
Does the landsatisfy the national
definition of FM?

No

Abbreviations used in the Figure:
AR: Afforestation / Reforestation
D: Deforestation
FM: Forest Management
CM: Cropland Management
GM: Grazing Land Management
RV: Revegetation
WDR: Wetland drainage and rewetting
CEFC: Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion
ND: Natural Disturbance

782
783
784

Yes

Report the land under
Article 3.4 as

No

Report the land in the NIRKP-CRF Tables asNo

Has the land
been subject to elected
Article 3.4 activities since 1
January 1990?

Yes

Report the land under the
Article 3.4 activity previously
elected1.

“Other” includes managed and unmanaged lands not reported under mandatory or elected activities. Note that “Other” inthis context does not refer to the “Other Land” LULUCF category.

785
786

2.

Can only be reported as FM if the land has been harvested as part of CEFC and if all other conditions of the CEFC
provision are also met (see Section 2.7.2 for details).

787
788
789

3.

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

790

Draft KP Supplement

1.11

Chapter 1 Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
791

In addition, note that:

792
793
794
795



The decision tree in Figure 1.2 is not sufficient to assign all lands to specific activities. For the reporting ofthese lands, it is good practice to follow the methodological guidance provided under Section 2.2 on“Generic Methodologies for Area Identification, Stratification and Reporting”, and in the activity-specificsections on land identification in Sections 2.5-2.12.

796
797



For the second CP, Article 3.3 applies to land that is subject to an AR or D activity at any time between 1
January 1990 and 31 December of the last year of each CP.

798
799
800
801



For reporting during the second CP, Article 3.4 applies to land that is subject to FM and any activity of CM,
GM, RV, or WDR elected during the CP or in any year of the previous CP13. Any Article 3.4 activities
elected in the first CP must be reported during the second CP. Article 3.4 also applies to land subject to RV,
and when a narrow approach to their definitions is applied, to FM and WDR since 1 January 1990.

802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811



Once land is accounted for and therefore reported under an Article 3.3, FM or elected Article 3.4 activity, allanthropogenic GHG emissions from sources and removals by sinks on this land must be reported from thattime forward through the second CP14, except where the country chooses not to report a pool that has beenshown not to be a source as explained in Section 2.3.1. Therefore, in principle the total land area included in
the reporting of Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities can never decrease. For CM and GM, the guidance provided in
the GPG-LULUCF (Box 4.2.8) acknowledges that some of the area of the activity in the ‘base year only’
may no longer be reported under that activity in the reporting year. Where this area is not transferred toanother reported activity the associated emissions and removals will be accounted as zero in that year. In
order to achieve transparency in reporting, it is good practice to describe the consequences of this exclusion
on reported emissions and removals. More detailed guidance is provided in Sections 2.9.2 and 2.10.2.

812
813



In order to avoid the reporting of land under more than one activity in any year during the CP, it is goodpractice to apply the following :

814
815
816
817
818

-

Land subject to activities under Article 3.3 which would otherwise be subject to FM or an elected
activity under Article 3.415 are to be identified as lands that are both subject to Article 3.3 and 3.4
activities by using secondary classifications (these are not shown in the decision tree in Figure 1.2). The
decision tree implies that AR, D and FM have precedence over the other activities for land classification
and reporting purposes for the second CP.

819
820
821

-

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

822

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

823
824

-

Land classified as forests at any time since 31 December 1989, including AR land and subsequently
deforested is reclassified as D land (see Sections 2.5 and 2.6 for details).

825
826
827
828

-

Land under an elected Article 3.4 activity that becomes subject to an Article 3.3 activity needs
subsequently to be reported under the latter. For the second CP, land subject to forest management (andestablished as forest plantation after 1 Jan 1960 and before 1 Jan 1990) that is cleared of forest can bereported as FM, if the conditions of CEFC are met (see Section 2.7.7)16.

829
830



The following transitions are not possible. Note that these restrictions apply to reporting under the KP (butdo of course not affect the actual management that a country applies to its lands):

831-

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

832-

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

833-

Land cannot leave the Article 3.3 reporting.

13

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

14

Paragraph 24 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 16.

15

See Paragraph 2 (b), bullet (ii) in the Annex II to Decision 2/CMP.8 (Implications of the implementation of decisions
2/CMP.7 to 5/CMP.7 on the previous decisions on methodological issues related to the Kyoto Protocol, including thoserelating to Articles 5, 7 and 8 of the Kyoto Protocol), contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1, p.18

16

See paragraphs 37-39 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 19.

1.12

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1 Introduction
Final Draft

834
835
836
837
838
839
840

-



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

It is good practice to define the boundaries between FM and CM or GM, where these are applied on thesame area, using the national forest definition applied consistently with past reporting practice as describedat Step 1.1 above.

841
842
843
844
845
846
847

In summary, this means that the area under Article 3.3 (AR and D) will grow from 0 hectares on 31 December
1989 up to a certain value at the end of the second CP. At any given point in time, it is good practice that the AR
and D categories should contain all areas of land that have been afforested, reforested or deforested since 1
January 1990. The land area under Article 3.3 D will increase in size or stay constant during the second CP. The
land area in the AR activity will typically increase, but could decrease if AR lands are subject to deforestation
activities.

848
849

The amount of lands under FM or elected Article 3.4 activities can fluctuate because of various land-use changes.
It is unlikely that those areas will stay constant over time for the purpose of reporting because, for example:

850



A deforestation event can transfer land from FM to D under Article 3.3;

851
852



An afforestation or reforestation event can transfer land from any non-forest Article 3.4 activity to the
Article 3.3 AR activity;

853
854



GM can become CM and vice versa, and it is reported under the elected Article 3.4 activity most recently
applied to the land;

855
856



RV can become CM or GM or vice versa, and it is reported under the elected Article 3.4 activity mostrecently applied to the land; and

857
858



FM areas can increase, for example, as countries expand the road infrastructure to areas previously
inaccessible and unmanaged and initiate harvest and other FM activities17.

859
860



Drained organic soils can become FM, CM, GM, RV or WDR, consistent with national definitions andcriteria for classification and activities on these soils.

861
862
863

Box 1.1 provides several examples that summarise the considerations that apply for lands subject to activities
under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the KP. For more detailed explanations of the rationale behind the examples in Box
1.1, the reader is referred to the more detailed explanations in the remaining sections of this supplement.

17

Note, in this example, the construction of the road infrastructure may have also increased D depending on national
definitions of minimum area and width for forest.

Draft KP Supplement

1.13Chapter 1 Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
864
865

BOX 1.1
EXAMPLES FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF LANDS TO ARTICLE 3.3 AND 3.4 ACTIVITIES OVER TIME

866
867
868
869
870
871

The following examples are intended to show, conceptually and in accordance with the decision
tree in Figure 1.2, how different land-use conversions would be categorised in different inventory
years of the KP. This does not necessarily imply that the land-use transition can be directly
measured on an annual basis. For croplands and grazing lands only carbon stock changes are
discussed in the examples below, since non-CO2 GHG emissions for such lands are in most cases
reported under the Agriculture sector.

872
873

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

874
875
876

Carbon stock changes on this land are reported under D from 2008 onwards through the second
CP. CO2 emissions from liming and urea application as well as non-CO2 GHG emissions on thisland are reported under the Agriculture sector.

877
878

Carbon stock changes on this land will not be reported under CM, even if CM was elected, because
D takes precedence over CM. The decision tree in Figure 1.2 therefore assigns this land to D.

879
880
881
882

Should trees be re-established on this land after the end of the first CP, for example in 2014, theland does not transition from one Art 3.3 activity to another (from D to AR). The land continues tobe reported under D. Estimates of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions will bebased on the methodologies for land converted to forest land.

883
884

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

885
886
887
888
889

Carbon stock changes on this land during the second CP are reported under D starting in 2015. The
methodology for croplands that were previously forest should be used to estimate carbon stockchanges. Non-CO2 GHG emissions associated with cropland use and CO2 emissions from liming
and urea application are estimated using methods described in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines, and are to be reported in the national inventory within the Agriculture sector.

890
891
892

Carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions on this land will not be reported under CM,
even if CM has been elected, because D takes precedence over CM. The decision tree in Figure 1.2
therefore assigns this land to D.

893
894

Example 3 to 12

895
896
897
898

The following examples illustrate how Article 3.3 or 3.4 activities are to be reported during thesecond CP (CP2). For each example a brief scenario is presented and the correct land management
activity for reporting, identified as the “Reporting solution”, is provided in a table with additional
explanation in the comment row.

899
900

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

901
902

Abbreviations used in the tables:

903
904
905

D-Deforestation; AR- Afforestation and Reforestation; FM- Forest Management; CM- CroplandManagement; GM- Grazing land Management; RV- Revegetation; WDR- Wetland Drainage andRewetting906
907

M-Mandatory reporting obligation; E- Elected activity; N/E- Not Elected; N/A- Not Applicable inthis reporting period.

908

CP1- First CP 2008-2012 inclusive909

CP2- Second CP 2013-2020 inclusive

910

A blank cell in the tables means the activity is not applicable.

911

1.14

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1 Introduction
Final Draft

912
913

BOX 1.1 (CONTINUED)

Example 3:
Scenario: A cropland was converted into grazing land in 2010. FM, CM and GM were electedin CP1.
Activity

D

AR

FM

CM

GM

RV

WDR

Status in CP1

M

M

E

E

E

N/E

N/A

Status in CP2

M

M

M

M

M

N/E

N/E

Report under CM
for 2008 and 2009
only

Report under GM
for all years from2010 onwards
including CP2

Reportingsolution

Comments

The example assumes that GM is higher than CM in the hierarchy. It is mandatory tocontinue to account for GM also into CP2

914
915

Example 4:
Scenario: A cropland is converted into a grazing land in 2015, CM, GM and RV were electedin CP2.
Activity

D

AR

FM

CM

GM

RV

WDR

Status in CP1

M

M

N/E

N/E

N/E

N/E

N/A

Status in CP2

M

M

M

E

E

E

N/E

Report under
CM for 2013
and 2014
only

Reportunder GM
for all
years from2015
onwards

OR Report
under RV
for all years
from 2015
onwards

Reportingsolution

Comments

Two reporting scenarios are possible. The converted land can be classified as GM or
RV according to their level in the hierarchy established by the country. The reporting isbased on the definitions for classifying lands under the activities. When communicating
the decision to elect the KP activity for CP2, the country is required to provide thedefinitions of activities which will be classified under each KP activity and thehierarchy of elected activities which it will apply. Accounting will not be affected bywhich option is chosen.

916
917

Example 5:
Scenario: A cropland was converted into a grazing land in 2015, GM was elected in CP2 andCM was not elected in CP2
Activity

D

AR

FM

CM

GM

RV

WDR

Status in CP1

M

M

N/E

N/E

N/E

N/E

N/A

Status in CP2

M

M

M

N/E

E

N/E

N/E

Reporting
Solution
Comments

Report under GM
for all years from2015 onwards
Only report the land for the period after conversion to GM.

918
919

Draft KP Supplement

1.15Chapter 1 Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
920

BOX 1.1 (CONTINUED)

Example 6:

921

Scenario: A cropland was converted into a grazing land in 2015, CM was elected in CP2. GM
was not elected.
Activity

D

AR

FM

CM

GM

RV

WDR

Status in CP1

M

M

N/E

N/E

N/E

N/E

N/A

Status in CP2

M

M

M

E

N/E

N/E

N/E

Reportingsolution

Report under CM
for all years from2013 onwards
including period
following
conversion to GM

Comments

Continue to report area converted to grazing land under CM. Once land has beenreported under any Article 3.3 or 3.4 activity during a CP, it must continue to bereported.

922
923

Example 7:
Scenario: A cropland was converted into a Settlement in 2015, CM was elected in CP2
Activity

D

AR

FM

CM

GM

RV

WDR

Status in CP1

M

M

N/E

N/E

N/E

N/E

N/A

Status in CP2

M

M

M

E

N/E

N/E

N/E

Reportingsolution

Comments

As in Example 6,
report this land as
CM from 2013
onwards.
Continue to report area converted to Settlement under CM. Once land has beenreported under any Article 3.3 or 3.4 activity during a CP, it must continue to bereported.

924
Example 8:925

Scenario: From 2013 onwards, under the influence of natural forces, an area of FM becomeswater saturated and the forest dies back. WDR has been elected for CP2
Activity

D

AR

FM

CM

GM

RV

WDR

Status in CP1

M

M

E

N/E

N/E

N/E

N/A

Status in CP2

M

M

M

N/E

N/E

N/E

E

Reportingsolution

Comments

Continue toreportemissions andremovals underFM
The forest cover loss is not directly human-induced so the land is not subject to D.
Further, FM is higher in the reporting hierarchy than the elected activities. Although
WDR has been elected, the land must continue to be reported under FM.

926
927

1.16

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1 Introduction
Final Draft

928
929

BOX 1.1 (CONTINUED)

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

D

AR

FM

CM

GM

RV

WDR

Status in CP1

M

M

N/E

N/E

N/E

N/E

N/A

Status in CP2

M

M

M

N/E

N/E

N/E

N/E

Reportingsolution

Report as
D from2015
onwards

Reportunder AR
until
2014

Comments

D takes precedence over AR.

930
931

Example 10:
Scenario: An area of peatland previously drained for peat extraction is rewetted to restore

wetland ecosystem function in 2015. WDR is elected for CP2
Activity

D

AR

FM

CM

GM

RV

WDR

Status in CP1

M

M

N/E

N/E

N/E

N/E

N/A

Status in CP2

M

M

M

N/E

N/E

N/E

E

Reportingsolution

Comments

Report as
WDR
from
2015
onwards
WDR is at the lowest level on the hierarchy. Here it is assumed the final status of theland is not included under the national definition of any other Article 3.3, FM orelected 3.4 activity.

932
933

Example 11:
Scenario: An area of cropland on drained organic soil is rewetted to restore wetland ecosystem
function in 2015. CM and WDR are elected for CP2
Activity

D

AR

FM

CM

GM

RV

WDR

Status in CP1

M

M

N/E

N/E

N/E

N/E

N/A

Status in CP2

M

M

M

E

N/E

N/E

E

Reportingsolution

Report as
CM from2013
onwards

Comments

Continued reporting of this area under CM because it takes precedence over WDR,
which is at the lowest level on the hierarchy. This assumes the final status of the land is
not included under the national definition of any Article 3.3, or FM activity.

934
935

Draft KP Supplement

1.17Chapter 1 Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
936

BOX 1.1 (CONTINUED)

Example 12:937

Scenario: An area of managed forest on drained organic soil is cleared and rewetted to restore
wetland ecosystem function in 2015. WDR is elected for CP2
Activity

D

AR

FM

CM

GM

RV

WDR

Status in CP1

M

M

E

N/E

N/E

N/E

N/A

Status in CP2

M

M

M

N/E

N/E

N/E

E

Reportingsolution

Report as
D from2015
onwards

Comments

D takes precedence over WDR, which is at the lowest level on the hierarchy.

Report as
FM for2013 and
2014
only

938
939

942

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

943
944
945
946

Emissions or removals resulting from projects under Article 6 will be part of the host country’s annual inventory
under the KP reporting18. The methods for measuring, estimating, and reporting GHG emissions and removals
resulting from LULUCF project activities are addressed in Section 4.3 of the GPG-LULUCF (LULUCF
Projects).

947
948
949
950

When estimating the GHG emissions and removals of Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities, it is possible to use theinformation that is reported for, or is meeting the standards of, Article 6 LULUCF projects on these lands (butnot vice versa). Two options exist for Article 3.3 and Article 3.4 estimation, both of which are considered goodpractice:

951
952
953
954
955
956
957

Option 1: Carry out Article 3.3 and Article 3.4 assessment without consideration of information reported for
Article 6 projects (which are reported separately as outlined in Section 4.3 of the GPG-LULUCF). This assumes
that a properly designed national system will also automatically include the effects of Article 6 projects. Thisapproach is consistent with the approaches taken in the other emission sectors. For example, an Article 6 projectthat increases removals by afforesting new areas is not individually considered in the national emissions
inventory, but will implicitly be included due to the project’s impacts in the national statistics forafforestation/reforestation.

958
959
960
961
962

Option 2: Consider all changes of carbon stocks as well as GHG emissions and removals at the project level as a
primary data source for Article 3.3 and/or Article 3.4 estimation and reporting, for example by considering
projects as a separate stratum. Any Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities that are not projects need to be monitored
separately. In this case, the design of the monitoring must ensure that projects are explicitly excluded from theremaining lands under Articles 3.3 and 3.4, to avoid double counting.

963
964
965
966
967
968
969

One important difference between project and national (Articles 3.3 and 3.4) accounting is that projects have abaseline scenario (i.e., only additional carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions due to the project are
accounted) and a project boundary, while AR, D, CM, GM, RV and WDR do not have a baseline scenario. Afterthe first CP, FM does have a FM reference level. Therefore, when using project-level information for reporting
under different activities of Articles 3.3 and 3.4, countries must take into account the projects’ total contribution
to reported overall carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions and not just the change relative to theprojects’ baseline scenario.

940

1.4

941

18

See paragraph 11(c) of Annex to Decision 15/CMP.1 (Guidelines for the preparation of the information required under
Article 7 of the Kyoto Protocol) contained in the document FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.2

1.18

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

970

CHAPTER 2

971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978

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

979

Draft KP Supplement

2.1

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
980

Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3.1-2.3.8, 2.4 and Annex 2A.1

981

Coordinating Lead Authors

982

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

983

Lead Authors

984
985
986
987

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

988

Review Editors

989

Robert William Matthews (UK) and Emmanuel Jonathan Mpeta (Tanzania)

990
991

Section 2.3.9

992

Coordinating Lead Author

993

Marcelo Theoto Rocha (Brazil)

994

Lead Authors

995
996
997

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

998

Contributing Authors

999

Thelma Krug (Brazil) and Jim Penman (UK)1000

Review Editors

1001

Jennifer Jenkins (USA) and Junsheng Li (China)

1002
1003

Section 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7

1004

Coordinating Lead Authors

1005

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

1006

Lead Authors

1007
1008
1009
1010

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

1011

Contributing Authors

1012

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

1013

Review Editors

1014

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

2.2

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

1015

Section 2.8

1016

Coordinating Lead Author

1017

Sebastian Rüter (Germany)

1018

Lead Authors

1019
1020

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

1021

Contributing Author

1022Paul Alexander McCusker (UNECE)

1023

Review Editors

1024

Jennifer Jenkins (USA) and Junsheng Li (China)

1025
1026

Section 2.9, 2.10, 2.11 and 2.12

1027

Coordinating Lead Authors

1028

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

1029

Lead Authors

1030
1031
1032

Marie Boehm (Canada), John Couwenberg (Germany), Hector Ginzo (Argentina), Hans Joosten (Belarus), Yue
Li (China), Brian McConkey (Canada), Akinori Mori (Japan), Xuebiao Pan (China), Riitta Kristiina Pipatti(Finland)

1033

Review Editors

1034

Yasuhito Shirato (Japan) and Lingxi Zhou (China)

Draft KP Supplement

2.3Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

1035

Contents

1036
1037

Relationship between UNFCCC land-use categories and Kyoto Protocol (Articles 3.3 and 3.4)
2.1
activities .............................................................................................................................................................. 9

1038

2.2

Generic methodologies for area identification, stratification and reporting .......................................... 13

1039

2.2.1

Reporting requirements ................................................................................................................. 13

1040

2.2.2

Reporting Methods for lands subject to Article 3.3 and Article 3.4 activities............................... 13

1041

2.2.3

Reporting Methods for lands subject to additional accounting provisions for CP2 ...................... 15

1042
1043

2.2.4
Relationship between Approaches in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines andReporting Methods in Section 2.2.2 .............................................................................................................. 15

1044

2.2.5

Choice of Reporting Method ......................................................................................................... 17

1045

2.2.6

How to identify lands in general ................................................................................................... 18

1046

2.3

Generic methodological issues for estimating carbon stock changes and Non-CO2 GHG emissions ... 22

1047

2.3.1

Pools to be reported ....................................................................................................................... 23

1048

2.3.2

Years for which to estimate carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions ........................ 24

1049

2.3.3

Correct implementation of C stock change estimation methods when areas are changing ........... 26

1050

2.3.4

Relationship between measurement and reporting intervals ......................................................... 28

1051

2.3.5

Interannual variability ................................................................................................................... 28

1052

2.3.6

Choice of method .......................................................................................................................... 30

1053

2.3.7

Factoring out indirect, natural and pre-1990 effects...................................................................... 32

1054

2.3.8

Reference Levels ........................................................................................................................... 32

1055

2.3.9

Disturbances .................................................................................................................................. 32

1056

2.4

Other generic methodological issues ..................................................................................................... 51

1057

2.4.1

Developing a consistent time series .............................................................................................. 51

1058

2.4.2

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

1059

2.4.3

Uncertainty assessment ................................................................................................................. 53

1060

2.4.4

Reporting and documentation ....................................................................................................... 56

1061

2.4.5

Quality assurance and quality control ........................................................................................... 66

1062

2.4.6

Verification ................................................................................................................................... 67

1063

2.5

Afforestation and Reforestation ............................................................................................................ 70

1064

2.5.1

1065
1066

2.5.2
Choice of methods for identifying lands subject to direct human-induced
Afforestation/Reforestation ........................................................................................................................... 71

1067

2.5.3

1068

2.6

Definitional issues and reporting requirements ............................................................................. 70

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions .............. 74
Deforestation ......................................................................................................................................... 76

1069

2.6.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements ............................................................................. 76

1070

2.6.2

Choice of methods for identifying lands subject to direct human-induced Deforestation............. 77

1071

2.6.3

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions .............. 81

1072

2.7

2.4

Forest Management ............................................................................................................................... 83

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

1073

2.7.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements ............................................................................. 83

1074

2.7.2

Choice of methods for identifying lands subject to Forest Management ...................................... 84

1075

2.7.3

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions ............. 87

1076

2.7.4

Methods to address natural disturbance ........................................................................................ 89

1077

2.7.5

Forest Management Reference Levels .......................................................................................... 89

1078

2.7.6

Technical Corrections for accounting purposes ............................................................................ 95

1079

2.7.7

Carbon Equivalent Forests .......................................................................................................... 101

1080

2.8

Harvested Wood Products (HWP) ...................................................................................................... 106

1081

2.8.1

Initial steps to estimate the HWP contribution ............................................................................ 106

1082

2.8.2

Tier 1: “Instantaneous oxidation”................................................................................................ 116

1083

2.8.3

Tier 2: First order decay .............................................................................................................. 116

1084

2.8.4

Tier 3: Country-specific methods ................................................................................................ 120

1085

2.8.5

Consideration of the HWP pool in FMRLs ................................................................................. 126

1086

2.8.6

Uncertainty assessment ............................................................................................................... 129

1087

2.8.7

Quality Assurance/Quality Control ............................................................................................. 131

1088

2.9

Cropland Management ........................................................................................................................ 132

1089

2.9.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements ........................................................................... 132

1090

2.9.2

Base year ..................................................................................................................................... 133

1091

2.9.3

Choice of methods for identifying lands subject to Cropland Management activities ................ 135

1092

2.9.4

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG ............................. 135

1093

2.10

Grazing Land Management ................................................................................................................. 145

1094

2.10.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements ........................................................................... 145

1095

2.10.2

Base year ..................................................................................................................................... 146

1096

2.10.3

Choice of methods for identifying lands subjected to Grazing land Management ...................... 148

1097

2.10.4

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions ............ 149

1098

2.11

Revegetation........................................................................................................................................ 155

1099

2.11.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements ........................................................................... 155

1100

2.11.2

Base year ..................................................................................................................................... 156

1101

2.11.3

Choice of methods for identifying lands ..................................................................................... 156

1102

2.11.4

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions ............ 157

1103

2.12

Wetland Drainage and Rewetting ....................................................................................................... 159

1104

2.12.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements ........................................................................... 159

1105

2.12.2

Choice of methods for identifying lands ..................................................................................... 161

1106

2.12.3

Choice of methods for estimating GHG emissions and removals ............................................... 166

1107
1108

Draft KP Supplement

2.5Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
1109

Equations1110

Equation 2.3.1 Calculation of the standard deviation for the annual emissions for the calibration period ........... 45

1111

Equation 2.7.1 Technical Correction..................................................................................................................... 95

1112
1113

Equation 2.8.1 Estimation of annual fraction of feedstock for HWP production originating from domestic harvest............................................................................................................................................................................ 112

1114
1115

Equation 2.8.2 Estimation of annual fraction of domestically produced wood pulp as feedstock for paper andpaperboard production ........................................................................................................................................ 112

1116
1117

Equation 2.8.3 Estimation of annual fraction of feedstock for HWP originating from forest activities under
Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 .............................................................................................................................. 113

1118
1119

Equation 2.8.4 Estimation of annual HWP amounts produced from domestic harvest related to activities under
Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 .............................................................................................................................. 115

1120
1121

Equation 2.8.5 Estimation of carbon stocks and annual carbon stock changes in HWP pool of the reporting
country ................................................................................................................................................................ 117

1122
1123

Equation 2.8.6 Approximation of the carbon stocks in HWP pools at initial time, i.e. since when activity data are
available .............................................................................................................................................................. 118

1124

1125

Figures

1126
1127
1128

Figure 2.1.1 Land Use Categories in the national inventories under the UNFCCC for a hypothetical country inyear X of the CP. Emissions from unmanaged forests and unmanaged grasslands are not reported in UNFCCC
inventories. ....................................................................................................................................................... 11

1129
1130

Figure 2.1.2 Land in Article 3.3 and 3.4 Activities for KP reporting for a hypothetical country in year X of theCP. This classification corresponds to the “final” status in Table 2.1.1. See text for further explanation. ........... 11

1131

Figure 2.2.1

Two reporting methods for land subject to KP Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities................................ 14

1132
1133

Figure 2.2.2
and 3.4

Decision tree for choosing a Reporting Method for land subject to activities under Articles 3.3....................................................................................................................................................... 18

1134

Figure 2.5.1

Decision tree for determining whether land qualifies for direct human-induced (dhi) AR ....... 73

1135
1136

Figure 2.6.1

Decision tree for determining whether a unit of land is subject to direct human-induced (dhi) D.
................................................................................................................................................... 80

1137

Figure 2.7.2

Decision tree for determining whether land qualifies for Forest Management. ........................ 86

1138
1139

Figure 2.7.3 Decision tree for identifying methodological inconsistencies and the need for TechnicalCorrection during the second commitment period. ............................................................................................... 96

1140
1141

Figure 2.7.4 Decision tree for determining the eligibility of land to be harvested and converted to non-forest
under CEFC provision (CEF-hc land) ................................................................................................................. 103

1142
1143

Figure 2.7.5 Decision tree for determining eligibility of land to be established in forest plantation under CEFC
provision (CEF-ne land)...................................................................................................................................... 104

1144

Figure 2.8.1

Decision tree for selection of a correct tier method for estimating HWP carbon stock change .. 107

1145

Figure 2.8.2

Simplified classification of wood products based on FAO forest products definitions............... 109

1146

Figure 2.8.3

Examples of different processing stages of wood products along the process and value chain .. 110

1147
1148

Figure 2.8.4 Relationship between sources of feedstock for HWP, forest activities and the application of therelevant tier method for estimating the HWP contribution ................................................................................. 113

1149

Figure 2.8.5

2.6

Decision tree for consistency check of HWP estimates with FMRL .......................................... 128

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

1150
1151
1152

Figure 2.9.1
Decision tree for selecting the appropriate tier for estimating emissions and removals in the
carbon pools under CM for KP reporting (see also Figure 2.4, Chapter 2 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines)................................................................................................................................................. 138

1153
1154

Figure 2.9.2 Schematic representation of a change in soil carbon stocks after a carbon-sequestering
management change ............................................................................................................................................ 139

1155
1156

Figure 2.10.1
Decision tree for selecting the appropriate tier for estimating emissions and removals in carbon
pools under GM for KP reporting (see also Figure 2.4, Chapter 2 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines) 151

1157
1158

Figure 2.12.1

Decision tree for identifying land under the Article 3.4 activity WDR if this activity is elected. .
................................................................................................................................................. 162

1159

1160

Tables1161
1162

Table 2.1.1 Summary of the relationship between UNFCCC land-use categories and Activities under the KP
during the CP ........................................................................................................................................................ 10

1163
1164

Table 2.2.1 Relationship between Approaches in Chapter 3 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines and Reporting Methods inThis report ............................................................................................................................................................. 161165

Table 2.3.1 Total and area specific emissions from disturbances for the calibration period for FM .................... 441166

Table 2.3.2 Total and area specific emissions from disturbances for the calibration period for AR.................... 44

1167
1168

Table 2.4.1 Supplementary information to be reported for the annual GHG inventory during the second CP
according to Decision 2/CMP.8. (Text in italics indicates a direct quote from the decision) ............................... 57

1169
1170

Table 2.4.1 (Continued) Supplementary information to be reported for the annual GHG inventory during thesecond CP according to decision 2/CMP.8. (Text in italics indicates a direct quote from the decision) ............. 58

1171
1172

Table 2.4.1 (Continued) Supplementary information to be reported for the annual GHG inventory during thesecond CP according to decision 2/CMP.8. (Text in italics indicates a direct quote from the decision) ............. 59

1173
1174

Table 2.4.1 (Continued) Supplementary information to be reported for the annual GHG inventory during thesecond CP according to decision 2/CMP.8. (Text in italics indicates a direct quote from the decision) ............. 62

1175

Table 2.7.1 Check List to detect methodological inconsistencies and the need for Technical Correction.......... 98

1176

Table 2.7.2 Example of summary table when performing a Technical Correction for a single year .................. 100

1177

Table 2.8.1 Default conversion factors for the default HWP categories and their subcategories ....................... 119

1178

Table 2.8.2 Tier 2 Default half-lives of HWP categories .................................................................................... 120

1179
1180

Table 2.8.3 Example on how to derive country-specific half-life for HWP categories as a function of information
on market share, estimated service life (ESL) and obsolescence ........................................................................ 126

1181
1182

Draft KP Supplement

2.7

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
1183

Boxes

1184

Box 2.3.1 Example ................................................................................................................................................ 24

1185

Box 2.3.2 Example ................................................................................................................................................ 25

1186

Box 2.3.3 Example ................................................................................................................................................ 27

1187

Box 2.3.4 Examples of approaches for identifying lands affected by natural disturbance.................................... 37

1188
1189

Box 2.3.5 Definition of salvage logging (SL), in the context of the exclusion of emissions from natural
disturbances........................................................................................................................................................... 40

1190
1191

Box 2.3.6 Avoiding the expectation of net credits or net debits for the application of the natural disturbanceprovision ............................................................................................................................................................... 47

1192

Box 2.3.7 Examples of approaches for the development of the background level................................................ 48

1193
1194

Box 2.3.8 Example of an approach for estimating the background level in case the area of the land under FM and/ or AR changes between the calibration period and the commitment period ....................................................... 50

1195

Box 2.4.1 An example of consistency in estimating the effect of management practices ..................................... 52

1196

Box 2.4.2 QA/QC checks of LULUCF estimates ................................................................................................. 67

1197

Box 2.4.3 Verification of LULUCF estimates ...................................................................................................... 68

1198

Box 2.4.4 Guidance for verifying carbon pools and activities .............................................................................. 69

1199

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

1200
1201

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

1202

Box 2.6.1 Identification of D Lands: links within this supplement and with other IPCC reports ......................... 78

1203
1204

Box 2.6.2 Methodological guidance on estimating carbon stocks changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions on D
lands: links within this supplement and with other IPCC reports ........................................................................ 82

1205

Box 2.7.1 Links with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines .................................................................................................. 87

1206
1207

Box 2.7.2 Methodological guidance for estimation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions fromFM Activities: links within this supplement and with other IPCC reports............................................................ 89

1208

Box 2.7.3 Approaches and methods used for constructing Forest Management Reference Levels ...................... 91

1209
1210

Box 2.7.4 Examples of cases which may lead to methodological inconsistency between FMRL and reporting ofFM during the second commitment period. .......................................................................................................... 99

1211

Box 2.8.1 Example on the calculation of national ESL by means of factor method ........................................... 125

1212

Box 2.8.2 Example on the estimation of the HWP contribution as presented in Parties’ FMRL........................ 127

1213
1214

Box 2.9.1 An example of Cropland Management areas in base year and in the commitment period (net-net
accounting) .......................................................................................................................................................... 134

1215

Box 2.9.2 Example of estimating biomass carbon changes for fruit orchards .................................................... 136

1216

Box 2.9.3 Illustration of estimating carbon stock changes for discontinuous Cropland Management practices 141

1217

Box 2.9.4 Examples of possible influences of reduced tillage on N2O emission ................................................ 145

1218

Box 2.10.1 Grazing land Management – country example ................................................................................. 146

1219
1220

Box 2.10.2 An example of Grazing land Management areas in base year and in the commitment period (net-net
accounting) .......................................................................................................................................................... 147

1221

Box 2.11.1 ........................................................................................................................................................... 156

1222
1223

Box 2.12.1 examples for reporting of emissions and removals from drained or rewetted organic soils under thevarious KP LULUCF activities ........................................................................................................................... 160

1224

Box 2.12.2 Wetland Drainage and Rewetting areas in 1990 and the commitment period (net-net accounting) . 163

2.8

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

1228

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

1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239

Chapter 2 of the 2013 Revised Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto
Protocol (KP Supplement) provides a description of generic methodological issues concerning all possible landuse, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) activities under Kyoto Protocol (KP) Articles 3.3 and 3.4. Section
2.1 deals with the relationship between land-use categories in reporting under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the KP, Section 2.2 deals with land areas, Section 2.3 withestimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emission, including those from natural disturbances(Section 2.3.9), and Section 2.4 deals with other generic methodological issues. This is followed by specificmethodologies related to Afforestation (A) and Reforestation (R) (treated together), Deforestation (D), Forest
Management (FM), Harvested Wood Products (HWP), Cropland Management (CM), Grazing land Management(GM), Revegetation (RV), and Wetland Drainage and Rewetting (WDR) (Sections 2.5 – 2.12). Readers shouldrefer to both the generic and the specific methodologies for any one of these activities.

1225
1226
1227

1240
1241

2.1

1242
1243

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

1244
1245
1246

This section provides an overview of how the activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 relate to the land-use
categories introduced in Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories (2006 IPCC Guidelines).

1247

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

1248

(i)

Forest Land (Chapter 4)

1249

(ii)

Cropland (Chapter 5)

1250

(iii)

Grassland (Chapter 6)

1251

(iv)

Wetlands (Chapter 7)

1252

(v)

Settlements (Chapter 8)

1253

(vi)

Other Land (Chapter 9)

1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260

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

1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267

Using categories (i) to (vi) as a basis for estimating the effects of Articles 3.3 and 3.4 activities helps meet goodpractice requirements and will be consistent with the national land categorization used for preparing LULUCF
GHG inventories under the Convention. For example: Forest Land could be partitioned into: a) Forest Land
under Article 3.3; b) Forest Land under Article 3.4, c) Other managed Forest Land (if the definition of “managed
forests” differs from the definition of “lands subject to forest management”); and d) Unmanaged Forest Land.
More information on the relationship between “managed forests” and “forest management” can be found in
Section 2.7, Figure 2.7.1.

1268
1269
1270

Many of the methods described in subsequent sections of this Chapter build on methodologies that appear in
Chapter 1 and Section 2.1 to 2.4 of this supplement or in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. It is
recommended also to refer to relevant sections of the 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for

Draft KP Supplement

2.9Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275

National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands (Wetlands Supplement) 1 . For continuity and clarity, crossreferences to these methods appear periodically in Boxes. For KP reporting, spatial stratification beyond thatprovided in the reporting tables in Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines is required, and for the second
Commitment Period (CP), additional reporting categories have been introduced. Section 2.4.4 introduces the
additional reporting requirements and Annex 2A.1 to this document provides draft reporting tables.

1276
TABLE 2.1.1
SUMMARY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UNFCCC LAND-USE CATEGORIESAND ACTIVITIES UNDER THE KP DURING THE CP
Transitions are from the “initial” to the “final” land-use category, indicating which KP Article 3.3 or 3.4 activities may
have occurred on that land. Bold font indicates mandatory reporting activities; regular font indicates elective activities
where the classification depends on the election of Article 3.4 activities by a country. Note that all possible LULUCF
transitions have not been included in this table, only those which can be reported under Article 3.3 or 3.4 activities.
Final
ManagedForest land

Cropland

Grassland

WetlandSettlements

Other land

Unmanaged
Forestland**

FM

D**

D**

D

D

D

ManagedForest land

FM

D**

D**

D

D

D

AR*

CM, RV,
WDR***

CM#, GM, RV,
WDR***

CM,RV,
WDR***

CM****,RV

CM****

AR*, FMCM, GM##,
RV, WDR***

GM, RV,
WDR***

GM,
WDR***

GM****

GM****

AR*, FMCM, RV,
WDR***

GM, RV,
WDR***

RV, WDR***

RV, WDR***

WDR***

AR*

CM, RV,
WDR***

GM, RV,
WDR***

RV, WDR***

RV

AR*, FMCM, RVGM, RV

RV, WDR***

RV

InitialCropland

Grassland

WetlandSettlements

Other land
Notes

AR: Afforestation / Reforestation, D: Deforestation, FM: Forest Management, CM: Cropland Management, GM: Grazing landManagement, RV: Revegetation, WDR: Wetland Drainage and Rewetting.
*If the conversion is direct human-induced then classify as AR which takes precedence over FM and therefore although the land issubject to FM, it is reported under AR. If the conversion is not direct human-induced, and the definition of FM is met, then the land isreported in FM.
**

D takes precedence over cropland/grassland categories.

***

When elected, WDR only applies on land which is not accounted for under any Article 3.3, FM or other elected Art. 3.4 activity****

Once land has been reported under any Article 3.3 or 3.4 activity during a CP, it must continue to be reported.

#

Only if CM is elected and GM is not elected.

##

Only if GM is elected and CM is not elected.

1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282

Figures 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 exemplify the relationship between these land-use categories reported in national
inventories under the UNFCCC and those under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the KP in any single reporting year. The
outer rectangle represents the boundaries of a hypothetical country. Figure 2.1.1 shows the reporting categories
for the UNFCCC national inventory according to Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, and Figure 2.1.2
includes additional categories resulting from reporting requirements under the KP.
1The IPCC is also producing the 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories:
Wetlands (Wetlands Supplement) in parallel to this document. The Wetlands Supplement provides guidance on estimating
emissions and removals on lands with drained and rewetted organic soils in Chapters 2, 3 and 4 and general issues on
wetlands are addressed in Chapters 1 and 7. This work is due to be completed in October 2013 (http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/home/wetlands.html).

2.10

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

1283
1284
1285

Figure 2.1.1

Land Use Categories in the national inventories under the UNFCCC for ahypothetical country in year X of the CP. Emissions from unmanaged forestsand unmanaged grasslands are not reported in UNFCCC inventories.
Settlements

Unmanaged Wetland

Other landManaged Wetland

Managed forest

Managed grassland

Unmanaged
forestUnmanaged
grassland
Cropland

1286
1287
1288
1289
1290

Figure 2.1.2

Land in Article 3.3 and 3.4 Activities for KP reporting for a hypotheticalcountry in year X of the CP. This classification corresponds to the “final”
status in Table 2.1.1 2. See text for further explanation.

Settlements

Unmanaged Wetland

RVManaged Wetland
RV

D

D

WDR

CEF-hcManaged forest

CEF-hc

WDR

D
ND

ND

CEF-hc
WDR

CEF-hcCM

RV

CEF-neGM

Unmanaged
forestCM Cropland
1291

DManaged grassland
AR

FM

Other land

Unmanaged
grassland
WDR
RV

D
CEF-hc1292

2

A- Afforestation; R- Reforestation; D- Deforestation; FM- Forest Management; CM- Cropland Management; GM- Grazing
land Management; RV- Revegetation; WDR- Wetland Drainage and Rewetting; ND - Natural Disturbances (ND in AR or
FM that are subject to the provision to exclude emissions from the accounting.), CEFC- Carbon Equivalent Forest
Conversion, CEF-hc: area where trees have been harvested and converted to non-forest land, CEF-ne: areas where
equivalent forest has been newly established;

Draft KP Supplement

2.11

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
1293
1294
1295

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

1296
1297

(i)

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

1298
1299

(ii)

Parties have some flexibility in the definitions of which land-use category is to be included within agiven Article 3.4 activity. See section 1.2.

1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317

In Figure 2.1.2, dashed lines delineate areas subject to FM, and two of the elective activities under Article 3.4,
CM and GM. RV can occur on various land-use categories. By definition, WDR can only occur on lands that are
not already subject to one of the other Article 3.4 or Article 3.3 activities. The area subject to FM can bedifferent, where this occurs usually smaller, than the area of managed forest under UNFCCC reporting because (i)countries could use different thresholds for defining forests for the KP and UNFCCC reporting, and (ii) Article
3.4 requires that the management activity took place since 1990. Parties are encouraged to adopt definitions ofland use and Article 3.4 activities which are consistent with each other. It is acknowledged that this may not be
possible in all circumstances. For further discussion of this possible definitional difference see Figure 2.7.1 andaccompanying text in Section 2.7.2 (Choice of Methods for identifying lands subject to FM). Emissions andremovals on unmanaged forests that remain unmanaged are included in neither UNFCCC nor KP reporting. The
area of unmanaged land is reported under UNFCCC, and should, for example, a human-induced deforestation
event occur in unmanaged forests, the associated emissions would be reported as D event under Article 3.3, or in
the case of drainage of a natural wetland to cropland, the emissions could be reported under CM or WDR. Lands
for which emissions from natural disturbances are not reported (see Section 2.3.9 for additional requirements)
need to be identified separately for both FM and AR lands (“ND” in Figure 2.1.2). Lands that are used toestablish a CEFC include both the land area that was harvested and converted to non-forest land, CEF-hc and thepreviously non-forest land on which the equivalent plantation was newly established, CEF-ne and both of these
are reported in FM, (see Section 2.7.7 for additional requirements).

1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323

Although, for KP reporting lands subject to CM can be similar to Cropland/arable/tillage lands in UNFCCC
reporting, flexibility exists especially with regard to woody crops. In cases where there is conversion of forest
land to cropland, these lands are reported under Article 3.3 D. Where GM is elected and CM is not, land subject
to conversion from GM to Cropland during the CP continues to be reported (and hence accounted) under GM
because land cannot transition from an elected to an unelected Article 3.4 activity. The same argument is valid
in the situation where there is a transition from CM to GM and CM is elected while GM is not.

1324
1325
1326

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

1327
1328

Lands subject to AR are always managed forests but carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions are to
be reported under Article 3.3 (AR) only.

1329

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

1330

2.12

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

2.2

GENERIC METHODOLOGIES FOR AREA
IDENTIFICATION, STRATIFICATION ANDREPORTING

1334

2.2.1

Reporting requirements

1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342

Decisions 2/CMP.7 and 2/CMP.8 state that those areas of land subject to Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities must be
identifiable3, adequately reported4 and tracked over time.5 Section 2.2.2 discusses two land reporting methods
that can be applied to all Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities. Section 2.2.3 introduces the additional reporting
requirements arising from accounting provisions for the second CP. Section 2.2.4 discusses how the tworeporting methods can draw on the three Approaches presented in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines, Section 2.2.5 provides a decision tree for selecting one of the two reporting methods, and Section
2.2.6 includes a more detailed discussion of how lands subject to Articles 3.3 and 3.4 can be identified, so thatthe requirements of either Reporting Method can be satisfied.

1343

2.2.2

1331
1332
1333

1344

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

1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350

The reporting requirements set out in Decision 2/CMP.8 seek to avoid double counting of land areas and ensurecompleteness in land identification and consistency in reporting. The general information to be reported on
activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 shall 6 include the geographical boundaries of areas encompassing land
subject to AR, D, FM and lands subject to elected CM, GM, RV and WDR activities. To achieve this, and basedon national circumstances such as the characteristics of existing forest inventory systems and the size of thecountry, a Party may choose one of two methods (Figure 2.2.1):

1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357

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

3

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

4

Paragraph 2 of Annex II to Decision 2/CMP.8
General information to be reported for activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, forest management under Article 3,
paragraph 4, and any elected activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, shall include: […](b) The geographical location of the boundaries of the areas that encompass:(i) Units of land subject to activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, of the Kyoto Protocol;(ii) Units of land subject to activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, of the Kyoto Protocol which would otherwise be
included in land subject to forest management or elected activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto
Protocol under the provisions of decision 2/CMP.7, annex, paragraph 9;(iii) Land subject to forest management under Article 3, paragraph 4, in the second commitment period and to any
elected activities under Article 3, paragraph 4; […](c) The spatial assessment unit used for determining the area of accounting for afforestation, reforestation and deforestation;
5

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

6

See paragraph 2 of Annex II to Decision 2/CMP.8

Draft KP Supplement

2.13

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
1358
1359

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

1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365

For Reporting Method 1, depending on the size of the country and the ecological and climate variability within
the country, it is good practice to select the number of geographic areas for which the geographic boundaries ofland are defined with the goals to reduce heterogeneity and to increase accuracy and reporting transparency.
Thus, to maintain transparency and reduce uncertainty, unless the country is relatively small, it is good practice
to define the boundaries of more than one geographic area and for relatively large countries it is good practice tolimit the number of geographic areas. The choice of the number of reporting areas affects uncertainty estimates.

1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373

To implement Reporting Method 1, it is good practice to define and report the geographic boundaries withcomplete coverage and without gaps or overlaps. Criteria for delineating reporting regions within the country
could include statistical considerations for the sampling intensity or sampling approaches, considerations of thetype and amount of KP activities, as well as ecological or administrative considerations. Within each resulting
geographic boundary lands subject to Article 3.3, FM or other elected Article 3.4 activities will then bequantified using the approaches described in Chapter 3 (Section 3.3 Representing land-use areas), Volume 4 ofthe 2006 IPCC Guidelines, in accordance with the guidance in Section 2.2.3, as well as the methods in Sections
2.2.6 (generic methods) and 2.5 to 2.12 (activity-specific methods) of this supplement.

1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382

To implement Reporting Method 2, a country should identify and report the spatial location of all lands based on
a complete mapping of all areas within its national boundary. This is described in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines as the wall-to-wall mapping version of Approach 3 (see also Section 2.2.4.3). This
Reporting Method uniquely identifies lands and enables activities to be reported without the risk of double
counting area. To put this Reporting Method fully into practice requires large-scale data collection and analysis,
and the preparation of statistics, which summarise the detailed, polygon or pixel-level information, to ensure thatreporting is transparent yet concise. Digital maps, which in practice will not be included in the National
Inventory Reports (NIR), can be made available to Expert Review Teams who can then verify completeness oftime series and of spatial coverage.

1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392

Examples of national implementations of Reporting Methods 1 and 2 are Canada and Australia, respectively. In
Canada the land area is stratified into 18 reporting zones based on the Terrestrial Ecozone classification system.
Fifteen of these zones contain some 230 million hectares of Managed Forest for which emissions and removals
are estimated (Stinson et al., 2011). The underlying analyses of C stocks are based on forest inventory andactivity data compiled for over 500 forest management units, but within each of these geographic boundaries theexact location of each forest polygon is not included in the analyses. Australia’s National Carbon Accounting
System uses a wall-to-wall, spatially-explicit approach to estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2
emissions. Time series of Landsat images are used to determine land cover and land-use changes and to inform
estimates of carbon stocks and stock changes (Richards and Brack, 2004; Waterworth and Richards, 2008).
Other country-specific examples can be found in national inventory reports from the UNFCCC website7.

1393

Figure 2.2.1

Two reporting methods for land subject to KP Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities

A geographic boundary encompasses land
subject to multiple activities

A geographic boundary encompasses land only
subject to a single activity

A: Afforestation
R: Reforestation
D: Deforestation

FM: Forest Management
CM: Cropland Management
GM: Grazing land Management
RV: Revegetation
WDR: Wetland Drainage and Rewetting

White areas show other lands or other land-uses

1394
1395
1396
7

http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/7383.php

2.14

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402

With either Reporting Method, once land is reported as being subject to activities specified under the KP, it isgood practice that the land be traceable for the first and second CP. Therefore, if a Party chooses Reporting
Method 1 and sampling, it is good practice to record the information needed to identify the sample locations andthe lands identified in the samples, and to use the same sample locations for any future monitoring. This ensuresthat land-use changes identified by sample plots (Reporting Method 1) or in the entire country (Reporting
Method 2) can be tracked and monitored from 1990 to the end of the CP.

1403
1404

It is good practice to report, using printed or digital maps, as described in Section 2.4.4.1 (Reporting), thegeographic boundaries resulting from the stratification of the country.

1405

2.2.3

1406

Reporting Methods for lands subject to additional
accounting provisions for CP2

1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412

This Section is only applicable to countries that choose the special accounting provisions of Decision 2/CMP.7
to make use of the natural disturbances (ND) or Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion (CEFC) provisions.
Decision 2/CMP.7 introduced additional reporting requirements for (1) the georeferenced locations of forest
areas subject to ND for which emissions and subsequent removals are excluded from the accounting8 and (2) thegeoreferenced locations of forest plantations converted to other land uses for which a carbon-equivalent forest
was established on non-forest land and the georeferenced locations of these carbon-equivalent forests9.

1413
1414
1415
1416

Georeferenced locations of areas affected by ND are required to ensure that subsequent removals from theseareas are excluded from the accounting and to track whether or not these areas have been converted to non-forest
land uses (deforestation) in the second CP after the natural disturbance. If land-use change does occur then theemissions from the natural disturbance also have to be reported and accounted as D land.

1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422

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

1423
1424
1425
1426
1427

Decision 2/CMP.7 requires that the georeferenced locations are reported for cases where certain plantations are
harvested and converted to non-forest land and subsequently non-forest land in another location is planted toestablish a carbon equivalent forest. The georeferenced locations of both the converted plantation and the newly
established plantation are to be reported. The associated emissions and removals are reported under FM (Article
3.4). See Section 2.7.7 for additional requirements associated with the establishment of carbon equivalent forests.

1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433

These new reporting requirements imply that for countries that make use of the additional accounting provisions(exclusion of ND emissions and CEFC) Reporting Method 1 can only meet the reporting requirements if
additional, georeferenced information about specific land areas within the geographic boundaries is provided.
Two methodological approaches are available: either, mapping and ongoing monitoring of lands subject to the
ND provisions to determine whether subsequent deforestation has occurred; or all lands that are subject todeforestation events are assessed to determine whether these lands are also subject to the ND provisions.

1434

2.2.4

1436

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

1437
1438
1439
1440
1441

Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Consistent representation of lands) describes three
Approaches to representing land area. The detailed reporting requirements of Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the KP as
elaborated in Chapter 3 are met by the two Reporting Methods described in this chapter. This section,summarised in Table 2.2.1, discusses which of the three Approaches are suitable for identifying lands subject to
Article 3.3, FM or elected Article 3.4 activities.

1435

8

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

9Paragraphs 37 – 39 in Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 outline all requirements that must be met for this provision. See also
Decision 2/CMP.8

Draft KP Supplement

2.15

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447

The following three Approaches are explained in more detail in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. Approach 1 identifies the total change in area for each individual land-use category within a country,
but does not provide information on the nature and area of conversions between land uses. Approach 2
introduces tracking of land-use conversions between categories (but is not spatially explicit), therefore does notallow to track such conversions over time. Approach 3 is characterized by spatially-explicit observations of landuse categories and land-use conversions.

1448
1449

Table 2.2.1 describes the three Approaches which will be described in the subsequent sections, and relations
between Approaches and Reporting Methods.
TABLE 2.2.1
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN APPROACHES IN CHAPTER 3 OF 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES
AND REPORTING METHODS IN THIS REPORT
Chapter 3
Approaches

Reporting Method 1(Broad area identification)

Reporting Method 2(Complete identification)

Approach 1
Total land-use area, nodata on conversions
between land uses

Can only be used if additional spatial information
is available by re-analysing existing inventories
with reference to boundaries of geographic areas
or from sampling programs.

Not applicable

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

Can only be used if additional spatial information
is available by re-analysing existing inventories
with reference to boundaries of geographic areas
or from sampling programs.

Not applicable

Approach 3
Spatially explicit landuse conversion data

Good practiceThis is good practice if spatial resolution is fineenough to represent minimum forest area.
Involves aggregating data within the reported
geographic boundaries.

Good practiceThis is good practice if spatial
resolution is fine enough torepresent minimum forest area.

1450
1451

2.2.4.1

1452

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

1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464

Approach 1 described in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines provides information that is not
spatially explicit and it only reports the net changes in the areas of different land-use categories. Hence, thisapproach does not meet the land identification requirements of Decisions 16/CMP.1 and 2/CMP.7. National
inventory databases are often compiled from detailed inventories that can be based, for example, on sampling
approaches that involve a grid or sample plot system. In countries where this is the case, it may be possible to reanalyse the detailed inventory information with reference to the geographical boundaries, which have resulted
from the stratification of the country, to meet the reporting requirements of the KP. Inventories based on
georeferenced permanent sample plots are suitable to detect land–use conversion. This means that Approach 1
can only be applied to Reporting Method 1 if additional spatial data at the required spatial resolution areavailable as a result of re-analysing the inventory information or from other sources, and if additional
information is available to quantify the gross land-use transitions (rather than the net changes in land-use
categories).

1465

2.2.4.2

1466

APPROACH 2: TOTAL LAND-USE AREA, INCLUDINGCHANGES BETWEEN CATEGORIES

1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476

Approach 2 focuses on land-use transitions and provides an assessment of both the net losses or gains in the areaof specific land-use categories and what these conversions represent (i.e., changes both from and to a category).
The final result of this Approach can be presented as land-use conversion matrix that is not spatially explicit.
Thus, Approach 2 differs from Approach 1 in that it includes information on conversions between categories, but
is still only tracking those changes without spatially-explicit location data, which means that the Approach does
not allow tracking of conversions between land-use categories. Hence, additional spatial information at therequired spatial resolution is necessary to meet the reporting requirements of Decisions 16/CMP.1 and 2/CMP.7.
This Approach can therefore only be used to identify lands subject to activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 if
additional data are available that allow tracking lands, and land-use changes, over time possibly on a statisticalbasis. As with Approach 1, it may be possible to apply Approach 2 to Reporting Method 1 if additional spatial

2.16

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

1477
1478

data at the required spatial resolution become available from re-compiling the inventory information or othersources.

1479

2.2.4.3

1480

APPROACH 3: SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT LAND-USE
CONVERSION DATA

1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486

Approach 3 is characterized by spatially-explicit observations of land-use categories and land-use conversions,
often tracking patterns at specific point locations and/or using gridded map products, such as derived fromremote sensing imagery. The data may be obtained by various sampling, wall-to-wall mapping techniques, or
combination of the two methods. This Approach is applicable to Reporting Methods 1 and 2 (Section 2.2.2), as
long as the spatial resolution is fine enough to represent the minimum forest area as defined by the Party underDecision 2/CMP.7 and its precursors.

1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494

Note that even the most data-intensive Approach 3 can only be sufficient without supplemental information if
the spatial resolution at which land-use changes are tracked is consistent with the size parameter selected by acountry to define forest, i.e., polygon sizes of 0.05 to 1 ha or pixels of 22.4 to 100 m (see STEP 1.1 in Section
1.2). Mapping land cover and land-use using, for example, 1 km2 (100 ha) pixel resolution may not meet the KP
requirements because land-use change at finer resolution may not be detected. A well designed sample-based
approach (Magnussen et al. 2005) at the appropriate spatial resolution may therefore yield more accurate
estimates than a wall-to-wall map at 1 km2 resolution which may miss many small land-use change events.
Sample-based approaches can provide the required supplemental information.

1495

2.2.5

1496
1497
1498
1499
1500

It is good practice to choose an appropriate Reporting Method using the decision tree in Figure 2.2.2. National
circumstances may enable a country to use a combination of both Reporting Methods. In such a case, it is goodpractice to first stratify the entire country and then to quantify and report the area of land using Reporting
Method 1. Within those geographical boundaries where data for complete spatial identification of lands areavailable, Reporting Method 2 can then be applied.

1501
1502
1503
1504

As outlined in Section 2.2.3, additional georeferenced information is required for areas subject to ND and CEFC
provisions. For either Reporting Method, this additional information could be reported using time series of maps
or tables containing the georeferenced information about the location of these lands. See also the Reporting
Tables presented in Annex 2A.1 to this document.

Choice of Reporting Method

Draft KP Supplement

2.17

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
1505
1506

Figure 2.2.2

Decision tree for choosing a Reporting Method for land subject to activities
under Articles 3.3 and 3.4
Does yourcountry use Approach 3 fornational UNFCCC
reporting?

Yes

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

Estimate area ofland under
Articles 3.3 and3.4 within eachgeographic
reportingboundaryNo

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

No

Yes
Use Reporting Method 1

Is fine-scalespatial informationof lands under
Articles 3.3 and 3.4
available?

Yes
Use Reporting Method 2

1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516

When using Reporting Method 1 it is usually good practice to use the same geographical boundaries for all
activities. This will greatly facilitate the identification, quantification, and reporting of land-use changes.
National circumstances may provide justification for different choices of geographic boundaries for different
activities, e.g. different geographic boundaries may be chosen to reduce the variance of estimates for one activity
within a given boundary. When a Party uses more than one set of geographic boundaries (i.e., more than one
stratification system is used), lands subject to Article 3.3 or 3.4 activities that transition from one category toanother must be appropriately assigned to the correct geographical boundary. This might require proportional
allocation of the land to each stratification system in use.

1517

2.2.6

How to identify lands in general1518

2.2.6.1

1520

SPATIAL CONFIGURATION OF FORESTS AND
AFFORESTATION, REFORESTATION OR
DEFORESTATION EVENTS

1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530

Each Annex I Party to the KP has chosen country-specific parameters within the definition of forest for their KP
reporting. This required selecting values for the following three parameters: the size of the minimum area ofland that can constitute a forest, ranging between 0.05 and 1 ha, and parameters for minimum crown cover (orequivalent stocking level) of more than 10 – 30% and tree height at maturity (2 – 5 m). The parameter for theminimum area of land that constitutes a forest effectively also specifies the minimum area on which land-use
change events occur (i.e. AR, D, or CEFC) and for those areas where natural forests are converted to planted
forest. Thus a country that selects, for example 0.5 ha as the minimum area of forest land, must also identify allland-use change events that occur on lands that are 0.5 ha or larger. The identification of lands on which land-use
changes occur, such as deforestation, requires the detection of a direct human-induced reduction in tree crowncover from above to below the country-specific threshold of forest, accompanied by a change in land-use.

1519

2.18

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538

The CMP decisions do not specify the shape of areas, neither for forest, nor for those areas on which land-use
change events occur. However, the GPG-LULUCF specified that it is good practice to define a minimum width
in conjunction with a minimum area. Square areas that meet the 0.05 to 1 ha range would be 22.36 m to 100 m
on each side. But a rectangle that is 10 m wide and 1,000 m long is also 1 ha in area, as is a 5 m wide and 2,000m long rectangle. Therefore, a treed shelterbelt or any other strip of trees that exceeds the minimum width andarea defined by the country can be considered a forest and any forest cleared for "linear events" that exceed theminimum width and area, such as roads, transmission right-of-ways, or pipeline corridors are considered
deforestation. When such clearing has occurred since 1 January 1990, it is treated as D under Article 3.3.

1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546

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

1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555

It is therefore good practice for countries to include, within their report on the choice of forest definitions, adescription of the definitional criteria which are used to identify forests and areas on which land-use change
occur. It is also good practice to apply these criteria consistently to the identification of land-use change events
that have occurred since 1990, or the start of the second CP for conversion of natural forests to planted forests
and CEFC. For instance, these criteria can simply be defined as the minimum width that will be accepted for a
forest and an area subject to a land-use change event. Then the minimum length of the area follows from the
combination of width and the chosen parameter for minimum area which can constitute a forest. For example, if
the size were defined as 1 ha, with a minimum width of 20 m, then a rectangle of minimum width has to be atleast 500 m long to meet the 1 ha size requirement.

1556
1557
1558
1559
1560

It is good practice to report as FM the impacts on carbon stock changes of "linear clearing events" narrower than
the selected minimum width criterion for deforestations events. Examples of such clearing events can include
skid sites, forest roads, or seismic lines. Similarly, it is good practice to report the carbon stock changes inshelterbelts that are narrower than the selected minimum width criterion and are therefore not forest, if theseshelterbelts are within lands subject to elected CM, GM, RV or WDR activities.

1561

2.2.6.2

1562
1563

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

1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570

The needs for the reporting of lands subject to activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 and other reporting
requirements have been outlined in the previous sections. The data and information available to a country tomeet these needs will depend largely on national circumstances, including the investments made into theappropriate national GHG inventory systems, for monitoring, reporting, and verifying emissions and removals.
These include the land and forest inventory systems already in place and the additional measures a country
chooses to implement to meet the reporting requirements. The data and the acquisition methods must ensure thatthey are reliable, well documented methodologically, at an appropriate scale, and from reputable sources.

1571
1572

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

1573



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

1574
1575



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

1576
1577
1578
1579



To implement a system by which land management activities are reported to government agencies, e.g. an
incentive program could be established that encourages land managers to report AR activities that are
difficult to detect through remote sensing, in particular in regions with slow growth rates, such as boreal
forests. To ensure integrity, such a reporting system should include verification and auditing procedures.

1580
1581
1582
1583
1584

It is likely that in most countries the existing forest inventory systems will be combined with additional sourcesof information and in-country monitoring activities to meet all the land reporting requirements of the KP, andthat, with varying degrees of incremental efforts, additional information will need to be obtained throughmonitoring or in-country reporting systems. The optimum approach to obtaining the required data may involve
combinations of the three options. For example, national forest inventory systems with 5 to 10-year periodic re-Draft KP Supplement

2.19

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591

measurement intervals may not be adequate to meet the reporting needs on annual area disturbed by wildfires,and the associated non-CO2 emissions. Data from fire monitoring systems could be used to augment the
information obtained from forest inventories. Data from forest management records could be used to estimate
non-CO2 emissions associated with fertilization. Or a country could determine that it would be most efficient to
combine an activity reporting system to identify lands subject to AR (which can be difficult to detect using
remote sensing in regions with slow growth rates), and a monitoring system to identify lands subject to D (which
are more readily detected).

1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601

Remotely sensed data are increasingly contributing to land cover and land-use monitoring, to forest inventory
systems, and to activity reporting systems as data for certain sensors become cheaper or freely available, and ascomputing power and algorithms are improving. Nevertheless, considerable efforts, infrastructure and expertiseare required to process the large volumes of remote sensing data and to derive estimates of carbon stock changes
and non-CO2 GHG emissions and removals from the remotely sensed data on land cover and land-use changes.
In particular estimates of GHG emissions and removals associated with belowground biomass, dead organic
matter and soil organic matter, which are carbon pools that cannot be directly inferred from remote sensing ofland surface characteristics, will require additional efforts and investment. The use of remote sensing to construct
and assess forest attribute maps is described by McRoberts et al. (2010) and McRoberts and Walters (2012).
Information about the use of FAO data in GHG inventory preparation can be found in IPCC (2010b).

1602
1603

USE OF EXISTING INVENTORIES

1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615

Countries that maintain detailed forest and other land-use inventories or collect annual or periodic spatial land
statistics may be able to identify lands affected by Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities since 1990 from their inventories.
This, however, will only be possible if the national inventory and data collection systems meet stringent
technical requirements. The systems should be able to define the land use and forest area in 1990, have an update
cycle that is sufficiently short to capture land-use change events between relevant periods (1990-2007, 20082012, and 2013-2020) and be of sufficient spatial resolution to identify events of the size of the minimum forest
area chosen by the country, i.e., 1 ha or smaller. Also, the sample plots within a “boundary” need to begeoreferenced and used repeatedly during future monitoring to allow tracking of land over time. If the latter is
not possible, e.g., because monitoring procedures were changed, it is good practice to develop computational
procedures, which allow conversion of data between the sampling schemes or, at least to have a method, whichallows to map the data from a previous to a successor sampling scheme (see also Sections 2.4.1 Developing aconsistent time series and 2.4.2 Recalculation).

1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638

If countries use Approach 3 to carry out inventories, with spatially-explicit and complete geographicalinformation of land use and land-use change, the inventories will be sufficient to meet the reporting requirements
provided that the minimum grid or mapped polygon meets the area criterion selected to define forest. Forest
inventories in large countries often do not record polygons (i.e. the minimum mapping unit) less than, forexample, 3 ha in size. The requirement to identify AR and D or natural forests to planted forest conversion
events at a resolution of 0.05 to 1 hectares can be met, however, with additional statistical analyses to establish
the area subject to AR and D or conversion of natural forests to planted forests events that occurred in units lessthan 3 ha in size. One possible approach could be to determine the size-class distributions of AR and D events inthe country, using a statistical sampling approach. The proportion of the area of AR and of D events that is
between 0.05 – 1 ha and the minimum mapping unit in the inventory (in this example 3 ha) can then be applied
to estimate the area of AR and D events from the 3-ha resolution inventory. For example, if the 3-ha resolution
inventory shows that there have been 1,000 ha of AR events in units of 3 ha or larger, and the sample-based sizeclass distribution of AR events shows that on average 5% of the AR events is in areas of size between 0.05 – 1
ha and 3 ha, then the 1,000 ha represent 95% of the total AR area (and the total is estimated to be 1,000 • 100/95= 1,052.6 ha). It is good practice to document the statistical validity of the sample-based size-class distribution,and its regional and temporal variation. It is also good practice to avoid double counting when combining two
different sources. Note that this approach to augmenting existing inventory information also has implications forthe determination of carbon stock changes: since these 5% of the area are not geographically referenced, only
statistical methods such as regional averages can be used to determine their carbon stock changes and trace theirfate, once they are included under Article 3.3 or 3.4, over time. An alternative approach would be to collect thedata regarding AR, D or conversion of natural forests to planted forests in areas of size between 0.05 – 1 ha and3 ha through activity reporting but countries would need to ensure completeness and collect georeferenced
information (see below).

1639
1640
1641
1642

Additional monitoring and data compilation may be required to meet the reporting requirements for land-use
changes, conversion of natural forests to planted forests, WDR, and activities such as salvage logging and landuse conversion of lands affected by natural disturbances for which the emissions were not included in theaccounting.

2.20

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648

Countries that choose an inventory-based approach for the identification of lands subject to AR activities canface the challenge that non-forest areas are not usually included in the forest inventory. In this case, countries
must ensure that their inventory system detects land-use transitions from non-forest to forest and expands theforest inventory into the newly created forest area. Some countries monitor changes from non-forest to forest bymeans of remote sensing of lands not previously covered by the forest inventory or by maintaining inventory
plots on non-forest land.

1649
1650

MONITORING AND MEASUREMENT OF ACTIVITIES

1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658

To meet the reporting requirements of Articles 3.3 and 3.4, countries may have to develop and implement amonitoring system for the identification and recording of land use and land-use change. Such a monitoring
system could combine a base map (or other sources of spatial information) on forest area and land use on 31
December 1989 with spatial data on land-use and forest area in subsequent years. Changes in land-use and forest
area can then be inferred from a time series of spatial data. This may require interpolation, for example where abase map has been derived from composite satellite images obtained over several years, as is often the casewhere cloud cover, sensor failures, or other technical reasons make it impossible to obtain national coverage fora single point in time.

1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664

Some events, such as the conversion of natural forest to planted forest, or salvage logging following natural
disturbances, are rarely spatially and temporally explicitly documented in inventories. The monitoring of these
events is important, and the monitoring time interval should be short enough to capture relevant changes.
Remote sensing monitoring can be useful, especially in large or remote areas, due to its potentially high temporal
resolution and cost-effectiveness. However, remote sensing data and their results need to be validated against in
situ data to reduce uncertainties.

1665
1666
1667
1668
1669

In many countries repeated complete (wall-to-wall) coverage of the entire country is not feasible on an annual
basis. When implementing temporal and spatial sampling strategies, it is good practice to ensure that the
sampling methods are statistically sound, well-documented and transparent, and that estimates of uncertainty areprovided (Section 2.4.4 Uncertainty assessment). Appropriate pre-stratification of the country for which sample
estimates will be developed may reduce the uncertainty.

1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678

Recent advances, such as the release of the complete freely available Landsat archives, developments of newimage processing algorithms, and vast increases in computing power may enable the production of annual landcover change products at national, continental and global scales (Townshend et al., 2012). However, given that
land-use change often occurs on only a small fraction of the areas affected by land-cover change, additional
information and/or inferences may be required to ascertain whether a land-cover change represents a land-use
change (see step 1.2 in section 1.2). Moreover, special requirements such as the reporting of conversion ofnatural forests to planted forests will require additional data, for example to determine whether cover loss
occurred in natural forests and whether the regenerated forest is the result of planting. These and other special
requirements can be met through activity reporting (see below).

1679
1680
1681

Where the monitoring system generates georeferenced data for natural disturbance events, this information canalso be used to track subsequent events with reporting obligations, such as salvage logging of disturbed areas or
the conversion to non-forest land of disturbed areas for which emissions were not accounted.

1682
1683

ACTIVITY REPORTING

1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689

Identification of lands that are subject to activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 can be achieved through theimplementation of an activity reporting system. For example, since AR events are often difficult to detectthrough remote sensing and often occur outside the area of existing forest inventories, a country may choose to
identify these lands through an activity reporting system that encourages land managers who afforested nonforest land to report such activities to the appropriate national agency. Instead of trying to detect AR events frominventory or monitoring systems, countries can request those individuals or agencies to report the AR activities.

1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696

Activity reporting may also be most efficient where information about land use is required that may not bereadily determined from remote sensing, such as CM, or GM. Activity reporting may also be important for theattribution of land-cover change, including RV, and to identify where observed conversions to and from forest
are linked through the provision of CEFC. Reporting systems can usefully include spatial databases that facilitate
the compilation of the pertinent activity information. It is good practice to include the location and the area of
the activity, and information relevant to the estimation of carbon stock changes, such as site preparation methods,
tree species planted, and the projected and actual carbon stocks for the land.

1697
1698

Activity reporting may be necessary for the identification of AR, D, conversion of natural forests to planted
forests, or CEFC where the area of the activity is larger than the minimum area selected for the forest definition

Draft KP Supplement

2.21

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
1699
1700
1701

under the KP but is smaller than the minimum mapping unit in the forest inventory and may therefore goundetected. Coupled with high resolution remote sensed images, activity reporting can provide georeferenced
information and detailed description of land cover change for small areas and sample plots.

1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708

It is good practice for countries that rely on activity reporting systems, to put into place methods for internal
auditing and verification to ensure that activities are neither over- nor underreported. Administrative information
on programmes or subsidies for AR activities alone may not include information on plantation establishment
success. Spatially explicit information, i.e., either the delineation of the lands, or references to a country’s
national map grid coordinates (e.g., UTM, Universal Transverse Mercator) or legal description of the land
subject to an activity, are required for the domestic audit and verification procedures applied to a reporting
system.

1709
1710
1711

Detailed guidance for identifying lands is provided in the following sections: Section 2.3.9.2 (ND), Section 2.5.2(AR), Section 2.6.2 (D), Section 2.7.2 (FM), Section 2.7.7 (CEFC), Section 2.9.3 (CM), Section 2.10.3 (GM),
Section 2.11.3 (RV), and Section 2.12.2 (WDR).

1712
1713

2.3

1714
1715

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

1716
1717
1718

Once the areas subject to activities under Articles 3.3, and 3.4 have been determined, the carbon stock changes
and non-CO2 GHG emissions on these areas must be estimated following the methods outlined in the Wetlands
Supplement and this KP Supplement.

1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728

Coverage of activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 requires an estimation of all carbon stock changes, andemissions and removals of non-CO2 GHGs from all lands subject to the included activities and for all carbon
pools with discretionary omission of those that are not a source of carbon, with higher-tier methods used for key
categories. Parties do not have discretion in the exclusion of the HWP pool10. The GHG emissions and removals
will be estimated regardless of their cause, such as growth, decomposition, harvest, natural disturbances, or theestablishment of equivalent forest. In the case of natural disturbances on AR or FM lands, the emissions andremovals shall be estimated and reported11 but countries can elect to exclude these emissions and subsequent
removals from the accounting in years where the emissions from disturbances are above the background levelplus the margin (See Section 2.3.9.6 for details). The carbon stock changes, and emissions and removals of nonCO2 GHGs for which a Party elected to apply the CEFC, need to be reported and accounted under FM.

1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737

The methodology used to estimate carbon stock changes and GHG emissions and removals for any particular
year depends on the land use in the current and in prior years, because shifts in categories or land uses can occur
over time. Therefore, different methodologies may be applied to different lands reported within one Article 3.3
or Article 3.4 activity.12 The methodology used to calculate GHG emissions or removals associated at a given
year should correspond to the actual land use on that land in that year, supplemented by additional
methodologies to account for past land uses and changes in land use, where appropriate. If the land in the current
year is not subject to an Article 3.3 activity, FM or an elected Article 3.4 activity, and if a reporting requirement
was not established through such activities in prior years, then the emissions and removals for that land are notreported under the KP.

1738
1739
1740
1741

The generic methods of estimating the carbon stock changes, for all pools to be reported (see below), aredescribed in Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. This section provides supplementary guidance
applicable to all activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4. Guidance for specific activities can be found in Sections
2.5 to 2.12. Methodological updates for mineral and organic soils13 include:

1742

10

Paragraph 26 in Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7

11

Paragraph 33 in Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7

12

For example, two lands may both be in the cropland management activity. However, one of them may have resulted fromgrassland conversion into cropland, the other from continuing cropland management, so that the GHG assessment methods
need to take account of differing values of soil carbon resulting from their different management histories.

13

Definitions of mineral and organic soils are provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines - Annex 3A.5, Default climate and soil
classifications

2.22

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749

Mineral Soils
The inventory calculations are based on land area and lands that can be stratified by climate regions and default
soils types as shown in Table 2.3, Chapter 2, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines. This table presents default
reference (under native vegetation) soil organic carbon stocks for mineral soils (tonnes C ha-1 in 0-30 cm depth).
Countries following Tier 2 methods may also refer to data provided in Batjes (2011). It is good practicewhenever possible to verify soil carbon stock reference values by comparison with results from fieldmeasurements.

1750
1751
1752
1753

Organic soils
The Wetlands Supplement contains updated and new methodological guidance for estimating GHG emissions
and removals from drained and rewetted organic soils.

1754
1755

2.3.1

1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761

The 2006 IPCC Guidelines provide methodologies for the estimation of the carbon stocks and stock changes infive carbon pools: above and below-ground biomass, dead wood, litter and soil organic carbon. (Table 1.1,
Chapter 1, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines). Decision 2/CMP.7 introduced the additional requirement to reportand account for the storage of carbon in HWPs (see Section 2.8). Decreases in one pool may be offset byincreases in another pool, e.g., biomass pools decline after a disturbance but litter and dead wood pools canincrease. Thus the change in a single pool can be greater than the net change in the sum of the pools.

1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772

Once the individual pools have been estimated and reported for a specific area, the sum of the carbon stockincreases or decreases in the five pools and HWP is calculated. Any net decrease in carbon stocks is converted tothe equivalent CO2 emission in the reporting tables (see the Annex to this Chapter) and any net increase isreported as the equivalent CO2 removal. Carbon stock changes are converted to CO2 emissions and removals by
multiplying the net carbon stock change by 44/12 (the stochiometric ratio of CO2 and C) and by changing thesign: a decrease in carbon stocks (negative sign) leads to an emission to the atmosphere (positive sign) and viceversa. Chapter 1 in Volume 4 in 2006 IPCC Guidelines provides clear definitions of carbon pools (see Table 1.1).
If national circumstances require modifications to those definitions, rationale and documentation should be
provided for these modifications and on the criteria used to distinguish between carbon pools. It is good practiceto provide such information on both the individual pools included in the reporting, and on the total carbon stockchange of the six pools, including HWP.

1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779

Decision 2/CMP.7 specifies that a Party may choose not to account for a given pool, except for HWP, in a CP, if
transparent and verifiable information is provided that the pool is not a source,14 although once a pool has been
included in the Forest Management Reference Level (FMRL) inscribed in the Appendix to Decision 2/CMP.7,
for consistency reasons it is good practice to report this pool during the CP, irrespective of the pool being a sinkor a source (see section 2.7.5.2). Good practice in providing verifiable information, which demonstrates that
excluded pools, if any, are not a net source of GHGs, can be achieved by one or more of the four approaches
listed below:

1780
1781
1782



Representative and verifiable sampling and analysis to show that the pool has not decreased. It is goodpractice under this approach to measure the pool at enough sites, within regions, to provide statisticalconfidence, and to document the sampling and research methods;

1783
1784
1785
1786



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

1787
1788
1789



Surveys of peer-reviewed literature suitable for the activity, ecosystem type, region and pool in question (forexample, showing that in the climatic situation and with the soil types of the region, AR of cropland leads toincreases in soil organic carbon stocks); or

1790



Combined methods.

1791
1792

It is good practice to report, wherever it is applicable, levels of confidence in estimates that led to the exclusionof a pool, and how this level of confidence was established (see also Section 2.4.3 Uncertainty Assessment).

14

Pools to be reported

See paragraph 26 in Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7, contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1.

Draft KP Supplement

2.23

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
1793
1794

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

1795

2.3.2

1796

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

1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802

Decision 2/CMP.7 specifies that the carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions from land subject to Article
3.3 activities, FM and any elected activities under Article 3.4 be reported for each year of the CP15, beginningwith the start of the CP, or with the start of the activity, whichever is later. 16 Decision 2/CMP.7 also requires thateach area that was subject to reported activities during the first CP has to be reported during subsequent CPs andthe associated emissions and removals estimated, even if the area is no longer subject to any Article 3.3 or 3.4
activity.

1803
1804
1805
1806

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

1807
1808

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

1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814



For AR, D, FM and WDR (FM and WDR only, when a “narrow” approach - see section 1.2 - to theimplementation of their definition is applied) the area to be reported under the activity is the cumulative areaof lands subject, for the first time, to the activity since 199017, minus the area converted to other activities
according with the hierarchy among activities (see section 1.2) 18 . Although for each land carbon stockchanges and non-CO2 emissions have to be reported only since the year of the onset of the activity or thestart of the CP, whichever comes later.

1815
1816

BOX 2.3.1
EXAMPLE1817

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

1818• the first occurred in 2005, i.e. before the start of the first CP - and was 1,000 ha in size,1819• the second in 2010, i.e. during the first CP, was 2,000 ha in size,1820• the third in 2015, i.e. during the second CP, was 4,000 ha in size.

1821

This Party will report during the second CP:

1822
1823
1824

• for the first two years, i.e. 2013 and 2014, the total area deforested since 1990 until that date, i.e.
1,000 + 2,000 = 3,000 ha, and carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions that occurred on thoselands since the start of the second CP, i.e. 1 January 2013.

1825
1826
1827
1828
1829

• for the remaining years of the second CP, the total area deforested since 1990 until that date, i.e.
1,000 + 2,000 + 4,000 = 7,000 ha, and carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions that occurredsince the start of the second CP, i.e. 1 January 2013, on the 3,000 ha deforested before the start ofthe second CP plus carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions that occurred since 2015 on the
additional 4,000 ha deforested in that year.

1830
1831
1832
1833



For CM, GM and RV the area to be reported under the activity is the area that is subject to the activity since
the start of the CP in which the activity has been elected, minus the area converted to other activities
according with the hierarchy among activities (see section 1.2) 19 . Although for each land carbon stock15

See paragraph 2(d) in Annex II to Decision 2/CMP.8.

16

See paragraph 23 in Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7.

17

No lands are subject to KP activities before 1 January 1990.

18

Note that the area to be reported for estimating the base year for WDR is the area that is subject to drainage or rewetting in
the year of the commitment period that is accounted.

19Note that, for each activity, the area to be reported for estimating the base year is the area subject to the activity in the year
1990.

2.24

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841

changes and non-CO2 emissions have to be reported only since the year of the onset of the activity or thestart of the second CP, i.e. 1 January 2013, whichever comes laterFM and WDR, when a “broad” approach - see Section 1.2 - to the implementation of their definition isapplied, the area to be reported under the activity is the area that is subject to the activity in the year 1990
plus the cumulative area of lands subject to the activity after 1990, minus the area converted to otheractivities according with the hierarchy among activities (see section 1.2) 20. Although for each land carbon
stock changes and non-CO2 emissions have to be reported only since the year of the onset of the activity or
the start of the second CP, whichever comes later.

1842
1843
1844

BOX 2.3.2
EXAMPLE

1845
1846
1847
1848

A Party is reporting the entire national forest area as subject to FM. There is no deforestation andthe area subject to FM is continuously increasing during the three first years of the second CP due
to expansion of forest above the current timberline, adding 1,000 ha annually. The area reported
subject to FM activity at the beginning of the second CP is equal to 1,000,000 ha.

1849
1850

This Party will report during each year of the second CP an additional 1,000 ha of area subject toFM, so that at the end of:

1851
1852

• 2013 the area reported will be equal to 1,001,000 ha and associated carbon stock changes andnon-CO2 emissions, since the beginning of the year, will be reported;

1853
1854
1855
1856
1857

• 2014 the area reported will be equal to 1,002,000 ha: an initial area, 1,001,000 ha, subject to FM
since 2013 and 1,000 ha of new forest area subject to FM for the first time in this year. For the
initial area associated carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions, since 2013, will be reported.
For the new area associated carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions, since the beginning of2014, will be reported;

1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864

• 2015 the area reported will be equal to 1,003,000 ha: an initial area, 1,001,000 ha, subject to FM
since 2013, an additional area of 1,000 ha subject to FM for the first time in 2014 and a new forest
area subject to FM for the first time in this year. For the initial area associated carbon stocks
changes and non-CO2 emissions, since 2013, will be reported. For the area added in 2014
associated carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions, since 2014, will be reported. For the newarea associated carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions, since the beginning of 2015, will bereported;

1865
1866

For each following year the Party will report lands and associated carbon stock changes and nonCO2 emissions since the year in which the lands have been reported under FM for the first time.

1867
1868
1869
1870
1871

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

1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882

Each activity (AR, D, FM, CM, GM, RV, and WDR) may consist of a suite of practices and may begin with one
or several of these. For instance, an afforestation program may begin with planning, land purchase, producing
propagation material, etc. Practices like site preparation can also precede the planting or seeding (as a result of
which the land actually becomes a “forest”). Some of these practices do not affect carbon stocks (e.g. planning),
while others like site preparation may result in significant carbon, nitrous oxide or methane emissions. It is goodpractice to interpret the beginning of an activity as the start of in situ carbon stock change and/or non-CO2
emissions due to any of the suite of practices. For example, if an afforestation activity includes site preparation,then it is good practice to include carbon stock changes caused by site preparation. In order to do that, one caneither a) measure the carbon stocks on the land prior to the start of any operations related to the activity (in casecarbon stock changes are estimated using multiple stock measurements), or b) make sure that the estimate of thestock change includes an estimate of the losses resulting from these site preparation practices.

1883

20

Note that the area to be reported for estimating the base year for WDR is the area that is subject to drainage or rewetting in
the year of the commitment period that is accounted.

Draft KP Supplement

2.25

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

1885

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

1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893

The carbon stock-difference method outlined by the 2006 IPCC Guidelines21 requires information on carbon
stock for a given area, at two points in time. When using this method for a specific activity, it is important toensure that the area of land in that activity at times t1 and t2 is identical, to avoid confounding changes in stockcaused by area changes. Per unit of area at time t2, the annual stock change is the difference between the carbon
stock at time t2 and time t1, divided by the number of years between the inventories. If the forest area is changing,for example as a result of D, AR, or both, then carbon stock changes can occur as a result of the transfer of land
between UNFCCC or KP reporting categories (see Figure 11 in Kurz et al. 2009 for an example). Examples ofpossible approaches that can be implemented to address this issue are provided below.

1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908

Countries that use the IPCC stock-difference method for the calculation of stock changes22 need to ensure that
actual carbon stock changes are reported, and not artefacts resulting from changes in area over time. One
example that represents good practice is to implement the calculations of annual carbon stock changes whenusing any stock difference method in the following sequence: for any carbon pool of each activity, for each area,
the annual carbon stock change should first be calculated for the year of interest on the area at time t2, and thesestock changes should then be summed for all areas subject to the activity. The inverse sequence, i.e., firstsumming up carbon stocks across all areas of the activity at times t1 and t2 and then calculating the difference incarbon stocks, can result in errors if the total area at times t1 and t2 is not the same. Indeed, if the area subject toan activity increases from the beginning to the end of the reporting year, then the reported carbon stocks reflect
the transfer of area (and the associated carbon stocks) into the activity; similarly, carbon stocks will decrease, if
area is removed from an activity23. The issue is of particular concern when areas outside the reporting systementer into the reporting system. For example, if the stock-difference method is erroneously applied, the estimate
of C stock increase in soil organic matter of AR lands, which were previously unmanaged, will yield an apparent
increase in the estimate of soil C stocks due to the transfer of the entire existing soil organic matter C stock into
the AR accounting although this apparent increase does not correspond to C removals from the atmosphere.

1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915

It is good practice to distinguish clearly between C stock changes that result from area changes and theassociated transfers of C stocks among activities, and C stock changes that result in corresponding emissions toand removals from the atmosphere. It is therefore good practice to ensure that when using the stock-difference
method the area for the calculations of carbon stock differences for each activity at times t1 and t2 is identical.
Furthermore it is good practice to conduct all calculations of annual carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG
emissions with the area of the activity at the end of the inventory year - i.e. the area at time t2 in equation 2.5 ofChapter 2, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines - and to use this approach consistently through time.

1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923

When land-use change events occur, the associated fluxes are reported in the new land-use category. When using
Tier 3 models and the IPCC default (Gain-Loss) method for the calculation of stock changes24 it is good practiceto ensure that the land-category attribute in the model is updated to reflect the subsequent land-use change prior
to estimating any C stock impacts from the land-use change event. This ensures that all carbon stock changes andnon-CO2 emissions that occur during a year will be reported in the new category. (See Box 1 in Kurz et al. (2009)as an example of a Tier 3 modelling approach that implements the required change in the land-use category at
the start of the year, i.e. prior to estimating any carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions associated withland-use changes during that year).

1884

2.3.3

1924

21

Section 2.1.1, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

22

Section 2.1.1, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

23

Because of the obligation to keep reporting any area subject to any Article 3.3 or Article 3.4 activity at any point in time
during CPs, a decrease of the area reported under an activity may only happen as a consequence of a transfer of area toanother activity, e.g. decrease of area reported under FM because of D.

24

Section 2.1.1, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

2.26

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

1925
1926

BOX 2.3.3
EXAMPLE

1927
1928
1929

During a year of the CP the area of land reported under FM varies because new forest land (naturalforest expansion or previously unmanaged forest land that becomes subject to management) isadded to the FM area and because of deforestation activities:
At the start of year

At the end of year

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

1,000,000 ha

990,000 ha

Area of lands subject to FM converted to
non-forest land

0 ha

10,000 ha

Area of new forest lands subject to FM

0 ha

10,000 ha

1,000,000 ha

1,000,000 ha

Total area subject to FM
1930
1931

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

1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940

At the end of year

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

100 tC ha

105 tC ha-1

Average per hectare biomass carbon stockof new forest lands subject to FM

80 tC ha-1

84 tC ha-1

Average per hectare
biomass carbon stock in deforested lands

100 tC ha-1

20 tC ha-1

A correct procedure will calculate stock changes in the three land categories:- managed forest lands that were subject to FM since the beginning of the year,- forest lands where the FM activity started during the year,- managed forest lands subject to FM that were deforested and converted to cropland in theyear.
Then, the sum of stock changes calculated for the two types of lands subject to FM will be reported
under the FM activity, while the change in stock calculated for deforested land will be reported
under D (Article 3.3).
A. Total stock-change in area subject toFM that was subject to FM in theprevious year

990,000 ha * (105 – 100) tC ha-1 = 4,950,000 tC

B. Total stock-change in area subject to
FM for the first time in this year

10,000 ha * (84 – 80) tC ha-1 = 40,000 tC

C. Total stock-change in deforested areas

10,000 ha * (20 – 100) tC ha-1 = -800,000 tC

Total stock-change in FM areas (A+B)
Stock change reported in Forest Land
converted to Cropland under UNFCCC andin D under Article 3.3 (C)4,950,000 + 40,000 = 4,990,000 tC-800,000 t C

1941
1942
1943

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

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

C2 Total stock in land subject to FM at theend of year

990,000 ha * 105 tC ha-1 + 10,000 ha * 84 tC ha-1
= 103,950,000 + 840,000 = 104,790,000 tC

C2 - C1 – yields the incorrect result

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

1944

Draft KP Supplement

2.27

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
1945

2.3.4

1946

Relationship between measurement and reportingintervals

1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954

The CMP decisions specify that all emissions by sources and removals by sinks caused by Article 3.3, FM andelected Article 3.4 activities be reported annually. 25 A number of methods are available to obtain annual
estimates of emissions and removals and the annual reporting requirement does not imply that annual
measurements are necessary. This would be neither feasible nor cost-effective. In fact, although more frequent
measurement will generally decrease uncertainties, the opposite can also happen because of short-term
variability, as discussed in Section 2.3.5 (Interannual Variability). Carbon stock changes for pools with highuncertainties in stock estimates, e.g., soil organic carbon, are usually not detectable on an annual or short-termbasis (Saby et al. 2008).

1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964

Broadly speaking, when countries are developing and selecting methods to meet their reporting requirements, it
is good practice to seek a balance which is affordable, makes best use of data that are already available, allows
stock changes to be verified consistently with the approaches set out in Chapter 6, Volume 1, of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines (Section 6.10 Verification), and does not make GHG inventories susceptible to the impacts of annual
fluctuations in weather which can mask the impacts of changes in anthropogenic activities. Although Section
2.3.5 suggests that field data collection on a five-year cycle may represent a reasonable compromise, the remeasurement interval also depends on the pool and the magnitude of the expected changes relative to the spatial
variability in the pool and the uncertainties involved in pool size assessments. Data already available annually,such as planting or harvest statistics, may be combined with measurements conducted over longer time periods –which are less affected by annual fluctuations – or with data based on a five-year running mean.

1965
1966

2.3.5

Interannual variability

1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973

The two largest causes of actual interannual variability in GHG emissions and removals in the LULUCF Sector
are natural disturbances (such as fire, insects, windthrow, and ice storms) and climate variability (e.g.,temperature, precipitation, drought, and extreme events). Natural disturbances have large impacts per hectare in
the areas where they occur, while climate variability typically causes small changes per hectare but can affectlarge areas (Griffis et al., 2003; Kurz 2010; Richards 2010; Stinson et al. 2011; Li et al., 2011; Yasuda et al.,2012). Consequently, the rate of net GHG emissions or removals in a given area may vary from year to year,
and can shift between a net source and a net sink in successive years.

1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

The third cause of interannual variability in GHG emissions and removals is the variation in the rate of humanactivities, including forest harvesting, land use, and land-use change. Variations and trends in these humanactivities are of interest because they can demonstrate the consequences of climate mitigation efforts. Estimationof the impacts of human activities and their trends over time is the main purposes of national GHG inventories.
It is therefore good practice to reflect interannual variability and trends in rates of human activities in theinventories and to not use time-averaged activity data.

1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987

The ‘signal’ of the impact of human activities, including mitigation measures, on emissions and removals in the
LULUCF Sector, may not be discernible against the ‘noise’ of large interannual variability in emissions
originating from natural or indirect-human causes, because the impacts of natural disturbances and climate
variability can obscure trends in the impacts of human activities. The ability to discern the signal of changes inhuman activities from the noise of the interannual variability is, however, important when inventory estimates
are used to monitor the impacts of mitigation measures (IPCC, 2010a). The provision in Decision 2/CMP.7 thatenables countries to elect to exclude from the accounting emissions from certain natural disturbances (seeSection 2.3.9) removes some of the variability from indirect-human and natural factors.

1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994

The methodology used to calculate reported emissions and removals affects the extent to which these causes ofvariability are captured in the reporting. Lower tier methods are typically less affected by interannual variability
in non-anthropogenic drivers of GHG emissions and removals than higher tier methods. Lower tier methods inwhich estimates of emissions and removals are insensitive to variation or trends in climate or otherenvironmental conditions (such as atmospheric CO2 concentrations or N-deposition rates) are likely to estimate
lower interannual variability in emissions and removals than actually occurs. This is because IPCC default data(including those contained in the Emissions Factor Database26) have been calculated by averaging data collected
25

Note that although annual reporting is required, countries have the option to account either annually or over the entire
commitment period (see paragraph 1(h) in Annex I and paragraph 1 in Annex II to Decision 2/CMP.8).

26

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

2.28

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

1995
1996
1997

over time and space to estimate representative global, regional, and ecological factors. By averaging out time andspace variability Tier 1 methods that use these IPCC default factors do not reflect interannual variability fromnatural and indirect-human induced factors.

1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

In contrast, Tier 3 methods that use process models to calculate net primary production (NPP) and heterotrophic
respiration (Rh) as a function of environmental variability can report very high interannual variability inemissions and removals as a result of climate variability because these two fluxes (NPP and Rh) are very large.
This can introduce fluctuations in annual GHG inventories that can completely mask impacts of changes inhuman activities (Richards 2010). Forest inventory-based modelling approaches that implement the IPCC default
approach (gain-loss method) 27 and that use empirical yield tables, which are not affected by interannual
variability in climate, report lower interannual variability in GHG emissions and removals. Inventory-basedmodelling approaches represent interannual variability due to natural disturbances and human activity (e.g.
Stinson et al. 2011 show high interannual variability in emissions and removals due to variations in annual areaburned and insect infestations). Estimates of GHG emissions and removals derived from the stock-difference
method (calculating the difference in C stocks estimated from forest inventories at two points in time) report the
average annual net balance over the period between the first and second forest inventory. This approach averages
interannual variability and, without additional information, may not be able to attribute observed emissions andremovals to the drivers of emissions such as natural disturbances, environmental change or human activities.
Additional information could be derived from a continuous forest inventory design in which some data arecollected each year, or from supplementary statistics on area annually affected by disturbances.

2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020

Interannual variability can decrease as the geographical area considered increases. For example, the effects oflocal weather patterns may partially offset each other across a large country, but may be more pronounced in asmall country or within a small region of a country. There are, however, climatic processes that can synchronize
variations in weather over large regions (Ciais et al. 2005), such as global climate change or El Niño Southern
Oscillation (ENSO) events which typically occur on time scales of 3 to 7 years. Within limits, the longer themeasurement or estimation interval the more likely it is that the results will capture the true long-term averagevalue but averages can mask trends.

2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030

In addition to GHG emissions and removals during the CP, Decision 2/CMP.8 also requires estimation andreporting of GHG emissions and removals during the base year (1990 in most cases) for those elected activities
for which net-net accounting applies. The impact of this estimate for a single year could be large because it will
be compared against the estimates for each year in the CP in which this activity occurred. The direction andmagnitude of the impact depends on how the year 1990 deviated from the long-term emissions averages, e.g. as aresult of variability in natural disturbances or climate. It is good practice to use longer-term averages ofemissions and removals to represent the base year when environmental conditions in the base year (e.g., 1990)
caused major deviations in GHG emissions and removals from their longer-term (e.g., 5-year) averages,
However it is not good practice to use averages to even out the effects of management changes or variations in
the rate of human activities around the base year.

2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040

Because of interannual variability in environmental conditions, extrapolation from a single year may result inincorrect conclusions about long-term trends. Conversely, interpolation of long-term trends in, e.g. forest growth
rates may result in under- or overestimation of the actual growth in a single year. Forest growth functions andyield tables used in countries with forest management planning systems are based on measurements of periodic
growth (e.g., over 5 or 10-year re-measurement intervals) and therefore incorporate and average the impacts ofpast interannual variability of environmental conditions, but could miss long-term trends in productivity e.g. due
to increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration or climate change (Briffa et al. 2008, Hember et al. 2012) One
approach that meets good practice to reduce interannual variability is to use such growth functions to estimate
biomass growth rates, because they represent the average annual growth rates and are therefore influenced little
by short-term fluctuations in environmental conditions.

2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049

Where empirical growth and yield functions are used to estimate stand growth, it is good practice to evaluate thepotential influences of interannual variability in environmental conditions, for example through comparisons ofpredicted and actual growth on a set of regionally-distributed permanent sample plots. Where the periodic (e.g.,5-year) increment is consistently under- or over-predicted, it is good practice to adjust growth estimatesaccordingly, and to incorporate the new data in updated empirical functions. Countries that use process-basedmodels to simulate annual variability in stand growth and other stock changes need to also evaluate thesepredictions against measurements of periodic stock changes on permanent sample plots and adjust thepredictions, and underlying models, where necessary. Steps outlining the appropriate use of models in GHG
inventories are further outlined in the IPCC expert meeting report on the subject (IPCC 2010a).

2050
2051

It is encouraged at Tier 3 to assess and document clearly the extent to which natural and indirect-human factors
influence the time series of reported annual GHG emissions and removals in the LULUCF Sector. While such
27

Section 2.1.1, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

Draft KP Supplement

2.29

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058

factoring out has been recognised as difficult (IPCC 2003b), new methods are becoming available that can help
inform the policy community about the relative contributions of natural and indirect-human factors compared todirect human factors (Smith 2010). Measures to reduce the reported impacts of environmental variability(including climate, trends in atmospheric CO2 concentration or N deposition) can include time-averaging ofenvironmental data over 5-10-year or longer periods when using such data in higher-tier process models.
However, because of non-linear ecological processes, average environmental conditions may not yield average
net emissions or removals.

2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068

Methods used to reduce interannual variability also can help isolate the impacts of changes in human activities
relative to a baseline. This can be achieved by calculating two time series of emissions and removals in which
only the rate of human activities differ. For example, using Tier 3 models that are responsive to climate
variability, two time series can be calculated ex post: first, the baseline emissions (with actual climate data,
actual natural disturbance rates and baseline human land use and land-use change and forest management data –the baseline could be based on historic averages or business-as-usual assumptions); and second the actual
emissions (with actual climate data, actual natural disturbance rates but actual human land use, land-use change
and forest management data). The difference between these two time series reports the impacts of changes inhuman activities because the impacts of interannual variability in climate and natural disturbances are the same
in both scenarios and cancel each other out when calculating the difference between scenarios (Kurz 2010)28.

2069
2070
2071
2072

FM reference levels and the provision to exclude emissions from natural disturbances introduced for FM in
Decision 2/CMP.7 can affect the extent to which interannual variability is reflected in the accounted estimates of
GHG emissions and removals. Countries that elect to exclude emissions from natural disturbances will reducethe interannual variability in accounted emissions.

2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083

The impact on accounting of the use of FMRL on interannual variability will depend on the methods used to
calculate the FMRL and the actual reported emissions. Countries could introduce large bias due to interannual
variability in reported emissions if they use a FMRL that was calculated with methods that are not responsive toenvironmental variability or with average climate parameters, but then calculate actual emissions with methods
that are responsive to environmental variability (including long-term trends) or with actual climate parameters.
If a Party uses Tier 3 models responsive to environmental parameters, it is therefore good practice to use
consistent methods, including the same environmental and climate data, to calculate both the FMRL and theestimated actual FM emissions. For example, if a technical correction (see section 2.7.6) to the FMRL
calculations using Tier 3 methods used the same time series of climate parameters that are used in the calculationof the actual FM emissions, then the impacts of interannual climate variability on forest productivity (NPP) andrespiration would cancel out in the difference between the two time series.

2084
2085
2086

It is good practice to document whether the methods selected for the estimation of GHG emissions and removals
are sensitive to interannual variability of environmental conditions during the CP, and to report how interannual
variation was addressed in the inventory calculations.

2087
2088

2.3.6

Choice of method

2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094

It is good practice to estimate carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions from Article 3.3 or Article 3.4
activities using the methods set out in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. For all land under Articles 3.3 or
3.4, it is good practice to use the same tier or a higher tier for estimating stock changes and GHG emissions as
the one that was used for the corresponding land use in the UNFCCC inventory, following the guidance on
methodological choice and identification of Key Categories included in Chapter 4, Volume 1, of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines.

2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100

Whenever a category is identified as key in the UNFCCC inventory, it is good practice that the associatedactivity under the KP also be treated as a Key Category 29 . In the identification and documentation of Key
Categories under the KP it is also good practice to include a qualitative assessment, because there is not always
an unambiguous correspondence between the UNFCCC categories and KP activities. A country may also
undertake Approach 2 for Key Category analysis (see Section 4.3.2, Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines) to
identify the Key Categories of their inventory including the KP activities.

28

While there can also be an interaction between climate change and FM activities, the incremental emissions or removals
resulting from this interaction can be attributed to the management activity, as without it the interaction would not haveoccurred.

29This applies also when there only are partial overlaps with the UNFCCC inventory.

2.30

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110

Table 2.1.1 can be used to establish the relationship between land categories and KP activities for purposes ofidentifying Key Categories under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the KP. The first row of Table 2.1.1 lists the land usesof the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. For each land use there are two land-use categories in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines:‘land remaining in the same land-use category’ (e.g. Cropland remaining Cropland) and ‘land converted toanother land-use category’ (e.g. Forest Land converted to Cropland). These land-use categories may have beenused in the Key Category analysis of the UNFCCC inventory30. In Table 2.1.1, for a given column, i.e. a final
land use, the entries in the rows show which KP activities could have occurred on that land. In particular,
elements on the sub-diagonal of Table 2.1.1 correspond to land remaining in the same category (e.g. Croplandremaining Cropland), while the other entries of that column show possible KP activities on land converted to thegiven land use.

2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121

If any of the land-use categories of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines is identified as key, the KP activities in thecorresponding column of Table 2.1.1 (note again the distinction of land remaining in the same category in the
sub-diagonal cell, and land converted to the given land use) could initially be considered key. However, as insome cases several KP activities potentially can be key, it is good practice to examine qualitatively which of thepossible activities actually are key. For example, if land converted to Grassland was identified as key, this caninvolve D, RV, GM, WDR, or land-use changes not covered by the KP. The land area affected by RV or WDR
may be much smaller than the land area of the land use category in which it occurs and in which other activities
may also occur. If this is the case, and if RV is identified as potentially key according to Table 2.1.1, thencountries may separately assess the importance of GHG emissions and removals in RV compared to the otheractivities which occur in the same land-use category. It is good practice to explain and document which of thepotential key categories are identified as key for KP reporting.

2122
2123

In addition, it is good practice to take into account the following considerations in the key category
determination for estimates prepared under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the KP:

2124
2125
2126
2127
2128



As shown in Table 2.1.1, several activities under the KP can occur in more than one land category of the
UNFCCC inventory. In such cases, it is good practice to consider the total emissions and removals from theactivity for purposes of the key category analysis. When this approach is needed, an activity is considered
key if the emissions or removals from the sum are greater than the emissions from the smallest category that
is identified as key in the UNFCCC inventory (including LULUCF).

2129
2130
2131
2132



If, when using the quantitative methods, a category is not identified as key for the present year but it isanticipated to increase strongly in the future, it is good practice to identify it as key. This could, for example,
occur with a large- scale afforestation program producing only small sinks in initial years, but with the
expectation of larger sinks in future years.

2133
2134
2135
2136



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

2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143

It is good practice to determine for each Key Category, where relevant (see Table 4.1 in Volume 1 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines), whether any subcategory or pool is particularly significant. Usually, for this purpose, thesubcategories or pools are ranked according to their contribution to the aggregate Key Category. Those
subcategories or pools that contribute together more than 60 percent to the Key Category are consideredparticularly significant. For example, if CM has been elected and is identified as key, it is good practice toidentify which pools and subcategories are significant. It may be appropriate to focus efforts towards
methodological improvements of these most significant subcategories or pools.

2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153

Tier 1 as elaborated in Chapter 4, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines assumes for Forest Land remaining
Forest Land that the net change in the carbon stock for litter (forest floor), dead wood and soil organic carbon, in
mineral soil pools is zero. However, paragraph 26 of the Annex of Decision 2/CMP.7 specifies that all changes
be accounted in the following carbon pools: above-ground biomass, below-ground biomass, litter, dead wood,soil organic carbon and HWP. With the exception of HWP, a Party may choose not to account for a given pool in
a CP, if transparent and verifiable information is provided that demonstrates that the pool is not a source.
Therefore Tier 1 can only be applied if the litter, dead wood and soil organic carbon pools can be shown not to
be a source using the methods outlined in Section 2.3.1. Tier 1 can also only be applied if FM is not considered a
Key Category, which can only be the case if Forest Land remaining Forests Land (see Chapter 4 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines) is not a Key Category.

2154
30

If the analysis was based on the IPCC source/sink categories (1996) the transformation will be less precise. The mapping isshown in Chapter 3, Section 3.1 of GPG-LULUCF.

Draft KP Supplement

2.31

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
2155

2.3.7

Factoring out indirect, natural and pre-1990 effects

2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165

CMP decisions specify that information needs to be provided on whether or not anthropogenic GHG emissions
by sources and removals by sinks from activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 factor out removals from three
processes: (1) elevated carbon dioxide concentrations above pre-industrial levels, (2) indirect nitrogen deposition,and (3) the dynamic effects of age structure resulting from activities prior to 1 January 199031. In addition to therequirement to report whether or not these effects are factored out, those Parties that choose factoring out are
expected to also report the methods they used. For the purpose of accounting under the KP “factoring out” hasbeen addressed through a so-called net-net approach where net change in GHG emissions and removals areaccounted by comparing GHG emissions and removals during the CP with a benchmark under either a base year
or a business-as-usual scenario, which could also be a scenario in which emissions and removals are assumed tosum to zero (see also section 2.3.5 and its discussion on reducing impacts of interannual variability).

2166
2167

2.3.8

Reference Levels

2168
2169
2170
2171

Decision 2/CMP.6 requests each Annex I Party to submit information on its FMRL and provides guidelines forthe submission and review of information on FMRLs. Technically the FMRL is a level of GHG emissions andremovals against which the emissions and removals reported for FM during the second CP will be compared foraccounting purposes.

2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178

It is good practice to construct the FMRL taking into account historical data from GHG inventory submissions,age-class structure and the need to exclude removals from accounting in line with paragraph 1 of Decision
16/CMP.1. It is also good practice to take into account FM activities which were already undertaken, projected
FM activities under a ‘business as usual’ scenario, and continuity with the treatment of FM in the first CP, where
relevant. Finally, in the construction of the FMRL it is good practice to include pools and gases consistent withhistoric reporting and to also treat natural disturbances consistently. Details of the methodology for determining
the FMRL can be found in Section 2.7.5 of this document.

2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188

The paragraph 14 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 requests methodological consistency between the FMRL andreporting for FM during the second CP when accounting for FM. According to paragraph 15 of the Annex toDecision 2/CMP.7 a technical correction shall be applied if the reported data on FM or forest land remaining
forest land used to establish the FMRL are subject to recalculations. The standard method for ensuringconsistency of time series is to recalculate the estimates using the same method for all inventory years. Thus, toensure methodological consistency according to Decision 2/CMP.7, a technical correction may be needed toensure that the same method and data (climate, model parameters, etc.) are used for the construction of the
FMRL and the reporting of FM during the CP, or at least to remove the impact of any methodologicalinconsistency when accounting. Section 2.7.6 of this document describes how to detect the need for a technicalcorrection, as well as when and how to apply a technical correction.

2189

2.3.9

2190
2191
2192

Disturbances affect the carbon cycle of forests and other lands, and may also lead to non-CO2 GHG emissions.
They can be either natural or human-induced. It is good practice that all methodologies adopted for reporting
emissions from disturbances be based on the guidance provided by the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198

Emissions from natural disturbances on managed land are included in reporting under the UNFCCC, and were
accounted under the first commitment period of the KP for mandatory and elected activities. Emissions fromnatural disturbances on unmanaged lands were not included in reporting so long as these lands continued to beunmanaged. The same rules apply for the second commitment period except that Decision 2/CMP.7 introduces
the modification that, under certain conditions, and if the Party has indicated in its NIR submitted in 2015 that it
wishes to do so33, emissions from natural disturbances that occur on land subject to FM under Article 3.4 or AR

Disturbances32

31

See Paragraph 3 in Annex II to Decision 2/CMP.8

32

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

33

According to Decision 2/CMP.8 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1, in the report to facilitate thecalculation of the assigned amount pursuant to Article 3, paragraphs 7bis, 8 and 8bis a Party shall contain an indication ofwhether it intends to apply the provisions to exclude emissions from natural disturbances for the accounting forafforestation and reforestation under Article 3, paragraph 3, of the Kyoto Protocol and/or forest management under
Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto protocol during the second commitment period in accordance with decision 2/CMP.7.

2.32

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft
34

2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204

under Article 3.3 may be excluded from accounting . If a Party wishes to exclude such emissions, it is required
to calculate separately the emissions and removals which are subject to the requirements of Decision 2/CMP.7
for natural disturbances, and provide transparent information on how the annual emissions and subsequent
removals are estimated. This section provides good practice guidance on the implementation of relevant
provisions of Decision 2/CMP.7 in relation to natural disturbances, including issues related to the backgroundlevel and the margin.

2205

2.3.9.1

2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218

For the second commitment period, Parties may apply the provision for the treatment of natural disturbanceemissions for FM under Article 3.4 and/or AR under Article 3.3 as set out in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7.
According to Annex I to Decision 2/CMP.8, a Party’s report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amountpursuant to Article 3, paragraphs 7bis, 8 and 8bis shall contain an indication of whether it intends to apply theprovisions to exclude emissions from natural disturbances for the accounting for afforestation and reforestation
under Article 3, paragraph 3, of the Kyoto Protocol and/or forest management under Article 3, paragraph 4, of
the Kyoto Protocol during the second commitment period, in accordance with decision 2/CMP.7. Parties are
required to calculate the emissions and removals from natural disturbances subject to the provisions of Annex toDecision 2/CMP.7 (including those in paragraphs 33 and 34), and to provide transparent information on how theannual emissions and subsequent removals associated with disturbances are estimated.
For reporting and accounting under the second commitment period of the KP, Decision 2/CMP.735 provides thefollowing definition of natural disturbances:

2219
2220
2221
2222
2223

Natural Disturbances are non-anthropogenic events or non-anthropogenic circumstances. For the purposes ofthis decision, these events or circumstances are those that cause significant emissions in forests and are beyond
the control of, and not materially influenced by, a Party. These may include wildfires, insect and disease
infestations, extreme weather events and/or geological disturbances, beyond the control of, and not materiallyinfluenced by, a Party. These exclude harvesting and prescribed burning.

2224
2225
2226
2227

For practical purposes the requirement "beyond the control of, and not materially influenced by a Party" replaces
the anthropogenic / non-anthropogenic test as given in the first sentence cited above, which may be difficult toestablish, e.g. in the case of wildfires whose immediate cause may be difficult to determine. Decision 2/CMP.7
gives a list of examples under which the provision of natural disturbance may be applied:

2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233



Wildfires: Wildfires occur in many forests and interact with the functioning of the forest ecosystems inwhich they occur. Wildfires can be important to the functioning of forest ecosystems but can also have
undesirable environmental, social and economic impacts. Fire regimes (fire intensity, frequency and seasonof occurrence (Gill, 1975)) can have significant impacts on forest carbon stocks across considerable spatial
and temporal scales (King et al., 2011). Recent studies on wildfires and forest include: Hirsch and Fuglem(2006); Williams and Bradstock (2008); Swetnam and Anderson (2008); Girardin et al. (2010).

2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239



Insect pests and disease infestations: Diseases (pathogens such as fungi, phytoplasma, or virus, cf. page
4.74 in Chapter 4, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines) and insect pests can influence ecologicalprocesses and substantially affect large-scale regional GHG balances (Kurz et al., 2008; Hicke et al., 2012).
Outbreaks of forest diseases and pest insects can also have significant negative economic, social andenvironmental impacts on forested lands. Recent studies on insect and disease infestations in forest include:
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (2012a, 2012b and 2012c); Raffa et al. (2008); Bentz et al. (2010).

2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246



Extreme weather events: Extreme weather events can involve droughts, floods, heavy wet snowfall,avalanches, ice, and strong winds, either as a single event or in combination, e.g. ice storms (Lindner et al.,2010; Yamashita et al., 2002; Allen et al., 2010; Kato 2008, Kramer et al., 2008; Bebi et al., 2009; Phillips
et al., 2009; Chambers et al., 2007, Fujimori et al., 1987). Besides causing emissions e.g. through decay ofdead organic matter (DOM) following storm damage or stem breakage due to high snow loads, extreme
weather events can negatively affect forests and make them more susceptible to other natural disturbances.
For example wildfires have higher incidences after drought periods.

2247
2248



Geological disturbances: Geological disturbances may include volcanic eruptions, landslides, tsunamis, andearthquakes (Kamijo and Hashiba, 2003; Viña et al., 2011).

2249
2250

Decision 2/CMP.7 requires Annex I Parties that apply the provisions for natural disturbance to FM under Article
3.4, and/or to AR under Article 3.3 of the KP to provide transparent information, inter alia, that demonstrates

D EFINITIONAL ISSUES

34

Paragraph 33 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 17-18.

35

Paragraph 1(a) of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 13.

Draft KP Supplement

2.33

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
2251
2252
2253

that the occurrences were beyond the control of, and not materially influenced by, the Party in the commitment
period, by demonstrating practicable efforts to prevent, manage or control the occurrences that led to theapplication of the provisions contained in paragraph 33 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.736.

2254

Such practicable efforts include but are not limited to:

2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260



Reducing the likelihood of the disturbance occurring, by preventive measures or modifying factors
related to the occurrence or propagation of the disturbance. Examples include public information
campaigns or fire bans during high risk fire seasons. Some actions taken in this regard may themselvescause emissions which need to be estimated as part of management practice. For example thinning toincrease stand stability against storm damages, prescriptive burning to reduce the amount of
combustible material, or introduction of firebreaks to make the spread of fire less likely.

2261
2262
2263



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

2264
2265
2266

Depending on national circumstances, particularly organizational, administrational and governanceresponsibilities, examples of transparent and verifiable information that demonstrates these efforts could include,
but are not necessarily be limited to:

2267
2268
2269
2270



A national or sub-national (regional, provincial, community) level strategy, a forest policy, FM plan orfire management policy or plan, valid and in force for the region where the disturbance occurred, which
defines a national or sub-national strategy for managing the types of natural disturbance which led theParty to apply the provision for natural disturbance37;

2271
2272
2273
2274



Information which shows that the Party took practicable efforts to manage or control the individual
disturbances included under the natural disturbance provision (for example, expenditure on the fire
suppression effort and/or the incident management plans for the disturbance, and the relationship tototal budget for FM forest).

2275
2276

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

2277
2278
2279
2280
2281

In some instances it may not be practicable to prevent, manage or control the disturbance. When a Party wants toinclude such events or circumstances under the natural disturbance provision, it is good practice to provide
transparent and verifiable information demonstrating that no practical action could be taken to prevent, manage
or control the occurrences of the event or circumstance to comply with paragraph 34(d) of Annex to Decision
2/CMP.7.

2282

2.3.9.2

2283

C HOICE OF METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING LAND SUBJECT TO
NATURAL DISTURBANCE

2284
2285
2286

This section provides guidance and examples to help Parties in their choice of approach for identifying lands
subject to natural disturbance. It has linkages with Section 2.2 that addresses the area identification, stratification
and reporting.

2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296

Annex I Parties that choose to apply the natural disturbance provision outlined in Decision 2/CMP.7 need to beable to meet all the requirements set out in paragraph 34, (a) to (f) of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7. This includes
providing transparent information “Showing that all lands subject to paragraph 33(a) and (b) … are identified,including their georeferenced location 38 , year and types of disturbances” (paragraph 34(a)); “Showing how
annual emissions resulting from disturbances and the subsequent removals in those areas are estimated”(paragraph 34(b)); “Showing that no land-use change has occurred on lands for which the provisions inparagraph 33 … are applied and explaining the methods and criteria for identifying any future land-use changes
on those land areas during the commitment period” (paragraph 34(c)); “That demonstrates that the occurrenceswere beyond the control of, and not materially influenced by, the Party in the commitment period, bydemonstrating practicable efforts to prevent, manage or control the occurrences that led to the application of the
36

Paragraph 34(d) of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 18.

37

Paragraph 33 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 17-18

38

Consistent with the treatment in paragraph 6(b) of Annex to Decision 15/CMP.1, georeferencing is taken to refer to thegeographical location of the boundaries of areas including disturbances. The requirements of paragraphs 33 and 34 ofAnnex to Decision 2/CMP.7, e.g. on demonstrating whether land-use change or salvage logging have occurred on disturbed
areas, mean that ancillary data may also be required.

2.34

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302

provisions contained in paragraph 33…” (paragraph 34(d)); “That demonstrates efforts taken to rehabilitate,
where practicable, the land for which the provisions in paragraph 33 …are applied” (paragraph 34(e));“Showing that emissions associated with salvage logging were not excluded from accounting” (paragraph 34(f)).
Parties also need to be able to reflect the treatment of emissions and removals on these lands in LULUCF
accounting for subsequent commitment periods (paragraph 36 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 39 ). All theserequirements are linked identifying lands affected by natural disturbances.

2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313

For lands subject to Articles 3.3 and 3.4, Section 2.2.2 outlines Reporting Method 1 and Reporting Method 2. As
discussed in Section 2.2.4, these Reporting Methods are not the same as the underlying methods used to identify
land areas for GHG inventory purposes, though there are linkages between them. Reporting Method 1 entails
delineating areas that include multiple lands, assessing the respective contribution of relevant activities (orconditions) to the total emissions from these lands, and is often associated with the application of statisticalsampling approaches to land identification. Reporting Method 2 is based on the spatially explicit and complete
geographical identification of all lands subject to a single activity (or condition) and entails wall-to-wall mapping,which is frequently associated with the application of remote sensing40 techniques. Similarly, identification oflands subject to natural disturbance can be undertaken with statistical sampling approaches, or via wall-to-wall
mapping and ground-based surveys, solely or in combination, and supported as necessary by relevant ancillary
data.

2314

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

2315
2316
2317

i.

2318
2319
2320
2321
2322

ii. Methods and algorithms used for detecting disturbance and disturbance type be suitable for the identificationof areas affected by disturbances consistent with the Party's definition of forests used for reporting under the
KP, and that respective area or areas of land be identified in subsequent years. General guidance on this
topic is provided in Chapter 3 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and Fuller et al. (2003) discusspossible issues related to this.

2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331

Statistical sampling schemes do not provide delineation of disturbed areas directly, but rather an estimate of thetotal disturbed area by means of representative sample plots affected by the disturbance (refer to Chapter 3 inVolume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for guidance on sampling and area estimation). Identification andgeographical location of disturbance events are performed on a per-plot basis. Sampling schemes may be based
e.g. on National Forest Inventory sampling grids (Tomppo et al., 2010) if these provide sufficient information tomeet the requirements in Decision 2/CMP.7, set out in paragraphs 33 and 34. Depending on the type of
disturbance and associated characteristics (e.g., area, size, and distribution), it is good practice to intensify
sampling to make the estimated uncertainty comparable with the uncertainty in estimating Articles 3.3 and 3.4
forest-related emissions overall.

2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346

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

2347
2348
2349
2350

Considered individually, any approach may have strengths and limitations. For example, wall-to-wall approaches
based on remotely sensed data may not discriminate among losses of tree cover associated with harvesting(either planned clear cut or salvage logging (SL)) and those associated with natural disturbances, while
systematic sampling grids of existing forest inventories may not have an adequate sample size, design and

Proportion of area affected is assessed accurately if Reporting Method 1 is used and that each area affected
is identified as being disturbed with georeferenced location, year and types of disturbances, when Reporting
Method 2 is used, and39

Contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1., p. 18.

40

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

Draft KP Supplement

2.35

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365

frequency to identify reliably the year of disturbance or the affected area with the level of precision and accuracy
desired by the Party. For both wall-to-wall mapping and statistical sampling techniques, existing national
approaches for land identification may need adjustment and improvement in order to fulfill the requirement for
identification of lands subject to natural disturbance including their georeferenced location, year and types ofdisturbances. Hybrid approaches, using a set of different types of data, may facilitate meeting the relevant
requirements in Decision 2/CMP.7. The choice of approach and data to be used by a Party for land identification
will depend on national conditions in land under FM and/or AR, the inventories and surveys already in place,and the type and magnitude of the disturbance(s) to be assessed (see Box 2.3.4 for examples). It is good practicefor Parties to present information demonstrating the suitability of the methods and approaches used to identify
lands affected by natural disturbance, consistent with the requirements of paragraph 34(a) of Annex to Decision
2/CMP.7, and on how the provisions concerning SL and land-use change following such disturbances aremonitored. Ancillary data may be needed (e.g. concerning disturbance characteristics, location, management
activities), and this may be provided by amending or tailoring an existing inventory scheme to detect
deforestation events in a way that it also assesses whether land-use change has occurred on previously disturbed
lands, or by incorporating the detection of SL in harvest records as well as by collecting completely new data.

2366

2.36

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

2367
2368

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

2369

Example 1: Permanent sample plots with repeated measurements

2370
2371
2372

A Party conducts a national forest inventory based on a set of permanent sample plots, with apredefined sampling design, that regularly provide data, and estimates both emissions and area ofland-use changes using information and data collected on the sample plots.

2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378

Requirements: This approach requires availability of representative permanent sample plots witha predefined sampling design and regular measurement intervals. Guidance on sampling
approaches, including sample size is provided in Chapter 2 in Volume 1 and Annex 3A.3, Chapter
3 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Measurements should provide data for the parametersof interest, including disturbance type, year of occurrence, and meet georeferenced location
requirements which may require ancillary data collection.

2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389

Estimation method: The annual area affected by disturbances of a particular type is estimated as
the product of the fraction of plots affected (calculated as the ratio of sample plots disturbed andthe total number of sample plots) and the total geographical area covered by the sample plots (refer
to Section 3A.3.5 in Annex 3.A.3, Chapter 3 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). The
associated total annual emission is estimated by multiplying the area affected and the area-specific,
disturbance level- and / or disturbance type-specific emissions (CO2 and non-CO2) per unit area.
The uncertainty in the area affected by disturbance can be estimated following standard sampling
theory (refer to Chapter 2 in Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). Parties should stratify theaffected areas to allow representative sampling based on emission intensities and then generate theaverage emission accordingly. Ancillary data are likely to be needed to monitor land-use change
and the occurrence of SL.

2390
2391
2392
2393
2394

Potential challenges: This approach may have a large percentage sampling error associated withrare disturbance events (e.g., hurricanes, volcanic eruptions) that may be under-represented inexisting national forest inventory (NFI) or other sampling schemes, and may require the sampling
grid be intensified. When the regular inventory return interval is not sufficient to assign a year to a
disturbance (e.g. for wind-throw), additional field visits or other data/methods may be required.

2395
2396

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

2397
2398
2399

A Party uses remotely sensed data or a complete land register-based system, which is a databasefor land use and land-use change estimation containing information on land holdings based on
ground-based administrative systems for forestry or land use in general.

2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410

Requirements: This approach requires full territorial coverage with remotely sensed data ofappropriate spatial resolution and appropriate remote sensing techniques for assessing changes inland-cover; or a complete up-to-date land register-based system containing location, size of parcelsof land, and information on land use/land cover (for additional information and guidance, refer to
Section 3A.2.4 (Tools for data collection) in Annex 3A.2, Chapter 3 in Volume 4 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines). The data from remote sensing or land-register based techniques, includingclassification algorithms and estimators, requires calibration and validation using ground truth orequivalent data. Parties should demonstrate the suitability of the techniques, includingclassification algorithms and estimators, by presenting well-documented and transparent
supplementary information, how they have been evaluated in terms of accuracy and precisionusing ground truth or equivalent data.

2411
2412
2413
2414

Estimation method: The emissions associated with areas affected by the various disturbancetypes and levels are summed. Time series measurements are then used as supporting evidence on
extent and severity of disturbance. Estimation algorithms, which may need to be a function of typeand extent of disturbance, can be used.

Draft KP Supplement

2.37

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422

Potential challenges: Depending on the type and intensity of the disturbance, classification andmapping algorithms may have errors of omission and commission associated with area estimation,
which can lead to high absolute errors if data from several maps are combined (see Fuller et al.
(2003) for details). It may also be difficult to detect some disturbances by remote sensing (e.g.,
disturbances that cause dispersed single tree mortality over large areas, such as Ash dieback41).
The land register also needs to be updated regularly to make use of the most current information.
Another challenge is the accuracy of estimation models and algorithms and ensuring theiruncertainty is within levels aimed for by the Party.

2423
2424
2425

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

2426
2427

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

2428
2429
2430
2431
2432

Requirements: This approach requires availability of permanent sample plots with a predefinedsampling design and regular measurement intervals and full coverage by remotely sensed data ofappropriate spatial and temporal resolutions that allow for the identification and monitoring ofdisturbance events, combined with classification algorithms consistent with the accuracy andprecision sought by the Party.

2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440

Estimation method: The total area affected by a disturbance type is determined from remotelysensed data and total emissions are estimated from the permanent sample plots that fall within the
disturbed area. Plot data with the actual estimates of emissions and the area of the strata are used tocompute the total emissions from disturbance. Estimation algorithms based on ground variables
can also be used to generate emission estimates. The strength of this method is that it potentiallyallows for more accurate estimates of both emission and affected areas than those in either
Example 1 or 2 above. Classification algorithms will need calibration and validation, which should
be documented and their performance evaluated.

2441
2442
2443
2444
2445

Potential challenges: This approach requires both extensive remotely sensed data and intensive
ground data-based inventory systems. Balancing and matching of the systems and methods, e.g., toavoid double-counting, may be difficult to achieve, especially where more than one disturbanceaffects a given area. Use of remote sensing has similar challenges to those identified in Example 2
above.

2446
2447

2.3.9.3

2448

E STIMATION OF CO 2 EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS FROM
NATURAL DISTURBANCES

2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456

For the second commitment period, Parties may apply the provision for the treatment of natural disturbanceemissions to FM under Article 3.4 and/or to AR under Article 3.3 consistent with Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7.
To apply the provisions for natural disturbance, Parties are required to provide country-specific information on a
FM background level and/or an AR background level of emissions associated with annual natural disturbances(cf. paragraphs 33(a) and (b) of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7). Parties are also required to calculate the emissions
and removals subject to the provisions for natural disturbances (cf. paragraphs 33 and 34 of Annex to Decision
2/CMP.7), and to provide transparent information on how the annual emissions and subsequent removals are
estimated. This section provides guidance on the estimation of carbon stock changes to meet these requirements.

2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464

The incidence of natural disturbances varies spatially and temporally. Spatial variability refers to the distribution,
intensity and the size of the areas affected by disturbances: the impact of a disturbance (e.g., a strong wind
and/or insect attack) could be concentrated in a large and continuous forest area; or spread across smalldiscontinued areas; with either homogeneous or heterogeneous intensity. Temporal variability refers to theoccurrence of natural disturbances over time and the extension of post-disturbance effects over time: there may
be direct releases of carbon to the atmosphere during the disturbance (e.g., from fires), delayed emissions (due todecay processes), and redistribution of carbon among carbon pools (e.g., transfer to the dead wood, litter or soilorganic matter pools), which may then also decay causing emissions in subsequent years.

2465
2466

There are particular considerations in relation to the estimation of the effects of natural disturbances where a
Party applies the provision for natural disturbances to FM and/or to AR. These include the choice of the41

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

2.38

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

2467
2468

estimation method and tier level, accounting for emissions associated with SL, and exclusion of removals
subsequent to the disturbance event on the affected lands.

2469

CHOIC E OF ESTIMATION M ETHOD AND TIER LEVEL

2470
2471
2472
2473

The methods to estimate CO2 emissions associated with carbon stock changes in the relevant pools are given in
the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and are elaborated in Chapter 4 in Volume 4 for above and below-ground biomass,
dead wood, litter, and soil organic matter. For HWP, estimation methods in line with Decision 2/CMP.7 areprovided in Section 2.8 of the KP Supplement.

2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485

Land subject to natural disturbance in the context of Decision 2/CMP.7 is land that has already been identified asland under FM or AR. The estimation of carbon stock changes and associated emissions due to natural
disturbance should therefore be consistent with, and complementary to, the method and tier level applied foreach of the pools under the activities of FM and/or AR for reporting under the KP. The estimation of carbon
stock changes due to natural disturbance should include the effect of the disturbance on carbon stock changes insubsequent years of the second commitment period so that reporting reflects emissions associated with carbon
stock changes in the year they occur. This can be achieved by ensuring that the stratification, activity data, theemissions and removals factors and other parameters used for estimates of carbon stock changes in years beyond
the date of occurrence reflect the spatial and temporal dynamics of the natural disturbance. It is also goodpractice to estimate emissions associated with carbon stock changes from natural disturbance in a mannerconsistent with the method used for the calculation of emissions in the background level, and to conduct atechnical correction of the background level and the FMRL if that is not the case.

2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497

Where the Forest Land Remaining Forest Land category under the UNFCCC is a key category it is goodpractice to apply Tier 2 or 3 methodologies to estimate carbon stock changes from natural disturbance for FM;
and similarly for AR if the Land Converted to Forest Land category under the UNFCCC is a key category(Chapter 4 in Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). The assumption under Tier 1 is that the net carbon stockchange in DOM is zero. Decision 2/CMP.7 specifies that the carbon stock change in all pools must be accounted
for, although, with the exception of HWPs, Parties may choose to exclude from accounting in the second
commitment period pools which can be shown using transparent and verifiable information not to be a source42.
During natural disturbance events significant amounts of carbon may be transferred to the DOM pool, which willthen decay, and thus it becomes less likely that a Party could subsequently show that DOM pools are not asource. Therefore, countries that experience significant changes in disturbance regimes in their forests (which
would be the case if major natural disturbance events occur) should quantify the impacts from these changes
using Tier 2 or 3 methodologies (Section 2.2.1, Chapter 2 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines).

2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512

It is good practice for methodologies to represent the effect of the particular natural disturbance event or
circumstance on the carbon stocks on the land affected by the natural disturbance. The effects of natural
disturbances which should be considered include: direct reductions in carbon stocks due to the disturbance (e.g.,release of CO2 to the atmosphere during wildfires); transfer of carbon between pools (e.g., transfer of living
biomass to the DOM pool due to wind-throw); changes in carbon stocks following the disturbance (e.g., throughthe decay of DOM post disturbance); and, the dynamics and growth rate of the post disturbance forest stands(e.g., early rapid growth in young trees that regenerate after a stand-replacing fire). The effects considered inestimation of emissions may require appropriate stratification of the impacted area to adequately represent the
disturbance types, climate zones, ecosystems and affected parts of ecosystems, and land-use history based ondata available from national forest inventory, remote sensing and/or other sources; and appropriate estimation ofemission factors, decomposition rates and other factors and functions involved that are representative for the
disturbance event and for the different strata. Remote sensing or ground-based assessments that focus on the
disturbance event can be helpful for addressing spatial variability and temporal variability to attribute carbon
stock changes due to natural disturbance to individual years. Other statistics that record, for example, SL on anannual basis may also be relevant.

2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519

Parties included in Annex I that apply the provisions for natural disturbances are required to provide transparent
information on how the emissions from natural disturbances and the subsequent removals have been estimatedduring the commitment period43. This includes documentation of data sources and estimation methodologies inaccordance with the tier level used for applying the natural disturbance provision. Disturbance matrices 44(Section 2.3.1.1, Chapter 2 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines) can be used to define the impact of theevent on the proportion of each carbon pool that is transferred to another pool, released to the atmosphere, or
removed from forest in SL and entering the carbon pool of HWP.
42

Paragraph 26 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 16.

43

Paragraph 34(b) of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 18.

44

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

Draft KP Supplement

2.39

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
2520

EX CLUSION OF R EMOVA LS

2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526

According to paragraphs 33(a) and (b) and 34(a) and (b) of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7, for lands on whichemissions have been excluded from accounting under the natural disturbance provision, any subsequent
removals during the commitment period on the lands affected shall also be excluded from the accounting.
Removals are considered to be positive changes in carbon stocks due to growth of forest vegetation on the lands
subject to the provision. Removals in this context do not refer to physical removal of carbon from land affectedby natural disturbance, or due to SL (see also the definition of SL in Box 2.3.5 below).

2527
2528
2529
2530

The removals on lands previously disturbed can be estimated using the methodologies provided for Forest Land
in Chapter 4 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. It is good practice to apply estimation methodologies
that take into account the respective conditions found on the affected land following the natural disturbance
event and to show that the subsequent removals are completely estimated and that double counting is avoided.

2531

ACCOUN TING FOR SA LVAGE LOGGIN G

2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538

 Where SL occurs on land subject to natural disturbance, the carbon stock change due to SL must be
accounted for and not excluded with emissions associated with natural disturbances (cf. paragraphs 33(c) and34(f) of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7). Box 2.3.5 defines SL in the context of the natural disturbance provision.
The carbon stock change due to harvest and physical removal of trees or parts of trees is treated as a loss ofcarbon (and consequently a CO2 emission) from the affected land in the year the SL occurs, and is subject to the
HWP provisions of Decision 2/CMP.7 where wood derived from SL can be shown to enter the HWP pool. It isgood practice to assign carbon stock changes from SL to the year in which they take place.

2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544

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

2545



2546
2547
2548

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

2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556

SL is the practice of harvesting and physically removing trees or parts of trees (living or dead)from disturbed areas. This management activity is also known as salvage cutting, salvage
harvesting, sanitation cutting, and other designations. In case a Party chooses to exclude emissions
due to natural disturbances, it shall account for emissions associated with salvage logging(paragraph 33(c) of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7). Therefore, if a Party chooses to apply thenatural disturbance provision, it is good practice to report in a transparent manner the emissions
due to SL on land subject to natural disturbance so that these emissions can be transparently
accounted for. For the purposes of the provision these emissions result from the following:

2557
2558
2559
2560

1) Wood removal and fuelwood removal (and hence, carbon) from the disturbance area due toharvest and physical removal of trees or parts of trees. Wood removal and fuelwood removal istreated as a carbon loss (emission) (for example Equation 2.12, Chapter 2 in Volume 4 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines) in the year in which it occurs;

2561
2562

2) emissions of carbon due to decay of dead wood discarded from SL operations and remaining onsite, litter, and any significant disturbance to the soil organic matter pools; and,

2563
2564

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

2565
2566

Carbon stock increases due to gains in living biomass on affected land are carbon removals fromthe atmosphere and are not combined with emissions associated with SL.

2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572

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

DISTURBANCES

2.40

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

2573

2.3.9.4

2574

E STIMATIONOF NON -CO 2
NATURAL DISTURBANCESGHGEMISSIONS

FROM

2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582

As Section 2.3, Chapter 2 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines specifies, losses in carbon stocks or pools
may in particular cases imply emissions of non-CO2 GHGs. Typically, emissions of these gases occur due tofires, for which the estimation methodology is provided in Section 2.4, Chapter 2 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines, which should be applied (together with land-use specific enhancements in Chapter 4 (Forest Land) in
Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). This includes the requirement to check for complete coverage of CO2
and non-CO2 GHG emissions related to changes in carbon stocks and pools in order to avoid omissions anddouble-counting. It is also good practice to document how non-CO2 GHG (e.g., N2O) emissions due to natural
disturbances are estimated and reported.

2583
2584
2585

If fire in forests contributes to a key category, it is good practice to apply higher tiers and to develop a more
complete and country-specific methodology which includes the dynamics of DOM and produces better estimatesof direct and post-fire emissions.

2586

2.3.9.52587

M ETHODOLOGICAL ISSUES SPECIFIC TO THE ESTIMATIONOF EMISSIONS AND REMOVALSDISTURBANCE PROVISION

2588

UNDER

THE

NATURAL

2589
2590
2591
2592

To satisfy the requirements of paragraphs 33(a) and (b) and 34(a) and (b) of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 further
guidance on methodological issues is needed concerning the estimation of the effects of natural disturbances.
These include the attribution of emissions from natural disturbance events to individual years, differentiating
natural disturbance events from management activities and monitoring lands subject to natural disturbance.

2593

A TTRIBU TION OF NATURA L D ISTUR BANC ES TO IND IVIDUA L Y EAR S

2594
2595
2596

For natural disturbances that occur during the second commitment period, it is good practice to report areas andemissions from lands subject to natural disturbances in the year in which the natural disturbance commences andto continue reporting the emissions from these lands in subsequent years of the commitment period.

2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611

It is good practice to attribute direct releases of carbon to the atmosphere, e.g. from wildfires, which occur
during the disturbance event, to the year of occurrence. Post-disturbance emissions from the DOM pools throughthe decay process, taking account of redistribution, will extend over a period of time. It is good practice toestimate these legacy emissions in the year they occur, while avoiding double counting. For example, if a large
amount of live biomass damaged during disturbances is transferred to the DOM pool, loss of biomass should be
estimated as a loss from the biomass pool and an input to the DOM pool. Disturbances generally have impacts
on carbon stocks lasting more than one year, and it is good practice to estimate, as emissions associated withnatural disturbances, the carbon emissions in the year of the disturbance, as well as legacy emissions (e.g.,
decomposition of DOM) in the subsequent years of the commitment period. It is possible to represent an insect
infestation as a series of annual disturbance events, for example repeated annual defoliation of forests will leadto cumulative impacts on growth reduction, mortality and subsequent emissions (e.g., Dymond et al., 2010). It isgood practice to separately identify in reporting, natural disturbance lands and their associated emissions fromthe year in which the natural disturbance first occurs until the end of the commitment period. Guidance on legacy
effects associated with natural disturbances after the end of the second commitment period is given in Section
2.3.9.9 below.

2612

D IFFER ENTIA TION FROM MANAGEM EN T AC TIVITIES

2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619

Lands affected by natural disturbances can be similar in appearance to, and thus can be confused with, forest
areas where regular management activities have taken place. For example, areas affected by wildfire can besimilar to prescribed burning, and wind damaged areas after SL can be difficult to distinguish from clear-cuts.
For the application of the natural disturbance provision the emissions from natural disturbances have to beclearly differentiated from the emissions due to management activities. It is good practice to show that theemissions accounted for under the natural disturbance provision are unambiguously attributable to natural
disturbances and do not contain or double count emissions from regular management activities.

2620

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

2621
2622
2623

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

2624

-

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

Draft KP Supplement

2.41

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
2625-

demonstrate efforts to rehabilitate affected lands;

2626

-

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

2627

-

estimate the amount of removed carbon stock in SL; and

2628
2629

-

identify lands where the natural disturbance is followed by another disturbance event to avoid doublecounting.

2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635

Monitoring of natural disturbances and compilation of associated data on these lands including the disturbancetype, size and location is required to provide consistent time series information about the affected area. The
methods used in the post-disturbance monitoring of affected areas should be consistent within those to monitor
forestry activities in general; i.e. the underlying assumptions and estimation methods should be in common andactivity data estimates should be consistent even if supplementary data are gathered from different sources, e.g.
greater use of remote sensing for disturbance monitoring.

2636
2637
2638
2639

If land-use change occurs on lands affected by natural disturbances and on which emissions were previously
excluded from accounting it is good practice to account for this land as being subject to deforestation in the year
the land was subject to natural disturbance. This results in all emissions due to the natural disturbance and landuse change being accounted for under Deforestation.

2640

2.3.9.62641

G UIDANCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BACKGROUNDLEVEL AND MARGIN

2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653

Parties may exclude45 emissions from natural disturbances for FM or for AR (or both) above the backgroundlevel in years for which emissions due to natural disturbances exceed a background level plus a margin, provided
that they meet all the requirements set out in Decision 2/CMP.746. Conceptually, the background level is anannual level (a positive number or zero) of disturbance emissions based on historical data, and the margin is apositive number or zero and should be set in conjunction with the background level. Because the backgroundlevel is included in the FMRL, emissions from natural disturbances up to the background level are already
implicitly excluded from accounting during the second commitment period. The sum of the background level
and the margin is used to identify years (those for which emissions from natural disturbances during thecommitment period are larger than this sum) when emissions from natural disturbance larger than the
background level may be excluded from accounting. It is good practice that the background level and the margin
be developed together so as to ensure that the exclusion of natural disturbances does not lead to the expectationof net credits or net debits.

2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661

In order to develop the background level and the margin, either the default method described in the Annex toDecision 2/CMP.7, or alternative country-specific methods can be applied. The choice of methods will result indifferent background levels and margins, but independently of the method applied, it is good practice that thedeveloped background level and the margin ensure that the exclusion of natural disturbances does not lead to the
expectation of net credits or net debits (see Box 2.3.6). Given the same set of data, with a higher value of the
background level and margin, more emissions are excluded implicitly and individual exclusion of emissions is
expected to be less frequent than with a lower value of the background level and margin. In the latter case,higher costs for monitoring, estimation and reporting can be expected.

2662
2663
2664
2665
2666

Decision 2/CMP.7 requires separate background levels and margins to be developed for FM and AR. For both
FM and AR, emissions from natural disturbances may occur due to several types of disturbances. In estimating
the background level and margin it is good practice to combine emissions from different disturbance types, andthen to develop one overall background level and margin for FM, and one for AR, if Annex I Parties choose to
apply the natural disturbance provision to both FM and AR.

2667
2668
2669

Decision 2/CMP.7 requires that the background levels be constructed using consistent and initially complete
time series containing, but not limited to, 1990–2009 annual emissions associated with natural disturbances47.
The period of this time series of historical emissions is referred to as the calibration period.

2670

To develop background levels and margins, it is good practice to apply the stepwise procedure48 described below.
45

See requirements set out in paragraph 33(a)-(b) of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 17-18, and Paragraph 1(k) of Annex I to Decision 2/CMP.8 contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1, p. 17.

46

Paragraph 34 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 18.

47

Footnote 7 to paragraph 33(a) of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 17.

48

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

2.42

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680

S tep 1: D efin e t he types o f na tura l d ist urba n c es that th e Par ty wis h es to exc lu de fro ma cco unt ing
It is good practice that Parties define, and report in their NIR due in 2015, and in their report to facilitate thecalculation of the assigned amount (see footnote 45), the natural disturbances types (that may include wildfires,
insect attack and disease infestations, extreme weather events and/or, geological disturbances) whose emissions
they wish to exclude from accounting during the commitment period under the natural disturbance provisions.
Disturbance types may be subdivided as needed. For example, extreme weather events could be subdivided intowind storms and floods. These disturbance types can include rare events (such as volcanic eruptions) which may
not have occurred during the calibration period.

2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691

S te p 2: Estab lish a con s is te nt and in it ia lly com p le te t im e s er ies fo r th e ca libr at ion
period f or e a c h di sturba nc e t y pe
For each disturbance type considered by the Party, a time series of annual emissions associated with the
disturbance type needs to be established for the calibration period. The emissions are entered into Table 2.3.1 forFM and in Table 2.3.2 for AR for each year of the calibration period and each type of disturbance considered,and are used for subsequent calculations and for reporting. In order to establish accurately the background level,
Parties are encouraged to use the longest available time series. When using the default method, time series of
equal length are required for all disturbance types considered. If including years after the period 1990-2009 theParty should take care that this does not cause inconsistencies related to policy assumptions (prior to December2009) applied in the construction of the FMRL (see Section 2.7.5).

2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701

For rare events (such as volcanic eruptions), the emissions in all years of the calibration period may be zero, if
the rare event has not occurred in that period. For other disturbance types, the Party needs to provide reliable andtransparent emission estimates for the years in the calibration period. Parties may enter zero for years in which
the disturbance type does not exceed a low level implicit in national statistics (e.g. for a year when some trees
may have fallen due to wind but when no wind-blow was registered at a stand level). It is good practice to sum
for each year of the calibration period, separately for FM and AR, the emissions from all disturbances types
considered, in order to obtain a combined disturbance time series for the calibration period. It is good practice toreport transparently the combined time series (one for FM and one for AR) together with the methodology of
how the time series were constructed. Finally area-specific emissions are calculated, for use in subsequentcalculations especially in the case of AR, for which area may vary considerably.

2702

Draft KP Supplement

2.43

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
2703
TABLE 2.3.1
TOTAL AND AREA SPECIFIC EMISSIONS FROM DISTURBANCES FOR THE CALIBRATION PERIOD FOR FM
Disturbance type*

Inventory year during the calibration period
...

1990

1991

1992

...

2008

2009

...

Total annual emissions (Gg CO2 eq.)
Wildfires
Insect attack anddiseaseinfestations
Extreme weather
eventsGeologicaldisturbances
Other
Sum
Total area (kha)For all land
under FMArea-specific emissions(Emissions per unit of land area under FM, Mg CO2 eq. ha-1)*** Sub-divisions of types can be added as needed.
**In any year, emissions per unit of land area are calculated as the Sum divided by the total area under FM.

2704
TABLE 2.3.2
TOTAL AND AREA SPECIFIC EMISSIONS FROM DISTURBANCES FOR THE CALIBRATION PERIOD FOR AR
Disturbance type*

Inventory year during the calibration period
...

1990

1991

1992

...

2008

2009

...

Total annual emissions (Gg CO2 eq.)
Wildfires
Insect attack anddiseaseinfestations
Extreme weather
eventsGeologicaldisturbances
Other
Sum
Total area (kha)For all land
under ARArea-specific emissions(Emissions per unit of land area under AR, Mg CO2 eq. ha-1)*** Sub-divisions of types can be added as needed.
**In any year, emissions per unit of land area are calculated as the Sum divided by the total area under AR.

2705

2.44

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

2706
2707
2708
2709
2710

If emission estimates are missing for one or several years of the calibration period for a certain disturbance type,to develop a complete and consistent time-series it is good practice to apply an appropriate gap filling methodfrom one of those described in Chapter 5 in Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Surrogate data is themethod most likely to be applicable. Interpolation will probably not be appropriate because of the likelihood oflarge fluctuations in disturbance related emissions from year to year.

2711
2712
2713

Emissions from and associated with SL cannot be excluded from accounting during the commitment period49.
Consequently historical emissions from natural disturbances should exclude emissions from SL. It is therefore
good practice that Parties provide transparent information on how this exclusion was carried out.

2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722

If the required historic time series of emissions associated with natural disturbances cannot directly be estimatedfor a particular disturbance type, country-specific methods can be applied to develop a time series. For example,
if a Party lacks estimates of emissions from natural disturbances on AR land, it may choose to use disturbanceand area-specific emissions from natural disturbances on FM land as a proxy, and combine it with the total areaof AR land to estimate emissions from natural disturbances on AR land. The use of the proxy must be justified.
For instance, in this example, it should be demonstrated for each disturbance type that the applied area-specificemission rates on FM land are age-independent, or can be corrected for age, and are otherwise independent fromthe differences in species, size, density, management practices, etc. that may occur between the forests on AR
land and those on FM land. Correction for age class may be achieved by stratifying FM data accordingly.

2723
2724
2725

In the 2015 NIR and in subsequent years where recalculations leading to technical corrections occur, it is goodpractice to report transparently how the Party has estimated the emission data used in Table 2.3.1 and Table
2.3.2, including information on the methods used to estimate missing emission estimates in the time series.

2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738

Step 3: D evelop t he backg round le vel
Once the time series for the calibration period have been developed by disturbance type, and summed over thetypes by year, the Party can apply the default or an alternative method (see description below) in order to obtain
the background level and the margin. Whatever method a Party has chosen to establish the background level andmargin, it is good practice to describe transparently the method and assumptions used and to demonstrateconsistency with the FMRL or methods and assumptions the Party applies for estimating emissions from AR.
The steps below are described for Table 2.3.1 but apply equally to Table 2.3.2 except that in the latter case area
specific data are used (because of the probable large area change over time). The area-specific background level
resulting from the procedure in this step must be multiplied by the average annual area of AR estimated for thecommitment period. FM should also be corrected for area if there is significant change in the area of FM over thecommitment period or significant change in the area is expected between the calibration and the commitment
period.

2739

The default method

2740

The default method involves the application of the following steps:

2741
2742
2743

(1) Calculate the arithmetic mean of the (area-specific, if necessary, cf. Box 2.3.8.) annual emissions summed
over disturbance types (in the “sum” or bottom row, resp., of Table 2.3.1 or 2.3.2) using all years in thecalibration period.

2744(2) Calculate the corresponding standard deviation (SD) of the annual emissions using the following formula:

2745
2746
2747
2748

EQUATION 2.3.1
CALCULATION OF THE STANDARD DEVIATION FOR THE ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR THE
CALIBRATION PERIOD

SD

x

X

N

1

2749
2750

where

2751
2752

xi = the emission estimate for year i, i = 1, 2…, N where N is the number of years in the calibration period
for which emission estimates are available.
49

Paragraph 33(c) of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 18.

Draft KP Supplement

2.45

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
X = the arithmetic mean of all xi , i.e. X 

2753

N

 x / N.
i 1

i

2754
2755
2756
2757

(3) Check whether any emission estimate is greater than the arithmetic mean plus twice the SD. If so, remove
such estimate(s) (“outliers”) from the dataset and go back to step (1) above using the reduced dataset.
Emissions smaller than the mean minus twice the SD should not be removed from the dataset as this would
lead to the expectation of net credits.

2758
2759

When no further outliers can be identified, the arithmetic mean and twice the standard deviation calculated in thelast step of the iterative process define the background level and the margin, respectively.

2760

An example of the application of the default method is found in Box 2.3.7, Example 1.

2761
2762
2763

Alternative methods
Alternative methods are country-specific but should be based on a consistent time series of annual emissions forthe calibration period as outlined in Step 2 above.

2764
2765
2766
2767
2768

Alternative methods may include the use of other methods to exclude outliers and/or different criteria to define
the background level than the average of the emissions (excluding outliers) used in the default method.
Examples include setting the background level equal to the lowest historical emission in the calibration timeseries; or to a value between the lowest emission and the average of the historical dataset (excluding outliers) or
to zero. An example of an alternative method is described in Box 2.3.7, Example 2.

2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774

Step 4: D evelopment of t he ma rg in
Depending on the method used to estimate the background level, a non-zero margin may be needed to avoid the
expectation of net credits or net debits during the commitment period (refer to Step 5). For the default method(included in Step 3 above), the margin is twice the standard deviation of the calibration period emission timeseries excluding outliers.

2775
2776
2777
2778
2779

If the background level is defined differently than the default method, then the margin may be different; e.g. if
the background level is set equal to zero or the minimum emission value associated with natural disturbanceduring the calibration period (see example in Box 2.3.7), then the margin is zero since all emissions in excess ofthe minimum level will be beyond the level assumed in the background level. Box 2.3.6 provides guidance on
setting a margin that is consistent with an approach that avoids the expectation of net credits and net debits.

2780
2781
2782
2783

For the development of the margin for AR, first the margin to be associated with the area-specific backgroundlevel must be developed, then, as with the background level, it must be multiplied by the average annual area of
AR estimated for the commitment period. If the area of FM is expected to vary significantly, a similar correction
should be made, maintaining consistency with the background level.

2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796

Step 5: Ensuring that the method applie d do es not lea d to exp e ctat ion of net c re d it s o r
n et de b it s
For any approach used to develop the background level and the margin, Parties have to report information on
how the expectation of net credits or net debits50 is avoided. To this end, it is good practice to analyze, using thelist of requirements in Box 2.3.6, under what conditions the application of the background level and margin may
yield net credits or net debits for the Party during the commitment period. If expected conditions in thecommitment period lead to the expectation of net credits or net debits, it is good practice that Parties revise theapproach used in order to avoid this. The results of the analysis and any action taken should be included in the
NIR due in 2015, or in years when the background level and the margin are recalculated. If any of therequirements in bullet point (1) – (4) in Box 2.3.6 is violated, it is good practice that the Party applies a technicalcorrection to the FMRL and the background level as necessary to ensure consistency between the FMRL andaccounting during the commitment period (see Section 2.7.6 for guidance on technical corrections).

2797

50

Paragraph 33(a) and (b) of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 17-18.

2.46

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

2798
2799
2800

BOX 2.3.6
AVOIDING THE EXPECTATION OF NET CREDITS OR NET DEBITS FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE NATURALDISTURBANCE PROVISION

2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806

For developing a background level and a margin 51 each annual emission due to natural
disturbances in the calibration period is either less than or equal to the background level plus themargin (these annual emissions are referred to below as the background group) or is greater thanthe background level plus the margin. The background group is used to calculate the backgroundlevel.

2807
2808

Any approach (default or alternative) will avoid the expectation of net credits or net debits so long
as:

2809
2810
2811

(1) There is no observed trend in natural disturbance emissions during the calibration period thatis not considered in the background level estimation, or expected during the commitment
period. This includes trends due to changing area under FM or AR.

2812
2813
2814

(2) The background level of emissions for FM or AR, included in the FMRL, or associated withAR, respectively, is equal to the average of the annual emissions from natural disturbances
during the calibration period which are in the background group.

2815
2816
2817
2818
2819

(3) Any emission from natural disturbances during the commitment period that falls into thebackground group is not separately excluded from accounting. During the commitment period,
emissions are only excluded from accounting when the annual emissions are greater than the
background level plus the margin. When this occurs, emissions are only excluded which are
greater than the background level.

2820
2821
2822

(4) A test application of the constructed background level and the margin to the annual emissions
in the calibration period leads to the same background group as used during the constructionof the background level.

2823
2824
2825

For FM, if all bullet points (1)-(4) in Box 2.3.6 above are satisfied (and the Party wishes to exclude emissions
from natural disturbances) the accounting outcome for natural disturbance emissions will result in:

2826
2827
2828

(1) Natural disturbance emissions which are greater than the background level are excluded fromaccounting in years where natural disturbance emissions are greater than the background level plus
margin;

2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834

(2) The remaining emissions due to natural disturbances during the commitment period are included inaccounting during the commitment period. These natural disturbance emissions are effectively
balanced by the background level emissions from natural disturbances which are included in the
FMRL. The expected outcome is that the background level emissions will be equal to the averagenatural disturbance emissions over the commitment period which are not excluded from accounting
individually.

2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842

As stated in Step 3 above, the background level and margin needs to be adjusted if the area of the land in the AR
or FM categories is expected to change during the commitment period. A possible way to do such an adjustment
is demonstrated in Box 2.3.8. In such cases, it is good practice to calculate the background level and the margin
so that they both relate to the expected area during the commitment period. In most if not all countries the area ofAR changes considerably in the calibration period and will continue to change during the commitment period(e.g., it increases for AR from 0 in 1990 up to the actual value in an inventory year) so the calculation should bedone on a per unit area basis and the last two rows in Table 2.3.2 are meant to provide for AR information
related to the area and emissions per unit area.

2843

51

A margin of zero is the same as the margin not being needed in terms of the language used in Decision 2/CMP.7.

Draft KP Supplement

2.47

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
2844
2845

BOX 2.3.7
EXAMPLES OF APPROACHES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BACKGROUND LEVEL

2846

Example 1. Application of the default method

2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862

In this example, Party X uses Table 2.3.1 to calculate the total annual emissions from the natural
disturbance types considered on FM lands for each year of the calibration period in row Sum.
These total annual emission values are shown in Figure a) (all bars). Based on the iterative processdescribed in Step 3 above, the outliers in the time series (i.e. the dark filled bars in Figure a)) are
identified and removed. The background level is estimated as the mean (the thick black horizontal
line in Figure b)) of the remaining emissions (the hashed bars). The margin is twice the standard
deviation of these remaining emissions (shown by a thin black line above the background level in
Figure b)). In a year during the commitment period when the total emissions from natural
disturbances (e.g. the dark filled bar for the year 2016 in Figure b)) exceeds the background levelplus the margin, emissions above the background level (i.e. the thick dashed line) may be
excluded, provided that all the other requirements for application of the natural disturbanceprovision are met. The emissions that may be excluded are shown as the dotted part (EE) in Figureb). Note that annual emissions from zero up to the background level plus the margin, but nothigher than this, are also factored out by the accounting as they are included in the FMRL. In order
to avoid the expectation of net credits or net debits, the expected emissions from natural
disturbances included in the FMRL need to be equal to the background level.

2863

2864
2865

2.48

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

2866
2867

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

2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878

A possible alternative approach is to set the background level equal to the minimum emission
value of the historical time series (i.e. the emission of year 2001 in Figure a)). In this case, theemissions are expected to exceed this level in every year during the commitment period and themargin is equal to zero. In a year during the commitment period when the emissions from natural
disturbances (e.g., the dark filled bar for the year 2016 in Figure c)) exceed the background level(as the margin is equal to zero), emissions above the background level (thick dashed line) may be
excluded, provided that all the other requirements for application of the natural disturbanceprovision are met. The emissions that may be excluded are shown as the dotted part (EE) in Figurec). Note that the emissions from zero up to the background level (that are represented by theemissions that are below the dashed line in the last bar in Figure c)) are also factored out by theaccounting as they are already included in the FMRL.

2879
2880

Draft KP Supplement

2.49

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
2881
2882
2883

BOX 2.3.8
EXAMPLE OF AN APPROACH FOR ESTIMATING THE BACKGROUND LEVEL IN CASE THE AREA OF THE LANDUNDER FM AND / OR AR CHANGES BETWEEN THE CALIBRATION PERIOD AND THE COMMITMENT PERIOD

2884
2885
2886

This approach is demonstrated using an example when the area of AR changes during thecommitment period. It would also apply in cases when the area of FM changes significantly, inwhich case the modifications for FM are necessary.

2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893

Suppose the area of AR at the end of the calibration period is Acal, and the area specificbackground level from Table 2.3.2 is bl. The background level based on Acal is therefore BLcal, =bl * Acal . Suppose that the mean area of AR land during the commitment period is expected to be
Acomm and assume that bl will not change, thus, the background level should be
BLcomm = Acomm * bl. Without adjustment, using BLcal would lead to net credits (in case Acomm <Acal) or net debits (in case Acomm > Acal). In order to avoid these situations, it is good practice toapply the following:

2894
2895

(1) Calculate the area-specific annual emissions for the calibration period using the totals of all
disturbance types (last row of Table 2.3.2 (for FM, Table 2.3.1)).

2896
2897

(2) Use these area-specific annual emissions to calculate the area specific background level bl for
AR using the stepwise guidance on developing the background level and margin.

2898
2899
2900

(3) Make a projection, i.e. an unbiased estimate of the annual increase, of the area under AR forthe commitment period. (For FM, this projected area should be consistent with the area projectedunder the FMRL.)

2901
2902

(4) Calculate Acomm, the average of the projected area under AR (or FM, respectively) provided instep (3) above.

2903(5) Calculate the background level for the commitment period as BLcomm = Acomm * bl.

2904
2905

2.3.9.72906

EXCLUSION OF REMOVALS ON LANDS AFFECTED BY THE
NATURAL DISTURBANCE PROVISION

2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921

In case a Party excludes from accounting emissions from natural disturbances in accordance with the provisions
detailed in paragraphs 33 through 36 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7, it should also exclude from accounting any
subsequent removals during the commitment period on the affected land. Therefore it is good practice that the
Party assess and report the removals (using the guidance given above in Section 2.3.9.3) occurring on lands
affected by the disturbance(s) whose emissions were excluded from accounting, without regard whether they
originate from the re-establishment of young forest vegetation by rehabilitation measures or natural re-growth ofvegetation, and to ensure their subsequent exclusion from accounting. Special care has to be taken that theremovals are not captured by another assessment system, if for example complementary assessments on thenatural disturbance areas are conducted in addition to a national forest inventory; or that the national forest
inventory is designed in a way that can provide separate outputs for these areas. It is good practice for Parties
using a projected FMRL to provide information on how the estimation of emissions and removals following
natural disturbances has been matched to the treatment of emissions and removals in the construction of the
FMRL to avoid double counting. For example, the FMRL may contain a certain amount of emissions andremovals associated with the disturbed area, but originating from FM activities, in case the area would not havebeen disturbed.

2922
2923

2.3.9.8

2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932

I NFORMATION ON EFFORTS TAKEN TO REHABILITATE THE
LAND SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISTURBANCES

Once a natural disturbance has occurred, the Party may implement actions to rehabilitate the land cover, wherepracticable, in order to restore or secure forest functions and to prevent degradation of forests. Althoughrehabilitation is different from restoration and revegetation in terms of GHG reporting, the techniques used may
include the same as used for reforestation and revegetation, e.g., planting, seeding and/or the human-induced
promotion of natural seed sources. The rehabilitation effort will depend on the severity of the impact, thelikelihood of regeneration and cost-benefit analysis. Following – for example – wind-throw, usable timber may
be removed (SL, see Section 2.3.9.3), the affected areas are cleared by e.g. banking of debris (which affects
DOM and soil organic matter pools) or preparation of planting sites in places, and subsequent planting of crop

2.50

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940

tree species or seed-bed preparation is conducted, if seeds or seed trees are still available on the lands. If seed
trees or natural regeneration are available (if the disturbance mainly affected higher age-classes and led to a shift
in the age-class distribution), rehabilitation can be restricted to activities that ensure the site is accessible forfurther management activities following e.g. SL. In case of forest fires, species within ecosystems can respond to
fire and fire regimes in different ways (Gill, 1975). For example, some forest species are resilient to even themost severe fires and respond through epicormic resprouting post fire. In such instances efforts to rehabilitate
may not be required and it is good practice, in these cases, to demonstrate that no other direct humanintervention is necessary for rehabilitation.

2941
2942
2943
2944
2945

A Party applying the natural disturbance provisions shall provide transparent information that demonstrates
efforts taken to rehabilitate, where practicable, the land for which the provisions in paragraph 33 above areapplied (paragraph 34(e) of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7). To demonstrate this, to allow for the distinction ofrehabilitation and other management activities that might constitute land-use change, and to avoid double
counting, it is good practice to provide transparent information on:

2946

-

Area rehabilitated, or planned to be;

2947
2948
2949

-

Time frame for the rehabilitation, i.e. duration of the management activity undertaken if this is notcompleted in the year of reporting, or time until a specified state (‘result’, see below) is expected to bereached;

2950
2951

-

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

2952
2953
2954

-

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

2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963

If efforts have not been taken and/or are not planned to rehabilitate the areas subject to natural disturbances, it isgood practice to provide transparent information on the reasons why the rehabilitation is not intended and/or
impracticable. For example, natural regeneration in the disturbed area might make human intervention
unnecessary or a volcanic eruption may cover an area completely with lava. In case natural or human-induced
regeneration is not possible, and there is no land-use change, the area is technically still to be considered as FM(no human-induced deforestation occurred) and included in the reporting and accounting appropriately. If, in the
future, other uses are conducted in these areas, e.g. cattle is grazed on grass growing on the disturbed area, thisindicates a change in land-use and may have to be considered as Deforestation (see decision trees in Sections 1.3
and 2.6).

2964
2965

2.3.9.92966

T REATMENT OF EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS THAT OCCUR

2967

ON THE LANDS SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISTURBANCES INSUBSEQUENT COMMITMENT PERIODS

2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973

Paragraph 36 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 requires that the treatment of emissions and removals that occur on
the lands [subject to the disturbance provisions] in the subsequent commitment periods shall be reflected in landuse, land-use change and forestry accounting for those commitment periods. Therefore, it is good practice thatthese emissions and removals are estimated in a manner consistent with the other forestry estimates in the GHG
inventory and integrated into estimates for future years, so that accounting in subsequent commitment periods
can reflect them.

2974

2976

OTHER GENERIC METHODOLOGICALISSUES

2977
2978
2979

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

2980

2.4.1

2975

2.4

Developing a consistent time series

Draft KP Supplement

2.51

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989

Lands subject to Article 3.3 or 3.4 activities and the management thereon need to be tracked through time, toensure that all GHG emissions and removals are reported throughout CPs and with no gap between periods.
Moreover, the continuity of management greatly influences GHG emissions and removals, and changes inmanagement or land use are often the periods associated with the greatest changes in carbon stocks. For example,
it is not sufficient merely to state that 10% of a CM area has been under no-till for a specified period. The rate ofcarbon stock change for the total area depends on whether the same 10% of land has remained under no-till orwhether the 10% of no-till occurred on a different portion of the area in different years. It is therefore goodpractice to track the management of land subject to Article 3.3, FM and elected 3.4 activities. (See also Box
2.4.1)

2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995

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

2996
2997
2998
2999

A supplementary condition for developing a consistent time series is to use the same methods for estimating
carbon stock change and non-CO2 GHG emissions during the whole period and for setting the benchmark value
to be used in accounting i.e. either the reference level or the base year value, or to ensure consistency between
different methods.

3000
3001

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

3002
3003
3004

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

3005
3006
3007
3008
3009

To estimate changes in soil carbon stocks, whether by Tier 1, 2 or 3 methods, management
practices on applicable lands need to be tracked over time. Ideally, the management of each land
would be tracked explicitly. But such data may not always be available. An alternative approach
may be to estimate the average history of lands and soil now under a given management. Consider
the following example.

3010

Example: Cropland management

3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021

Suppose there was a cropland region of 10,000 ha, of which 5,000 are in no-till (NT) in the year
2000, up from 2,000 ha in 1990. The remainder, in each year, is under conventional tillage (CT). It
is assumed no tracking of the management on individual land. In order to simplify this example,
suppose further that the land management in the year 1990 was unchanged for more than 20 years.
The estimated soil carbon stock change is based on a matrix of coefficients; say 0.3 tonnes C/ha/yr
for land shifting from CT to NT, -0.3 tonnes C/ha/yr for a shift from NT to CT. (The carbon stockchange is calculated by the amount of soil carbon, the relative carbon stock change52 factor, over
20 years, for the management activity, and the length of the period, one year. See Chapter 5.2.3,
and Tables 2.3 and 5.5, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.) There has been no tracking ofmanagement on individual land. Based on a statistical analysis (e.g., a survey), it is possible toestimate, with confidence, the following shifts:

3022

CT



NT

3,500 ha

3023

CT



CT

4,500 ha

3024

NT



CT

500 ha

3025

NT



NT

1,500 ha3026

The total carbon gain is therefore:

3027(3,500 • 0.3 + 4,500 • 0 + 500 • (-0.3) + 1,500 • 0) tonnes C/yr = 900 tonnes C/yr.

3028

52

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

2.52

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

3029

2.4.2

Recalculation of Time Series

3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037

This section deals with recalculation of time series, excluding implications for the technical correction ofreference levels; which is addressed in Section 2.7.6. As inventory capacity and data availability improve, themethods and data used to calculate estimates are updated and refined. Recalculation of historic emissions andremovals is good practice when new methods are introduced or existing ones refined, when new sources andsinks categories are included, or when data are updated (for example through new measurements during the CPor the availability of new information on verification). Recalculations may also be needed if lands arereclassified at a later time (e.g., for lands that have lost forest cover but where a classification as deforested lands
was pending and has been resolved, see Section 2.6.1).

3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043

The CMP decisions make provisions for recalculation53, consistent with the UNFCCC reporting guidelines, andmention that previous estimates should be recalculated using the new methods for all years in the time series.
Annual GHG emissions and removals reported for a given year during the CP can be recalculated in subsequent
reporting years (up to the final year of the CP). When recalculating emissions and/or removals, time seriesconsistency must be checked and ensured. It is also good practice to report why the new estimates are regarded
as more accurate or less uncertain.

3044
3045
3046

One potential problem in recalculating previous estimates is that certain data sets may not be available for theearlier years. There are several ways of overcoming this limitation and they are explained in detail in Chapter 5,
Volume 1, of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

3047

2.4.3

3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061

It is good practice that uncertainties are identified, quantified and reduced as far as is practicable and that all
information on anthropogenic GHG emissions by sources and removals by sinks which result from mandatory
and elective activities are reported with levels of confidence as elaborated by any IPCC good practice guidance
adopted by the CMP.54 Because of the importance for many countries of well-designed sampling programmes toreduce uncertainties when preparing LULUCF inventories, specific information on the design of sampling
programmes for land areas and biomass stock, as well as the assessment of associated uncertainties should be
provided. Generally, the approaches provided in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and theestimation of sampling error related to the sampling design used for data collection can be used for assessing
uncertainties associated with estimates reported under the UNFCCC and under the KP LULUCF activities (IPCC
2010c). However, some issues and terms which are specific to the KP require additional uncertainty assessment,
for example the estimation of the areas under KP LULUCF activities or the need to track activities since 1990.
For KP reporting, uncertainty assessment is particularly important in order to support verification requirements.
Moreover, while selecting a particular tier to estimate changes in carbon stocks and non-CO2 GHG emissions, it
is good practice to consider the implications of this choice for the management of uncertainties

3062

2.4.3.1

3063
3064

In the context of KP reporting in the LULUCF Sector, the following sources of uncertainties are likely to besignificant:

3065
3066
3067



Definitional errors, such as bias and inconsistencies resulting from the interpretation and implementation of
the various definitions in the KP (including the potential mismatch between data available to Parties andtheir interpretation of the definitions).

3068
3069



Classification errors, such as land use and land transition classification errors (e.g., forest vs. non-forestclassification with possible errors regarding temporarily unstocked forest lands).

3070
3071



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

3072
3073



Identification errors arising while defining the geographical boundaries of areas encompassing lands subject
to KP LULUCF activities

53

See paragraphs 4, 12 (notably 12(d) and 12(e)), 13 and 14(e) in Annex to Decision 19/CMP.1 (Article 5.1), contained in
document FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3.

Uncertainty assessment

I DENTIFYING U NCERTAINTIES54This refers to paragraph 6 (d) including footnote 5, and paragraph 9 including footnote 7 in Annex to Decision 15/CMP.1(Article 7). Also refers to Decision 2/CMP.8, Article 2.

Draft KP Supplement

2.53

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078



Sampling errors, i.e. the difference between the estimate derived from a subsample of plots and the(unknown) value for the entire landscape. For the calculation of sampling error see, for example, Husch et al.
(2003). Sampling errors can increase when samples do not sufficiently cover the temporal and spatial
variability of the estimated parameter. This is particularly critical when reporting land areas that include
multiple land units by using legal, administrative, or ecosystem boundaries.

3079
3080
3081
3082



Estimation errors, such as errors in area estimates (e.g., due to incorrect classification of change events i.e.,
both omission and commission errors in remote sensing (see below for details), due to differing scales used
to identify lands subject to the various activities, e.g., AR vs. D, or modifications made to the sampling
procedures and/or densities over time or due to positional errors).

3083
3084
3085
3086
3087



Model errors occur whenever models or allometric equations are used to estimate carbon stock changes or
non-CO2 GHG emissions and removals, which is likely to be the case at higher tiers. It can be very
cumbersome to trace the propagation of errors through complex models chained to each other. In general,
this may introduce additional uncertainties. In some cases simpler models can be used to estimate typicaluncertainty ranges that can be combined with central estimates from complex models.

3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098

Natural variability

3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108

Activity data

Natural variability is a result of variations in natural controlling variables, such as annual climate variability, andvariability within lands that are assumed to be homogenous, e.g., the spatial variability of forest soils within agiven land. When sufficient experimental data are available, good practice should permit determination of theresulting combined plot-level and up-scaling uncertainties using standard statistical methods such as Generalized
Linear Models (e.g., Tate et al., 2003). In some cases, especially for interannual or periodical variability, largescale disturbance impacts may change the sign of the reported net emissions and removals of an entire country or
region. In inventory calculations uncertainty due to natural variability can be reduced by using time-averaged
coefficients and by averaging direct measurements over a time period sufficiently long to reduce the variability,
as discussed in Section 2.3.5 (Interannual variability).
In addition to uncertainties in default carbon emission and removal factors, there are often uncertainties
associated with missing or inaccurate activity data. Determining retrospectively the inventory for the base year,
in most cases 1990, may pose a particular challenge for CM, GM, RV and WDR. It may be possible to establishbase year emissions by extrapolating a consistent time series of emissions and removals established for a period
over which activity data are available. Alternatively a country-specific methodology may be used if this can beshown to be more reliable in estimating base year carbon stock change. It is good practice to verify that thismethodology does not over- or underestimate emissions/removals in the base year (see Section 2.4.6). It is goodpractice to also use in the estimation of base year emissions historical data on management practices prior to
1990, if available.

3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115

Spatial resolution of remote sensing and ground truth

3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121

Positional errors occur where (a) the geometric correction is not done, incomplete or false, (b) the pixel locationand location of the ground truth plot do not coincide, and (c) there is insufficient accuracy in the definition of theborderlines. For example, when detecting land-use changes by a time series of remotely sensed images, thespatial displacement of pixels from one sampled image to the next will introduce errors. In the case of detectionof a transition from forest to non-forest or vice versa, the associated uncertainties will be larger when forests are
fragmented.

3122
3123
3124

Classification errors arise from an incorrect identification of the real land cover class. They comprise omission
errors, i.e., a population element from a given category is omitted and put erroneously into another class, andcommission errors, i.e., classifying wrong categories into a given ground truth category.

3125
3126
3127

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

The objective of using satellite imagery for land-cover and land-use assessments is to obtain, for an inventory
region, total area estimates, percentages of land classes, or geographical boundaries. Remote sensing isparticularly well suited to completely identify lands. A source of uncertainty is the selection of imagery of
inadequate resolution. In order to capture changes in areas as small as one hectare, the resolution of the imagery
must be finer than one hectare. In addition, improper or insufficient ground truthing can result in classification
errors.

2.54

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

3128

2.4.3.2

Q UANTIFYING U NCERTAINTIES

3129
3130
3131

Uncertainties associated with carbon stock changes and emissions estimation are to be quantified according tostandard statistical methods. Uncertainties can originate from several sources and be combined into an overall
uncertainty.

3132

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

3133
3134

Uncertainties for the KP activities can be treated in the same way as other uncertainty estimates taking into
account that:

3135
3136
3137
3138
3139



The “since 1990” clause and the use of definitions specific to the KP are likely to cause systematic errors
related to the estimation of the required activity data. The potential for differences between the managed
forest area and the area subject to FM (see figure 2.7.1), and also between Grassland area and area subject to
GM implies that the areas for which uncertainties are being assessed may differ between the KP activities
and the corresponding categories of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

3140
3141
3142
3143



Activity data can also relate to individual practices or ownership structures, e.g., the fraction of cropland on
which farmers use a given amendment or practice. If the fraction is estimated by survey, the survey design
should incorporate an uncertainty estimate depending on the level of inventory data disaggregation,otherwise the uncertainty will have to come from expert judgement.

3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160



For CM, GM, WDR and/or RV (if elected) uncertainty estimates are also needed for the base year. It is goodpractice that the selected methodology neither over- nor underestimate emissions and removals in the baseyear. But uncertainties are likely to be higher than for estimates in the CP, because the estimates for the baseyear may often be derived only by backward extrapolations or models, rather than by actual inventories in ornear the base year. In addition, determination of activities in the base year, where required, may posedifficulties if pre-base year surveys of land use are not available. Where reliable data are not available for1970 to 1990 (or other applicable time periods), countries can use a country-specific methodology, shown tobe reliable, to estimate base year carbon stock change in 1990. In most cases, these methods also require
historical data on management practices prior to 1990. The associated uncertainties could, in principle, be
assessed by formal statistical methods, but more likely by expert judgement which is based on the feasible
ranges of backward extrapolation of time trends. If surrogate data (i.e., alternative data sets that can be used
as a proxy for missing data) are available, they can be a useful guide for extrapolating the trend in periodic
data and subsequently interpolating the same data following the next data collection cycle. If there are noavailable surrogates or other information, then the only technique available is to extrapolate, with arecalculated interpolation of the estimates when the new observations are available. Thus, it is good practice
to attempt to find reliable surrogate data to guide extrapolation and interpolation when the fundamental data
used for the inventory estimates are not available for the base year.

3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176



When remote sensing is used for classification of land use and detection of land-use change, theuncertainties could be quantified by verifying classified lands with adequate actual ground truth data or
higher spatial and temporal resolution imagery. Details of this methodology can be found in McRoberts et al.
(2010). In order to estimate the accuracy of land-use/land-cover maps on a category-by-category basis, anumber of sample points on the map and their corresponding real world categories are used to create anerror matrix (Lillesand et al. 2008, McRoberts and Walters 2012). The diagonal of this matrix shows theprobability of correct identification and the off-diagonal elements show the probability of misclassificationof a land category into one of the other possible categories. The error matrix expresses not only the accuracyof the map but it is also possible to determine which categories are easily confounded with each other.
Based on the error matrix, a number of accuracy indices can be derived (Congalton and Green, 2009). It isgood practice to present an estimate of the accuracy of the land-use/land-cover map category-by-category
and an error matrix may be employed for this purpose where remote sensing is used. Multi-temporal
analysis (analysis of images taken at different times to determine the stability of land-use classification) can
also be used to improve classification accuracy, particularly in cases where ground truth data are limited. A
review of methodologies for monitoring ecosystem is presented by Coppin et al. (2004). Methodology for
estimating uncertainties in area estimation is also presented by Olofsson et al. (2013).

3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182

Separate annual uncertainty estimates need to be made for each of the mandatory and elective activities, for eachreported carbon pool, each GHG and geographical location. Estimates should be reported using tables generated
following the model of Tables 1A-11B in the Annex to this report. Separate tables should be reported for thebase year if CM, GM, RV or WDR are elected. Estimates should be expressed as percent of the area and of theemissions by sources or removals by sinks (or changes in stocks) reported in Tables 1A-11B.

Draft KP Supplement

2.55

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188

Uncertainty associated with areas of lands need to be estimated. When using Reporting Method 1, it is goodpractice to report a separate estimate of uncertainty for each of the mandatory activities, and each of the elected
activities within a given geographical boundary. Under Reporting Method 2, each geographical boundary is
subject to a single activity. Therefore there will only be one uncertainty estimate needed for each geographicalboundary. However, because Reporting Method 2 can contain very large numbers of polygons it is sufficient toprovide uncertainty estimates for the summary statistics.

3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201

Where uncertainties are difficult to derive, it is good practice to use default values for uncertainties. Guidance on
selecting default carbon emission or removal factors for CM can be found in Annex 4A.1 of the GPG-LULUCF,
Tool for Estimation of Changes in Soil Carbon Stocks associated with Management Changes in Croplands andGrazing Lands based on IPCC Default Data. Since these factors are taken from the IPCC Guidelines, no true
uncertainty ranges can be assigned. However, using expert judgement, default uncertainty ranges corresponding
to a sampling error of 50% can be assigned, based on an analysis of no-till long-term experiments in Europe inwhich the 95% confidence interval of the mean annual emission or removal estimate was found to be around ±50%of that mean (Smith et al., 1998). For RV and WDR, default uncertainty ranges cannot be specified at present. It
is good practice for a country electing these activities to provide its own estimates of the uncertainty associatedwith emissions and removals from all pools for the affected lands. Estimates of uncertainties have to be based onnational sources or expert judgment reflecting national circumstances. Inventory compilers may also apply
national methods for estimating the overall uncertainty, e.g., error propagation methods that avoid thesimplifying approximations and in this case, it is good practice clearly to document such methods.

3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209

Problems may arise when activity data are lacking or are not well-documented. Activity data necessary to apply
scaling factors (i.e., data on agricultural practices and organic amendments) may not be available in current
databases/statistics. Estimates of the fraction of farmers using a particular practice or amendment should then be
based on expert judgement, and so should the range in the estimated fraction. As a default value for theuncertainty in the fraction estimate, ±0.2 is proposed (e.g., the fraction of farmers using organic amendment
estimated at 0.4, the uncertainty range being 0.2–0.6). As practical consideration it is assumed that uncertainties
of the various input data estimates, either as default values, expert judgement or estimates based on soundstatistical sampling can be combined for an overall uncertainty estimates.

3210

2.4.3.3

3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218

Estimating uncertainties in a quantitative manner helps to identify major sources of uncertainties and to pin-point
areas of potential improvements to reduce uncertainties in future assessments. In particular, for reporting under
the KP it is recommended to make efforts to convey the overall uncertainty estimates to all agencies and/or firms
involved in order to encourage improvement, i.e., reduced uncertainties in estimates of future reports. It is also
good practice to establish institutional means and procedures that are likely to contribute towards reducing
uncertainties. For instance, a country may choose on purpose to estimate uncertainties by more than one
procedure. This will produce complementary results for the same country and data category, prompting further
research on potential sources of inconsistency and ultimately enhancing the robustness of estimates.

3219
3220
3221
3222

Often, uncertainties can be reduced if areas subject to land-use change are estimated directly as a class bythemselves within a stratification scheme, rather than as a difference between two overall estimates of land-use
areas. The extra effort required for area identification should help to reduce uncertainties in the assessment ofareas subject to KP activities.

3223
3224
3225

Uncertainties are likely to be reduced by implementing means to make the design, procedure and frequency ofdata collection more systematic, for example by establishing – whenever possible – long-term, statistically soundmonitoring programmes.

3226

2.4.4

Reporting and documentation

3227

2.4.4.1

R EPORTING

3228
3229
3230
3231

The anthropogenic GHG emissions by sources and removals by sinks from KP activities, estimated using themethods described before and in the activity-specific Sections 2.5 – 2.12, must be reported as outlined in
relevant CMP decisions55. Some information on definitions and elected activities must be reported once by 15th
April 2015, as part of the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount as established in Annex I to55

R EDUCING U NCERTAINTIESCMP decisions relevant for LULUCF accounting for the second CP: Decision 2/CMP6, Decision 2/CMP.7 and Decision
2/CMP.8.

2.56

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

3232
3233
3234

Decision 2/CMP.8, whereas supplementary information must be reported annually during the second CP. The
information to be reported is summarised in Table 2.4.1, but excludes information associated with removal unit
(RMU) accounting. It is good practice to report all information requested in Table 2.4.1.

3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240

Table 2.4.1 summarizes CMP decisions which specify that annual reports under the KP include estimates ofareas of land subject to activities under Article 3.3, FM and any other elected Article 3.4 activities, GHG
emissions by sources and removals by sinks on these areas of land, and the associated uncertainties. Tables 1A
through 11B in the Annex of this document provide a draft template for such reporting. It is good practice toinclude in these reports additional information on methods and approaches used to identify lands and to estimate
the emissions and removals.
TABLE 2.4.1
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION TO BE REPORTED FOR THE ANNUAL GHG INVENTORY DURING THE SECOND CPACCORDING TO DECISION 2/CMP.8.
(TEXT IN ITALICS INDICATES A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE DECISION)

Information to bereported

Detailed information

Reference in
CMP decisions

Land related information
Information on
geographical locationand identification oflands

The geographical location of the boundaries of the areas that encompass:(i) Units of land subject to activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, of the
Kyoto Protocol;(ii) Units of land subject to activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, of the
Kyoto Protocol which would otherwise be included in land subject toforest management or elected activities under Article 3, paragraph 4,of the Kyoto Protocol under the provisions of decision 2/CMP.7,
annex, paragraph 9;(iii) Land subject to forest management under Article 3, paragraph 4, inthe second commitment period and to any elected activities under
Article 3, paragraph 4;
If the Party applies the Natural Disturbance provision:(i) Showing that all lands subject to the exclusion due to natural
disturbances are identified, including their georeferenced location,
year and types of disturbances;(iii) Showing that no land-use change has occurred on lands for which
the provisions contained in decision 2/CMP.7, annex, paragraph 33,
are applied and explaining the methods and criteria for identifying
any future land-use changes on those land areas during the second
commitment period;
If the Party applies the CEFC provision:(i) The identification of all lands and associated carbon pools subject todecision 2/CMP.7, annex, paragraph 37, including thegeoreferenced location and year of conversion;

Spatial assessment
unit

The spatial assessment unit used for determining the area of accounting forafforestation, reforestation and deforestation;

Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 2(b)Paragraph 2(f)Paragraph 5(g)Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 2(c)

3241
3242

Draft KP Supplement

2.57

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
TABLE 2.4.1 (CONTINUED)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION TO BE REPORTED FOR THE ANNUAL GHG INVENTORY DURING THE SECOND CPACCORDING TO DECISION 2/CMP.8.
(TEXT IN ITALICS INDICATES A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE DECISION)

Information to bereported

Reference in
CMP decisions

Detailed information

Information on methods and approaches to estimate emissions and removals
Description of
methodologies used
including methods
used for calculating
the reference level andthe associatedbackground level ofemissions from natural
disturbances

Information on how inventory methodologies have been applied taking into
account the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, and any relevant supplementary methodological guidancedeveloped by the IPCC and adopted by the CMP and the COP, andrecognizing the principles as laid out in decision 16/CMP.1;

Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 2(a)Identification ofelected activities; andinformation on how
lands subject toactivities are identified
and on how lands aretrackedto ensure that,once accounted, neverleave the accounting

The identification of its election of activities under Article 3, paragraph 4,of the Kyoto Protocol for inclusion in its accounting for the second
commitment period, in addition to those activities under Article 3,
paragraph 4, of the Kyoto Protocol that were elected in the firstcommitment period, together with information on how its national system
under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol will identify land areas
associated with all additional elected activities and how the Party ensuresthat land that was accounted for under activities under Article 3,
paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol in the first commitment period
continues to be accounted for in subsequent commitment periods, inaccordance with decisions 16/CMP.1 and 2/CMP.7;

Annex I of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 1(g)Justification whenomitting any carbon
pool

Information on which, if any, of the following pools – above-groundbiomass, below-ground biomass, litter, deadwood and/or soil organiccarbon – were not accounted for, together with verifiable information that
demonstrates that these unaccounted pools were not a net source ofanthropogenic GHG emissions;Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 2(e)Information on indirect
factors on GHG
emissions andremovals

Information should also be provided which indicates whether
anthropogenic GHG emissions by sources and removals by sinks from
LULUCF activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, forest management under
Article 3, paragraph 4, and any elected activities under Article 3,
paragraph 4, factor out removals from:(a) Elevated carbon dioxide concentrations above pre-industrial levels;(b) Indirect nitrogen deposition;(c) The dynamic effects of age structure resulting from activities prior to 1
January 1990.

Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 3

Changes in data andmethods andrecalculations(e) Information that demonstrates methodological consistency between thereference level and reporting for forest management during the second
commitment period, including the area accounted for, the treatment of
harvested wood products, and the accounting of any emissions fromnatural disturbances;(f) Any technical corrections made pursuant to decision 2/CMP.7, annex,
paragraph 14, to ensure consistency between the reference level andreporting for forest management during the second commitment
period;Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 5

3243
3244

2.58

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

TABLE 2.4.1 (CONTINUED)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION TO BE REPORTED FOR THE ANNUAL GHG INVENTORY DURING THE SECOND CPACCORDING TO DECISION 2/CMP.8.
(TEXT IN ITALICS INDICATES A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE DECISION)

Information to bereported

Detailed information

Reference in
CMP decisions

Specific information for activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4
Specific information
on Article 3.3
activities and Forest
Management(f)

The identification of its selection of single minimum values for tree
crown cover, land area and tree height for use in accounting for its
activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol, if
the Party included in Annex I did not select a definition of forest for the
first commitment period, together with a justification of the consistencyof those values with the information that has been historically reported
to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations orother international bodies, and in the case of difference, an explanationof why and how such values were chosen, in accordance with decisions
16/CMP.1 and 2/CMP.7. If the Party included in Annex I selected its
forest definition for the first commitment period, the definition for thesecond commitment period shall be the same;(g) An indication of whether it intends to apply the provisions to exclude
emissions from natural disturbances for the accounting for afforestation
and reforestation under Article 3, paragraph 3, of the Kyoto Protocol
and/or forest management under Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto
Protocol during the second commitment period in accordance withdecision 2/CMP.7, annex, paragraph 33, and any relevant
supplementary methodological guidance developed by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and adopted by the CMP
and the COP, including:(i) Country-specific information on the background level of emissions
associated with annual natural disturbances that have been included
in its forest management reference level;(ii) Information on how the background level(s) for afforestation andreforestation under Article 3, paragraph 3, of the Kyoto Protocol
and/or forest management under Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto
Protocol have been estimated, and information on how it avoids the
expectation of net credits or net debits during the commitment
period, including information on how a margin is established, if amargin is needed;
If Party applies the Natural Disturbance provision:(ii)
Showing how annual emissions resulting from natural disturbances
and the subsequent removals during the commitment period in
those areas are estimated and excluded from the accounting;(iv)
Demonstrating that the events or circumstances were beyond thecontrol of, and not materially influenced by, the Party in thecommitment period, by demonstrating practicable efforts toprevent, manage or control the events or circumstances that led tothe application of the provisions contained in decision 2/CMP.7,
annex, paragraph 33;(v)
Demonstrating efforts taken to rehabilitate, where practicable, theland for which the provisions contained in decision 2/CMP.7,
annex, paragraph 33, are applied;(vi)
Showing that emissions associated with salvage logging were notexcluded from accounting.

Annex I of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 1

Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 2(f)3245

Draft KP Supplement

2.59

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
Specific information
on Article 3.3
activities and Forest
Management

If Party does not apply instantaneous oxidation for Harvested Wood
Products:(i)
Information on activity data for the harvested wood products
categories used for estimating the harvested wood products poolremoved from domestic forests, for domestic consumption and forexport, as appropriate;(ii)
Information on half-lives used in estimating the emissions andremovals for these categories in accordance with decision
2/CMP.7, annex, paragraph 29 or 30, or, alternatively,
information on methodologies used to account for harvested wood
products in accordance with decision 2/CMP.7, annex, paragraph
30, showing that the methodologies used are at least as detailed or
accurate as the first-order decay method with default half-lives
provided in decision 2/CMP.7, annex, paragraph 29;(iii)
If the forest management reference level is based on a projection,
information on whether emissions from harvested wood products
originating from forests prior to the start of the second
commitment period have been included in the accounting;(iv)
Information on how emissions from the harvested wood products
pool that have been accounted for during the first commitment
period on the basis of instantaneous oxidation have been excluded
from the accounting for the second commitment period;(v)
Information showing that harvested wood products resulting fromdeforestation have been accounted on the basis of instantaneousoxidation;(vi)
Information showing that carbon dioxide emissions from harvested
wood products in solid waste disposal sites, where these emissions
are separately accounted for, and from wood harvested for energy
purposes have been accounted on the basis of instantaneousoxidation;(vii)
Information showing that the emissions and removals resulting
from changes in the harvested wood products pool accounted for
do not include imported harvested wood products, irrespective of
their origin.

Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 2(g)Article 3.3 activities
specific information(a) Information that demonstrates that activities under Article 3, paragraph
3, began on or after 1 January 1990 and before 31 December of the lastyear of the commitment period, and are directly human-induced;(b) Information on how harvesting or forest disturbance that is followed by
the re-establishment of a forest is distinguished from deforestation

Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 4

2.60

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

Forest Management
specific information(i) The forest management reference level as inscribed in the appendix to theannex to decision 2/CMP.7, any technical corrections as contained in
the inventory report for the first year of the second commitment period
and references to those sections in the national inventory report wheresuch information is reported consistent with the requirements ofdecision 2/CMP.7, annex, paragraph 14;1(j) Information on how emissions from harvested wood products originatingfrom forests prior to the start of the second commitment period havebeen calculated in the reference level in accordance with decision
2/CMP.7, annex, paragraph 16;
If the Party applies the CEFC provision(ii) A demonstration that the forest plantation was first established throughdirect human-induced planting and/or seeding of non-forest land before
1 January 1990, and, if the forest plantation was re-established, that
this last occurred on forest land through direct human-induced planting
and/or seeding after 1 January 1960;(iii) A demonstration that a new forest of at least equivalent area to theharvested forest plantation is established through direct human-induced
planting and/or seeding of non-forested land that did not contain forest
on 31 December 1989;(iv) A demonstration that this newly established forest will reach at least theequivalent carbon stock that was contained in the harvested forest
plantation at the time of harvest, within the normal harvesting cycle ofthe harvested forest plantation, and, if not, a debit would be generated
under Article 3, paragraph 4

Forest Management
and any elected
activities under Article
3.4 specificinformation(a) A demonstration that activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, haveoccurred since 1 January 1990 and are human induced;(c) Information that demonstrates that emissions by sources and removals
by sinks resulting from forest management under Article 3, paragraph
4, and any elected activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, are notaccounted for under activities under Article 3, paragraph 3;

Annex I of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 1(h)Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 5(g)Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 5

3246
3247
3248

Draft KP Supplement

2.61

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
TABLE 2.4.1 (CONTINUED)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION TO BE REPORTED FOR THE ANNUAL GHG INVENTORY DURING THE SECOND CPACCORDING TO DECISION 2/CMP.8.
(TEXT IN ITALICS INDICATES A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE DECISION)

Information to bereported

Reference in
CMP decisions

Detailed information

Information related to the estimates of emissions by sources and removals by sinks(for reporting data, see Tables 1A-11B in the Annex of this report)
Estimates for GHG
emissions by sources
and removals by sinks

Information on anthropogenic GHG emissions by sources and removals bysinks resulting from activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, forest
management under Article 3, paragraph 4, and any elected activities under
Article 3, paragraph 4, for all geographical locations reported in the current
and previous years, under paragraph 3(b) above, since the beginning of thecommitment period or the onset of the activity, whichever comes later. In thelatter case the year of the onset of the activity shall also be included. Onceland is accounted for under activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, forest
management under Article 3, paragraph 4, or any elected activities under
Article 3, paragraph 4, reporting shall continue throughout subsequent andcontiguous commitment periods;

Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 2(d)(b) For Parties included in Annex I that elect cropland management and/or
grazing land management and/or revegetation and/or wetland drainage
and rewetting, anthropogenic GHG emissions by sources and removals
by sinks for each year of the commitment period and for the base year
for each of the elected activities on the geographical locations reported
under paragraph 2(b) above.
(d) Information on how all emissions arising from the conversion of naturalforests to planted forests are accounted for in accordance with any
supplementary methodological guidance developed by the IPCC andadopted by the CMP;

Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 5[…] Estimates for Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, shall be clearly
distinguished from anthropogenic emissions from the sources listed in Annex
A to the Kyoto Protocol.[…]Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 1

3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258

It is good practice to use coordinates as set out in Sections 2.5 to 2.12 below for the reporting of thegeographical location of the boundaries that encompass the lands subject to activities under Article 3.3, FM andelected activities under Article 3.4. This information can be summarised on a digital map for visual presentationand data sharing. It is also good practice to report the land transition matrix (Table 2A) to demonstrate that thecountry has accounted for all areas where AR, D and FM and, if elected, any Article 3.4 activities have occurred.
The diagonal cells of the table indicate the area of lands remaining in the same category (e.g., FM landremaining FM land), while other cells indicate the areas of lands converted to other categories (e.g., CM land
converted to afforested land). It is good practice that the total area reported in consecutive inventories is constantand that any change in the total area is documented and explained.

3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267

It is good practice to use Tables 4A – 11B (in the Annex of this supplement), or future versions of these tables as
decided by CMP, to submit annual estimates. For Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities (Tables 4A to 7), data should be
provided by geographical locations (See Section 2.2.2: Reporting Methods for Lands subject to Article 3.3 andArticle 3.4 activities). Activity data may be further subdivided according to climate zone, management system,
soil type, vegetation type, tree species, ecological zone, national land classification or other criteria; in such acase, for each subdivision, one row should be completed in the table. The CMP decisions also require that, in
addition to the data for the actual inventory year and any previous year of the CP, a Party also reports thisinformation for the base year for CM, GM, RV and WDR. No reporting is necessary for those Article 3.4
activities that were not elected by the Party.

3268
3269
3270
3271

When filling in these tables, care should be taken to insert carbon stock changes for each pool with proper signs.
Carbon stock changes are to be reported in units of carbon as positive when the carbon stock has increased, andas negative when the carbon stock has decreased. All changes are totalled for each geographic location, and thetotal values are then multiplied by 44/12 to convert carbon stock changes to CO2 emissions or removals. This

2.62

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

3272
3273
3274
3275

conversion also involves sign change to switch from the ecosystem to the atmospheric perspective: stockchanges refer to ecosystem carbon stocks (where decreases have a negative sign) while fluxes of CO2 and nonCO2 GHGs refer to exchanges with the atmosphere where emissions are additions to the atmosphere andtherefore have a positive sign.

3276
3277
3278
3279

Table 1A (in the annex of this supplement) is a summary table of carbon stock changes resulting from activities
under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 for the inventory year. It is good practice to also use the table for the base year foreach elected Article 3.4 activity. This table summarises data of the compilation tables by activity across all
carbon pools and non-CO2 GHG emissions and across all strata within a country.

3280
3281
3282

In addition to the data in the Tables, it is good practice to report the underlying assumptions and factors used forthe calculation of the carbon stock changes and emissions of CH4 and N2O, as well as for the calculation of theuncertainties.

3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290

Decision 2/CMP.7 contains a clause for AR and FM activities that carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG
emissions resulting from natural disturbances may be excluded from accounting (see Tables 4B, 4C, 4D and 6D,
6E, 6F and Table 5B). If this provision is used then the areas where such disturbances occurred have to be
identified and monitored for subsequent land-use change.56 If such lands exist for the inventory year, it is goodpractice to distinguish them from other AR and/or FM lands and to report them (and the associated carbon stockchanges and non-CO2 GHG emissions, distinguishing emissions from subsequent removals) separately in Tables
4A to 6A. Although this is an issue related to accounting, it is mentioned here because inventory data are likely
to be needed to implement the ND provision.

3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297

Decision 2/CMP.7 contains a clause that Parties can elect to report carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG
emissions resulting from conversion of forest plantation to non-forest land under FM together with carbon stockchanges and non-CO2 GHG emissions resulting from conversion of at least an equivalent area of non-forest land
converted to forest land (CEFC, see Table 6C). If this CEFC provision is used, then all areas subject to thisprovision have to be identified and their georeferenced locations reported57 in Table 6A. Although this is an
issue related to accounting, it is mentioned here because inventory data are likely to be needed to implement theprovision.

3298

Separate tables should be reported for the base year when CM, GM, RV and/or WDR are elected.

3299
3300
3301

Finally, separate annual uncertainty estimates should be reported for each activity under Articles 3.3 and 3.4, foreach reported carbon pool, each GHG and geographical location. Uncertainty estimates are to be made at the 95%
confidence limits expressed as percent of the emissions by sources or removals by sinks (or changes in stocks).

3302

2.4.4.2

R EPORTING N ON -CO 2 GHG EMISSIONS AND CO 2

3303

EMISSIONS FROM LIMING AND UREA APPLICATION

3304
3305
3306
3307

Reporting emissions from lands subject to AR, D, FM, CM, GM, RV and WDR requires assignment of non-CO2
GHG emissions and CO2 emissions from liming and urea application to the Agriculture Sector and the relevant
KP LULUCF activity consistent with the UNFCCC reporting guidelines for national GHG inventories58, whilst
avoiding double-counting.

3308
3309

For lands under CM, GM, RV, WDR, D and FM59 activities included in Cropland and Grassland in Convention
reporting, the following N2O and CH4 emissions are reported under Agriculture60:

3310



Direct N2O emissions from agricultural soils due to

3311

(i)

Use of inorganic N (synthetic) fertilisers;

3312

(ii)

Use of organic N fertilisers (e.g., animal manure, sewage sludge);

56

Paragraphs 33, 34 and 35 in Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7

57

Paragraphs 37, 38 and 39 in Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7

58

See FCCC/SBSTA/2013/L.15 and its annexes. The SBSTA will conclude its work on these reporting guidelines at its 39th
session in November 2013. Any change in the reporting of the emissions should be reflected also in the reporting under the
KP LULUCF activities as well as any decisions under the Kyoto Protocol clarifying the use of this Supplement.

59

Only FM lands included under the CEFC provision (i.e. CEF-hc)

60

According to Decision 16/CMP.1 estimates of emissions from sources and removals by sinks from Article 3.3 and 3.4
activities are to be clearly distinguished from anthropogenic emissions from the sources listed in Annex A to the Kyoto
Protocol (cf. paragraph 5 in Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 (Article 7), contained in document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3,p.22).

Draft KP Supplement

2.63

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
3313

(iii)

Crop residues;

3314

(iv)

Cultivation of organic soils (i.e., histosols); and

3315

(v)

Urine and dung N deposited by grazing animals on pasture, range and paddock.

3316
3317



Direct and indirect N2O emissions from N mineralisation associated with loss of soil organic matter
resulting from change of land-use and management of mineral soils.

3318



Indirect N2O emissions from nitrogen used in agriculture:

3319
3320

(i)

Volatilisation and subsequent atmospheric deposition of NH3 and NOx (originating from theapplication of fertilisers and manure); and

3321

(ii)

Nitrogen leaching and runoff.

3322



CH4 and N2O emissions from enteric fermentation of livestock and manure management.

3323
3324



CH4 and N2O emissions from field burning of agricultural residues or prescribed burning of savannas (otherin situ burning would be reported under the relevant KP LULUCF activity)61.

3325



CH4 emissions from drainage and rewetting of organic agricultural soils5.

3326
3327

Emissions from the following practices are also reported under Agriculture, irrespective of land-use:

3328



CO2 emissions from liming; and

3329



CO2 emissions from urea application.

3330
3331
3332
3333
3334

For lands under FM and AR, the direct N2O emissions from N fertilisation (from either synthetic or organic N
fertilisers) and the related indirect N2O emissions can be reported under these KP LULUCF activities, whendisaggregated data on N fertilisation by land-use category are available. Otherwise, these emissions are to bereported under Agriculture. Care should be taken that these emissions are not double-counted.

3335
3336

For lands under FM and AR, all emissions from fires, including fires from organic soils and N2O and CH4
emissions from drainage and rewetting of organic soils are to be included under these activities.

3337

The Wetlands Supplement includes guidance on CH4 emission from drainage and rewetting of organic soils.

3338
3339

2.4.4.3

D OCUMENTATION

3340
3341
3342
3343

Documentation requirements under the KP are outlined in the relevant decisions of UNFCCC as part of thedescription of the requirements for inventory management62. The information required includes all disaggregatedemission factors, activity data, and documentation about how these factors and data have been generated andaggregated for the preparation of the inventory.

3344
3345
3346
3347
3348

It is good practice to document and archive the underlying data and description of, or reference to, methods,
assumptions and parameters used to produce estimates of GHG emissions and removals that would allow
independent reviewers to follow the process of developing the reported estimates. Documented data andexplanation of methods, and the rational for their selection should be provided for both steps: the identificationof land and the assessment of carbon stock changes and the emissions of non-CO2 GHGs.

3349
3350
3351
3352

Documentation should also include information about uncertainty assessment (see also Section 2.4.3 Uncertainty
Assessment), QA/QC procedures, external and internal reviews, verification activities and key category
identification and planned improvements (see Volume 1 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines, General Guidance andReporting).

3353

61

The Wetlands Supplement includes guidance on emissions from burning of organic soils and N2O and CH4 emissions fromdrainage and rewetting of organic soils.

62

Paragraph 16(a) in Annex to Decision 19/CMP.1 (Article 5.1), contained in FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.19.

2.64

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

3354

ACTIVITIES DEFINITION AND IDENTIFICATION

3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360

It is good practice to explain how the definitions of FM and of the elected Article 3.4 activities have beeninterpreted according to national circumstances. For instance, if only a part of the managed forests reported in
the UNFCCC GHG inventory is excluded from FM in KP reporting, the criteria that are used to distinguishforests under FM from managed forests should be provided. It is also good practice to document differences
between the definitions for Croplands (or Grasslands) in the UNFCCC GHG inventory and lands subject to CM(or GM).

3361

DATA DOCUMENTATION

3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368

When using Reporting Method 1, the areas encompassed by the geographical boundaries resulting from thestratification of a country, should be identified by unique serial numbers in the tables. These serial numbers areto be cross-referenced to a database or other archive (the LULUCF Archive) specifying the locations in terms ofestablished legal or administrative boundaries, or by means of an existing coordinate system, for example anestablished national grid system, the UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator) grid or latitude and longitude. Whenusing Reporting Method 2, land-area identification should be possible through the databases associated with theuse of this reporting method.

3369

It is good practice to ensure that the documentation of estimates of GHG emissions and removals include:

3370
3371



The sources of all data used in the calculations (i.e., complete citations for the statistical database(s) fromwhich data were collected);

3372
3373
3374



The information, rationale and assumptions that were used to develop reported data and results, in cases they
were not directly available from databases (for instance if interpolation or extrapolation methods have been
applied) and a comparison to other published emission factors and explanation of any significant differences

3375



The frequency of data collection; and

3376



Estimates of the associated uncertainties with a description of the major sources of the uncertainties.

3377
3378

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHODS USED IN LAND IDENTIFICATION AND
ESTIMATION OF EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS

3379

It is good practice to document the methods with the following information:

3380
3381



Choice of Reporting Methods for lands subject to Articles 3.3, FM and 3.4 (Reporting Method 1 or 2) or adescription of the Reporting Method, if a combination of the two is used;

3382
3383



Description of the approach used for geographical location and identification of the geographicalboundaries, lands; references of maps used, if any;

3384



Choice of Tier(s) used for estimating GHG emissions and removals;

3385
3386



Methods used for estimating carbon stock changes, non-CO2 GHG emissions and magnitudes of thecorresponding uncertainties;

3387



Choice of activity data;

3388



Identification of Key Categories;

3389



If Tier 1 is used: all values of default parameters and emission/removal factors used;

3390
3391



If Tier 2 is used: all values and references of default and national parameters and emission/removal factors
used;

3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397



If Tier 3 is used: Parties should, as applicable, report information on: basis and type of model, application
and adaptation of the model, main equations/processes, key assumptions, domain of application, how themodel parameters were estimated, description of key inputs and outputs, details of calibration and model
evaluation, uncertainty and sensitivity analysis, QA/QC procedures adopted and references to peer-reviewed
literature, description of the process by which carbon stock changes and emissions or removals are
estimated;

3398



In case of Tier 2 or 3 the documentation should justify the use of specific parameters, factors or models;

3399
3400



Transparent and verifiable information that demonstrates that the pools not included in the reporting are notsources.

3401

Draft KP Supplement

2.65

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
3402

ANALYSIS OF INTERANNUAL VARIABILITY

3403
3404
3405
3406
3407

It is good practice to explain significant interannual variability in reported emissions or removals. The reasonsfor any changes in activity levels and in parameter values from year to year should be documented. If the reason
for the changes is an improvement in methods, it is good practice to recalculate results for the preceding years
by using the new methods, new activity and/or new parameter values (see Chapter 5, Volume 1 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines ‘Time series consistency’)

3408
3409

2.4.5

Quality assurance and quality control

3410
3411
3412
3413
3414

It is good practice to implement quality control checks as outlined in Chapter 6 (Quality Assurance/Quality
Control and Verification), Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Additional quality control checks and quality
assurance procedures may also be applicable, particularly if higher-tier methods are used to estimate carbon
stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions. A detailed treatment of inventory QA/QC for field measurement is
described in Appendix 4A.3 of the GPG-LULUCF.

3415
3416
3417
3418
3419
3420

Whilst Quality Control (QC) is a system of routine technical activities to assess and maintain the quality of theinventory as it is being compiled and it is performed by personnel compiling the inventory, Quality Assurance(QA) is a planned system of review procedures conducted by personnel not directly involved in the inventory
compilation/development process. Verification refers specifically to those methods that are external to theinventory and apply independent data, including comparisons with inventory estimates made by other bodies or
through alternative methods. Verification activities may be constituents of both QA and QC.

3421

Some important issues are highlighted and summarised below.

3422
3423

When compiling data, it is good practice to cross-check estimates of GHG emissions and removals against
independent estimates. For instance, it is good practice that the inventory compilers:

3424
3425



Cross-reference aggregated production data (e.g., crop yield, tree growth) and reported area statistics withnational totals or other sources of national data (e.g., agriculture / forestry statistics);

3426



Calculate implied emission/removal factors ;

3427
3428



Compare implied emissions/removals factors and other parameters with default values and data from othercountries.

3429
3430
3431



Compare results, for each Article 3.3 and 3.4 activity, from two different sources, such as national statistical
data versus remote sensing source or two different remote sensing sources (e.g. Dymond et al. 2012), or two
methods (gain-loss and stock-difference method).

3432
3433
3434
3435

It is also good practice to check that the sum of the disaggregated areas used to estimate the various
emissions/removals equals the total area under the activity, reported as per guidance in Chapter 6, Volume 1 of2006 IPCC Guidelines (using the land-use change matrix). Checks that can be used in QA/QC are listed in Box
2.4.2.

3436

2.66

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

3437
3438

BOX 2.4.2
QA/QC CHECKS OF LULUCF ESTIMATES

3439

Checks:3440
3441

Does the inventory document the data, assumptions and inferences used for estimating emissions
and removals for all IPCC source/sink categories?

3442
3443

Have all carbon pools according to paragraph 26 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 been reported
in the inventory?

3444

If a sink/source category or pool or gas has been excluded, does the report explain why?

3445

Are emissions and removals reported as positive and negative terms, respectively?

3446

For each activity, is the area reported consistently reported across the time series?

3447

Are any discontinuities in trends from base year to last reported year evaluated and explained?

3448

Are geographical boundaries of each land subject to Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities specified?

3449

Is the total land area reported under Article 3.3 and 3.4 constant or increasing over time?

3450
3451

Is information provided to distinguish deforestation from harvesting (clear- cut) or forest
disturbance followed by re- establishment of a forest?

3452
3453
3454

Is the forest definition consistent with that historically used by the Party for reporting information
under international bodies (including the UNFCCC)? Is that definition applied consistently overtime and among activities (i.e., FM, AR, D)?

3455
3456

2.4.6

3457
3458
3459

Generic good practice guidance for verification is given in Section 6.10, Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines(Verification). It is also good practice to develop verification activities as part of the overall QA/QC andverification system. Specific guidance and further issues are provided in the sections below.

3460

2.4.6.1

3461
3462
3463

Verification

S PECIFIC GUIDANCE FOR V ERIFICATION OF LULUCFI NVENTORIESThe checklist in the Box 2.4.3 summarises some of the tools that can be used for internal verification of a GHG
inventory in the LULUCF Sector.

Draft KP Supplement

2.67

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
3464
3465

BOX 2.4.3
VERIFICATION OF LULUCF ESTIMATES

3466

A. Comparisons of data:

3467
3468
3469

Compare estimates with independently prepared estimates for the same country or compare
regional sub- sets of the national inventory with independently prepared inventories for thoseregions (Approach 1*).

3470
3471
3472
3473

Compare activity data and/or emission factors and implied emission factors of the estimate withindependent international databases and/or equivalent elements of estimates of other countries. For
example, compare Biomass Expansion Factors of similar species with data from countries withsimilar forest conditions (Approach 1).

3474
3475

Compare the estimate with results calculated using another tier methodology, including the IPCC
defaults (Approach 2).

3476

Compare the estimate with available intensive studies and experiments (Approach 1- 3).

3477
3478

Compare land areas and biomass stocks used for preparing the estimate with remote sensing (landareas) and forest inventories (biomass stock) data (Approach 4).

3479

Compare the estimate with models (Approach 5).

3480
3481

B. Comparisons of uncertainties:

3482

Compare uncertainty estimates with uncertainty reported in the literature.

3483

Compare uncertainty estimates with those from other countries and the IPCC default values.

3484
3485

C. Direct measurements:

3486
3487

Carry out direct measurements (such as time series of local forest inventory, detailed growthmeasurements and/or ecosystem fluxes of GHGs, Approach 3).

3488* See Section 5.7 of GPG-LULUCF for the details on each Approach.

3489
3490
3491

Taking into account resource limitation, the information provided in the National Inventory Report should beverified as far as possible, particularly for Key Categories.

3492
3493

It is good practice to perform verification with at least one of the approaches listed in Box 2.4.3 (see also Table
5.7.1 and Section 5.7.2 in GPG-LULUCF for more information on the applicable approaches).

3494
3495
3496
3497

If independent estimates on GHG emissions and removals are not available, then internal or external verification
will most probably be limited to scrutiny of the data and methods. Under these circumstances, it is good practicefor the inventory compiler to carry out these checks and to provide sufficient documentation in the national
inventory report and other supporting material to facilitate external review.

3498
3499

2.4.6.2

3500
3501

An inventory compiler can use the questions in Box 2.4.4 to help guide the development of a verification planfor supplementary information reported under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the KP.

2.68

S PECIFIC I SSUES L INKED TO THE K YOTO P ROTOCOL

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

3502
3503

BOX 2.4.4
GUIDANCE FOR VERIFYING CARBON POOLS AND ACTIVITIES

3504

Which carbon pools to verify?

3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513

It is good practice to focus verification on those carbon pools that are expected to be most relevantto the KP but also on non- CO2 GHG emissions. The Decision 2/CMP.7 lists the following pools:
above-ground and below-ground biomass, litter, dead wood, soil organic carbon and harvest wood
products. A Party may exclude particular pools, with the exception of HWP, from accounting, if
verifiable information is provided showing that the pool has not been a source of GHGs for thatparticular Article 3.3, FM or elected Article 3.4 activity. As for LULUCF inventories, if a pool is
expected to change significantly over the inventory reporting period, particular attention should
also be devoted to it. Data on carbon stock changes in reported carbon pools can be verified byassessing the mass balance of carbon stocks, carbon transfers between pools, and C emissions.

3514

Which supplementary information to verify?

3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523

According to Decision 2/CMP.7, a Party has to report activities under Article 3.3 and FM, and may
choose to report any or all elective activities under Article 3.4 of the KP. For all mandatory orelected activities, supplementary information that is specific to the reporting under KP includes:
the identification of the areas in which such activities have taken place, demonstration that theactivities have occurred since 1st January 1990 and are direct human induced. Further,demonstration of the methodological consistency between the reference level or the base year for
FM and eligible Article 3.4 activities should be reported. To verify land identification, including
the year of the onset of the activity, the use of alternative independent data sources, e.g. remotelysensed data, is good practice, as such independent information contributes to verification.

3524
3525
3526
3527

The reporting of GHG emissions and removals of most Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities requires reference to 1990
or pre- 1990 data (classification of forest/non forest lands for 1990, or base year information for CM, GM, RV
and WDR, etc.). In some cases, these data may not be available or their reliability may be limited. In such cases,
it is good practice to verify the methods and data as much as possible.

3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534

Inventory compilers, taking into account national circumstances, including resource availability, may choose theproper combination of approaches for verifying supplementary information reported under the KP. Among thoselisted, Approaches 1 and 2 can be easily implemented by an inventory compiler with low to moderate resources.
Remote sensing is the most suitable for the verification of land areas. Direct measurements (under C in Box
2.4.3) are relevant, although this approach can be resource intensive and, on a large scale, costs may be aconstraint. Models can be used as an alternative when direct measurements combined with remote sensing are
not feasible. Some verification steps, which are unique to the KP, are presented in Box 2.4.4.

3535
3536
3537

For verification, it is good practice to give priority to Key Categories as well as estimates with high uncertainty
or with relevance to mitigation policies, or to carbon pools with a significant change, or all of these, when
implementing the verification plan.

3538

Draft KP Supplement

2.69

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
3539

2.5

3540

AFFORESTATION AND
REFORESTATION

3541
3542

This section addresses specific methods applicable to Afforestation and Reforestation (AR) activities and should
be read in conjunction with the general discussion in Sections 2.2 to 2.4.

3543

2.5.1

3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551

According to the definitions in Decision 16/CMP.1, both Afforestation and Reforestation refer to direct humaninduced conversion of non-forested land to forested land. For the first and second commitment period of the KP,
AR activities are restricted to those which occurred since 1990. The distinction between Afforestation and
Reforestation is linked to the period of time the land has been non-forested. Afforestation occurs on land that has
not been forested for at least 50 years. Reforestation occurs on land that was forested within the last 50 years but
has been converted to non-forest land, and was non-forested on 31 December 198963. Land that was subject toDeforestation (D), and is subsequently subject to regrowth of forests continues to be reported under D as a
subcategory (see Section 1.2).

3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560

The country’s definition of forest should be consistent with guidance provided in Section 1.2, and consistent
with that used by the country in the first commitment period. A direct-human induced increase in forest cover
meeting, or with the potential to meet, the country-specific forest thresholds is required as a precondition toreport a land under AR activity. AR definitions do not include regrowth of forests following harvest or natural
disturbance of forests. This is because the loss of forest cover in these cases is only temporary and therefore notconsidered D unless a land-use change occurs: the land remains as forested land. Harvesting followed by reestablishment of forest is considered a Forest Management (FM) activity (Section 2.7). Lands that would be
subject to AR activity under Article 3.3 but are instead accounted for under FM activity under the Carbon
Equivalent Forest Conversion (CEFC) provision should be identified separately (Section 2.7.7).

3561
3562
3563
3564
3565

For identification of lands, Afforestation and Reforestation will be discussed together because the two definitions
differ only by the time since the area was last forested, and because the same carbon reporting and accounting
rules apply to both activities. When calculating changes in carbon stocks following AR, the assumptions about
the initial size and composition of the litter, dead wood, and soil organic matter pools should reflect thepreceding land-use type and history, rather than the distinction between afforested and reforested sites.

3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572

A Party’s choice of methods for the development of an inventory of AR activities will depend on the national
circumstances. For the identification of lands subject to AR since 1990, it is good practice to use Approach 3 forconsistent representation of lands (see Section 3.3, Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines), or
Approach 2, with supplementary information provided that allows identification and tracking of lands on a
statistical basis64. A general discussion of methods for identifying and reporting on lands subject to AR activities
are presented in Section 2.2 of this supplement. It is good practice to provide information on uncertainties in theestimates of the total area of the lands subject to AR as discussed in Section 2.4.3 of this supplement.

3573

The annual inventory should, at a minimum, identify (for Reporting Method 1 in Section 2.2.2):

3574
3575
3576



Definitional issues and reporting requirements

The geographical location of the boundaries of the areas that encompass lands subject to AR activities. The
geographical boundaries which are reported should correspond to strata in the estimation of land areas as
described in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines;

63

This date is contained in the definition of reforestation for the first commitment period given in paragraph 1(c) of Annex toDecision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in the document FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3,
p.5,: “Reforestation” is the direct human-induced conversion of non-forested land to forested land through planting,seeding and/or the human-induced promotion of natural seed sources, on land that was forested but that has been
converted to non-forested land. For the first commitment period, reforestation activities will be limited to reforestation
occurring on those lands that did not contain forest on 31 December 1989. Paragraph 2 of Decision 2/CMP.6 contained in
document FCCC/KP/CMP/2010/12/Add.1, p.5, indicates that: ...the definitions of forest, afforestation, reforestation,
revegetation, forest management, cropland management and grazing land management shall be the same as in the firstcommitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. This supplement assumes that the date of 31 December 1989 continues to be
applicable in the second commitment period, but notes that a different interpretation may be possible subject to future
decisions of the CMP.
64
In the case of AR, the minimum information required is the land-use that preceded the afforestation/reforestation event.
This is particularly important for estimating the carbon stock change in soil, which may depend on the previous land-use
and soil type.

2.70

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

3577
3578



For each of these areas, or strata, an estimate of the area of lands subject to AR activities under Article 3.3of the KP;

3579
3580
3581



The area of lands subject to direct human-induced AR in each of the previous land-use categories (e.g.,
Cropland, Grassland). This is to support the transparent calculation of carbon stock changes and nonCO2 GHG emissions and the identification of lands.

3582
3583
3584
3585
3586

A more comprehensive system (Reporting Method 2 in Section 2.2.2) identifies each unit of land subject to AR
activities since 1990 using the polygon boundaries, a coordinate system (e.g., the Universal Transverse Mercator(UTM) Grid or Latitude/Longitude), or a legal description (e.g., those used by land-titles offices) of the locationof the land subject to AR activities. Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Basis for Consistent
Representation of Lands) discusses in detail the possible approaches for consistent representation of land areas.

3587
3588
3589

In both cases, it is good practice to provide information on the area of AR activities by year, and any otherinformation relevant for the estimation of emissions and removals (e.g., species, growth rate by species and / orsite conditions, productivity classes, etc.).

3590

2.5.2

3591

Choice of methods for identifying lands subject todirect human-induced Afforestation/Reforestation

3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598

Parties are required to report on the carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions during the commitment
period on areas that have been subject to AR activities since 1990. The first step in this process is to makenational parameter choices for the forest definition within the ranges indicated in Decision 16/CMP.1, namely
minimum area of 0.05 – 1 ha, minimum tree crown cover of 10-30% (or equivalent stocking level), minimum
height at maturity of 2 to 5 meters, and to report on these parameters in the annual greenhouse gas inventory. As
explained in Section 2.2.6.1, it is also good practice to choose a parameter for the minimum width of forested
areas. Once the parameters have been chosen, they will be used in identifying lands subject to AR.

3599

The identification of lands subject to AR activities requires the determination of areas that:

3600
3601

1.

Meet or exceed the size of the country’s minimum area in the applied forest definition (i.e., 0.05 to 1 ha),
and

3602

2.

Did not meet the country’s definition of forest on 31 December 1989, and

3603
3604

3.

Meet (or have the potential to meet) the definition of forest at the time of the assessment as the result of
direct human-induced activities, and

3605

4.

Do not meet the criteria for CEFC at the time of the assessment if this provision is applied.

3606
3607

Note that the definition of forest can be met by young trees that do not yet meet the minimum height or tree
crown cover criteria, provided that they are expected to reach these parameter thresholds at maturity.

3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620

It is good practice to distinguish those areas that did not meet the tree crown cover threshold in the definition offorest, for example, because of recent harvest or natural disturbances, from those areas that were non-forested on
31 December 1989, because only the latter areas are eligible for AR activities under Decision 16/CMP.1.
Decision 16/CMP.1 requires that Parties provide information on the criteria used to distinguish harvesting orforest disturbance that is followed by the re-establishment of forest from deforestation65. It is good practice toapply the same criteria when evaluating whether land meets the definition of forest. For example, if a country
uses the criterion “time since harvest” to distinguish temporary forest cover loss from deforestation, andspecifies that a harvested area will regenerate within X years, then only those areas that have been harvested
more than X years prior to 31 December 1989 and that have not regenerated would be eligible for reforestation,
as only they would be considered non-forested on 31 December 1989. Similarly, areas that have been disturbed
by wildfire or other natural disturbances (Section 2.3.9) more than X years prior to 31 December 1989, and thathave not regenerated to forest are classified as non-forested on 31 December 1989 and would therefore be
eligible for Reforestation.

3621
3622
3623
3624

As discussed in Section 2.2.2 (Reporting Methods for lands subject to Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities), Parties havethe option either to report a wall-to-wall estimate of all lands subject to Article 3.3 activities, or to stratify theland into areas, i.e., to define the boundaries of these areas, and then develop for each area statistical estimates ofthe lands subject to AR and D activities. Combined approaches are also possible: wall-to-wall can be developed
65

Paragraph 5 of the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.6; Paragraph 4 of
the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.11.

Draft KP Supplement

2.71

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
3625
3626

for some strata, while estimates based on sampling approaches are developed for other strata in the country,
ensuring consistency in land representation in order to avoid double counting.

3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633

It is necessary to provide information demonstrating that all AR activities included in the identified lands are
direct human-induced66. Relevant information includes documentation which demonstrates that a decision has
been taken that aimed at replanting or promoting or allowing forest regeneration, for example referencing laws,
policies, regulations, management decisions and practices. In the absence of such information, forest regrowth asa consequence of abandonment does not qualify as direct human-induced AR. Forest regrowth as a consequenceof environmental change (including global climate change) is not direct-human induced and therefore does not
qualify as AR, for example, vegetation thickening at high elevation or high latitude tree lines.

3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642

In some cases it may be unclear whether newly established trees will pass the forest threshold (in X years).
Where it is uncertain whether the trees on a land will exceed the thresholds of the definition of forest, it is goodpractice that if the land was already included in KP reporting the carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG
emissions on these lands continue to be reported under that activity and to await confirmation (at a later time)that all the thresholds have been or will be passed before reporting these areas as AR. This approach is consistent
with the treatment of D, i.e., after loss of forest cover that may be temporary, lands remain as forested lands until
confirmed as D (see Section 2.6.2.1). A decision tree for determining whether an area will qualify for AR isgiven in Figure 2.5.1. If newly established vegetation does not pass the forest threshold (in X years) it may bereported under other elected KP activities e.g. RV (see Section 2.11).

3643

66

Decision 16/CMP.1 defines AR as the direct human-induced conversion of [land that has not been forested for 50
years/non forested land] to forested land through planting, seeding and/or the human-induced promotion of natural seed
sources. Decision 2/CMP.7 maintained the same definitions. According to paragraph 4(a) of Annex II to Decision 2/CMP.8(Implications of the implementation of decisions 2/CMP.7 to 5/CMP.7 on the previous decisions on methodological issues
related to the Kyoto Protocol, including those relating to Articles 5, 7 and 8 of the Kyoto Protocol), , contained in the
document FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1, p.20, specific information to be reported for activities under Article 3,
paragraph 3, shall include information that demonstrates that activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, began on or after 1
January 1990 and before 31 December of the last year of the commitment period, and are directly human-induced. The
demonstration of direct-human induced AR is therefore a specific requirement under the Kyoto Protocol, additional to thereporting requirements under the UNFCCC. It should be noted that the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, used for reporting under the
UNFCCC, use the term “afforestation and reforestation” with a broader meaning: Land is converted to Forest Land byafforestation and reforestation, either by natural or artificial regeneration (including plantations). The anthropogenic
conversion includes promotion of natural re-growth (e.g., by improving the water balance of soil by drainage),establishment of plantations on non-forest lands or previously unmanaged Forest Land, lands of settlements and industrialsites, abandonment of croplands, pastures or other managed lands, which re-grow to forest. Due to this difference, someareas that have been reported as Land Converted to Forest Land since 1990 in the UNFCCC inventory may not have been
converted through direct human-induced activity and cannot therefore be accounted for under AR activity under the Kyoto
Protocol.

2.72

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

3644
3645

3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652

Figure 2.5.1
Decision tree for determining whether land qualifies for direct humaninduced (dhi) AR

Note:(1) Refer to Section 2.5.1(2) Direct human induced (dhi) AR activities occur if trees are growing as a result of laws, policies, regulations, management decisions andpractices aimed at planting, promoting or allowing forest regeneration.
(3) Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion (CEFC): refer to Section 2.7.7

Draft KP Supplement

2.73

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
3653
3654

Links with methodologies in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on identification and reporting of land areas ininventories under the UNFCCC are given in the Box 2.5.1.

3655
3656
3657
3658

BOX 2.5.1
IDENTIFICATION AND REPORTING OF AR LANDS: LINKS WITHIN THIS SUPPLEMENT AND WITH OTHER IPCC

3659

LINKS WITH OTHER CHAPTERS OF THIS SUPPLEMENT

3660

Section 2.2.2: Reporting Methods for lands subject to Article 3.3 and Article 3.4 activities

3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668

LINKS WITH THE 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES
Section 4.3 (Land Converted to Forest Land), Chapter 4 (Forest Land): methodological guidanceon annual estimation of emissions and removals of greenhouse gases, which occur on Land
Converted to Forest Land from different land-uses, through afforestation and reforestation, either
by natural or artificial regeneration (including plantations). Note that some areas that have turned
into forest since 1990 in the UNFCCC inventory may not have been converted through direct
human-induced activity (see footnote 66).

REPORTS

3670

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stockchanges and non-CO 2 GHG emissions

3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676

Estimation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions from AR activities should be consistent withthe methods set out in Section 4.3 (Land Converted to Forest Land), Chapter 4 (Forest Land), Volume 4 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines and the equations it contains, and applied at the same or higher tier as that used for
UNFCCC reporting. Growth characteristics of young trees differ from those of the managed forest as a whole,and special provisions may be needed where the UNFCCC inventory (prepared according to Section 4.3: Land
Converted to Forest Land) is not sufficiently detailed to provide information that applies to young stands.

3677
3678
3679

For AR under Article 3.3 activities, gross-net accounting rules are applied and information on carbon stockchanges and non-CO2 GHG emissions in the base year is therefore not required67. Only the carbon stock changes
and non-CO2 GHG emissions during each year of the commitment period are estimated and reported.

3680
3681

It is good practice to estimate emissions and removals of the harvested wood products (HWP) pool associatedwith AR activities using the guidance provided in Section 2.8 (Harvested Wood Products) of this supplement.

3682
3683

Carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions for the three Tiers are determined using guidance provided in
Section 4.3 (Land Converted to Forest Land), Chapter 4, Volume 4 in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

3684
3685
3686

Determination of the size and dynamics of litter, dead wood and soil organic matter pools prior to the AR
activity may require the use of methods developed for Cropland or other land uses (Chapter 5 and other relevant
chapters of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines).

3687
3688

Definition of pools under AR should be consistent with Section 1.2.2 (Carbon pool definitions and non-CO2
gases) and Table 1.1, Chapter 1, Volume 4, of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

3689
3690
3691
3692

It is good practice to report carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions from organic soils associatedwith drainage and rewetting of wetlands on lands subject to AR activities using the guidance provided in Section
2.12.3 (Wetland Drainage and Rewetting: Choice of methods for estimating GHG emissions and removals) of
this report and the Wetlands Supplement.

3693
3694

It is good practice to estimate and report non-CO2 GHG emissions and CO2 emissions from liming and urea
application using the guidance provided in Section 2.4.4.2.

3695
3696

Links with methodologies in this report and the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on reporting of carbon stock changes andnon-CO2 GHG emissions in inventories under the UNFCCC are given in Box 2.5.2 below.

3669

2.5.3

67

Except for Parties that fall under the provisions of the last sentence of Article 3.7 of the Kyoto Protocol. as adopted in
Annex I to Decision 1/CMP.8 (Amendment to the Kyoto protocol pursuant to its article 3, paragraph 9) contained in
document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1.

2.74

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

3697
3698
3699

BOX 2.5.2
METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE ON ESTIMATING CARBON STOCK CHANGES AND NON-CO2 GHG EMISSIONS ON
AR LANDS: LINKS WITHIN THIS SUPPLEMENT AND WITH OTHER IPCC REPORTS

3700
3701

LINKS WITH OTHER CHAPTERS OF THIS SUPPLEMENT

3702
3703

Section 2.4.4.2: Reporting non-CO2 GHG emissions and CO2 emissions from liming and urea
application

3704

Section 2.8: Harvested Wood Products

3705

Section 2.12.3: Wetland Drainage and Rewetting

3706

LINKS WITH THE 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES

3707

Chapter 4 (Land Converted to Forest Land), Section 4.3, Volume 4

3708
3709
3710
3711

This section provides methodological guidance on estimation of emissions and removals ofgreenhouse gases, which occur on lands converted to Forest Land from different land-uses,
including Cropland, Grassland, Wetlands, Settlements, and Other Land, through afforestation andreforestation, either by natural or artificial regeneration (including plantations).

3712

LINKS WITH THE WETLANDS SUPPLEMENT

3713
3714
3715

Guidance on estimation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions from lands withorganic and wetland mineral soils in all land-uses with these soil types is provided in Chapters 2-5of the Wetlands Supplement.

3716
3717

2.5.3.1

3718

P OOLS AFFECTED BY AFFORESTATION / REFORESTATIONACTIVITIES

3719
3720
3721
3722

AR activities may involve site preparation (slashing and possibly burning coarse biomass residue, and tilling or
ploughing on parts of or the whole area), followed by planting or seeding. These activities may affect not only
above and below-ground biomass pools, but also soil, as well as dead wood, and litter, if (in the latter instances)land with woody shrub or sparse tree crown cover was afforested.

3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738

Decision 16/CMP.1 requires Parties to estimate carbon stock changes in all five pools (see Table 1.1, Chapter 1,
Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines) during the commitment period unless the Party can demonstrate bytransparent and verifiable information that the pool is not a source68, for which good practice guidance is set out
in Section 2.3.1. Decision 2/CMP.7 further requires Parties to estimate carbon stock changes in the HWP pool. It
is good practice to include carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions that result from pre-planting
activities, such as site preparation or shrub removals. AR on mineral soils may either maintain or create
conditions that increase below-ground carbon stocks, particularly if the land was previously managed for annual
crop production (Merino et al., 2004; Post and Kwon, 2000; Schulp et al., 2008; Laganière et al., 2010; Don etal., 2011). Under certain circumstances, soil carbon may decline with afforestation of grasslands or wetlands forseveral years following conversion (Davis and Condron, 2002; Guo and Gifford, 2002; Paul et al., 2003; Tate etal., 2003; Vesterdal et al., 2002), and net losses of carbon after planting or seeding can persist over many years.
Therefore, it is good practice to ensure that estimates of pre-activity carbon stocks in the area are used tocompute stock changes, including for methodologies involving modelling. Since there is no forest on the areaprior to the AR activity, the methods given in 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Section 4.3: Land Converted to Forest
Land, Chapter 4, Volume 4) for estimating non-CO2 GHG emissions on Land Converted to Forest Land areapplicable for AR activities.

3739
3740

For AR activities that begin during the commitment period, reporting for that land is required by Decision
2/CMP.8 to start at the onset of the activity 69 . Site preparation and seeding/planting activities should be

68

Paragraph 26 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.16; Paragraph 2 (e) of Annex II to Decision 2/CMP.8 contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1, p.19.

69

Paragraph 2(d) of Annex II to Decision 2/CMP.8 contained in the document FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1, p.19.

Draft KP Supplement

2.75

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
3741
3742

considered part of the activity, and associated emissions during the commitment period should therefore be
included.

3743

2.5.3.2

3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749

Calculation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions on areas subject to AR can be influenced by
the presence of natural disturbances, i.e. non-anthropogenic events or non-anthropogenic circumstances thatcause significant emissions in forests and are beyond the control of, and not materially influenced by a Party.
Decision 2/CMP.7 allows that under certain conditions, the emissions from natural disturbances that occur inforests may be excluded from accounting under the KP for the second commitment period. Methods foraddressing natural disturbances are provided by Section 2.3.9: Disturbances.

3750

2.6

3751
3752

This section addresses specific methods applicable to Deforestation (D) activities and should be read in
conjunction with the general discussion in Sections 2.2 to 2.4.

3753

2.6.1

3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760

According to the definition in Decision 16/CMP.1, “Deforestation” is the direct human-induced conversion offorested to non-forested land 70 . For the second commitment period, Each Party…shall, for the purpose of
applying the definition of forest as contained in decision 16/CMP.171, apply the definition of forest selected in
the first commitment period72 (see Section 1.2). The definition of Deforestation does not include loss of forest
cover due to harvest or natural disturbance events that are followed by natural or human-induced reestablishment of forest. This is because in these cases, a temporary loss of forest cover that is not associatedwith a land-use change is not considered D, and the land remains as forested land.

3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768

Harvest followed by re-establishment of forest is considered FM activity and reported according to Section 2.7.
Natural disturbance followed by re-establishment of forest is not counted as D and disturbance emissions may be
excluded from accounting provided the relevant provisions are met, as explained in the methodologies in Section
2.3.9. Human activities (since 1990) such as agricultural practices or the construction of roads or settlements,that prevent forest regeneration by changing land-use on areas where forest cover was removed by a natural
disturbance, are considered direct human-induced D. All emissions and removals on lands subject to D must
continue to be reported under D, even if these lands subsequently gain forest cover; it is good practice to reportthese lands as a separate subcategory73.

3769

AR land that is subject to deforestation is classified under D.

3770
3771
3772
3773
3774

Following Decision 2/CMP.7 and Decision 2/CMP.8,74 it is mandatory to report and account for all emissions
and removals arising from the conversion of natural forest to planted forest under FM. It is not considered D,
because the land remains under forest land-use (Section 2.7). Under the Decision 2/CMP.775, planted forest lands
subject to conversion to non-forested land may, in special circumstances, be identified and accounted for as a
FM activity under the CEFC provisions and are not considered D (Section 2.7.7).

3775
3776

Parties will need to use the methods outlined in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Consistent
Representation of Lands), and the guidance in Section 2.2 to ensure that lands subject to D are adequately

M ETHODS TO ADDRESS NATURAL DISTURBANCE

DEFORESTATION

Definitional issues and reporting requirements

70

Paragraph 1(d) in the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.5

71

Paragraph 1(a) in the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.5

72

Paragraph 20 in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.16

73

Treating deforested areas which are subsequently subject to a gain of forest cover as a separate sub-category is useful fortransparency purposes, because different methods may be applied and different emission patterns may be reported for thesesubcategories.

74

Paragraph 5 in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in the document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.13: Each Party included in Annex I shall report and account for, in accordance with
Article 7, all emissions arising from the conversion of natural forests to planted forests. Paragraph 5(d) in Annex II to theDecision 2/CMP.8 contained in the document FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1, p.21, requires this activity to be reported
under Forest Management.

75

Paragraph 37 in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.19

2.76

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782

identified in land-use change and other inventory databases and can be tracked over time once accounted under
the KP. Land identification and tracking provide means to associate the relevant activity data to the correctemission factor. The Decision 2/CMP.8 76 requires that areas subject to direct human-induced D since 1990
(Article 3.3) be identified separately from areas subject to direct human induced D that are also subject to otheractivities under Article 3.4 (such as CM). Providing information on these areas will improve transparency andensure that carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions are not counted twice.

3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789

A Party’s choice of methods for the development of an inventory of lands subject to D activities will depend on
the national circumstances. For the identification of lands subject to D since 1st January 1990, it is good practiceto use Approach 3 for consistent representation of lands (see Section 3.3.1, Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines), or Approach 2 with supplementary information provided that it allows identification andtracking of lands on a statistical basis77. Section 2.2.2 of this report provides a general discussion of methods forreporting on lands subject to Article 3.3 activities. It is good practice to provide information on uncertainties inthe estimates of the total area of the lands subject to D as discussed in Section 2.4.3 of this report.

3790

The annual inventory should, at a minimum, identify (for Reporting Method 1 in Section 2.2.2):

3791
3792
3793



The geographical location of the boundaries of the areas that encompass lands subject to direct humaninduced D activities. The geographical boundaries which are reported should correspond to strata in theestimation of land areas as described in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines;

3794
3795
3796



For each of these areas, or strata, an estimate of the area of the lands subject to direct human-induced D
activities under Article 3.3 of the KP, and the area of these lands which would otherwise be included inlands subject to elected activities under Article 3.4 of the KP (CM, GM, RV and WDR).

3797
3798
3799
3800



The area of lands subject to direct human-induced D in each of the new land-use categories (Cropland,
Grassland, Settlements, Wetlands and Other land) and areas of lands subject to direct human-induced D thatare subsequently subject to a gain of forest cover. This is to support the transparent calculation of carbon
stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions and identification of lands.

3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806

A more comprehensive system for compiling annual inventory (Reporting Method 2 in Section 2.2.2) identifies
each unit of land subject to D since 1990 using the polygon boundaries, a coordinate system (e.g., the Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) Grid or Latitude/Longitude) at possible finer resolution, or a legal description (e.g.,
those used by land-titles offices) of the location of the land subject to D activities. Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines (Basis for Consistent Representation of Lands) discusses in detail the possible approaches
for consistent representation of lands.

3807
3808

It is good practice to provide information on the area deforested by year, and any other information relevant to
the estimation of emissions and removals (e.g., forest type, site conditions, etc.).

2.6.2

3809
3810

Choice of methods for identifying lands subject todirect human-induced Deforestation

3811
3812

Parties are required to report carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions during the commitment period
on land areas that have been subject to direct human-induced D activities since 1990 (after 31 December 1989) .

3813
3814
3815

To quantify D, forest must first be defined in terms of minimum height, minimum tree crown cover andminimum area as already described for AR activities. The same criteria applied for the Party’s definition offorest (see Section 1.2) must be used for determining the area of land subject to D.

3816
3817

Once a Party has chosen its definition of forest, the forest area can be identified at any point in time. Only areas
within these boundaries are potentially subject to D activities.

3818

The identification of lands subject to D activities requires the determination of areas that:

3819

1.

Meet or exceed the size of the country’s minimum forest area (i.e., 0.05 to 1 ha), and

3820

2.

Have met the country’s definition of forest on or after 31 December 1989, and

3821
3822

3.

Have ceased to meet the definition of forest at some time after 1 January 1990 as the result of direct
human-induced conversion from forested to non-forested land, and

3823

4.

Do not meet the criteria for CEFC if this provision is applied.

76

Paragraph 2(b) in Annex II to Decision 2/CMP.8 contained in the document FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1. p18.

77

In the case of D, the minimum information required is the land-use (or land-uses) that followed the deforestation event.

Draft KP Supplement

2.77

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
3833

Lands can only be classified under D if they have been subject to direct human-induced conversion from forested
to non-forested land. Areas in which forest cover was lost as a result of natural disturbances are therefore notconsidered D, even if changed physical conditions delay or prevent regeneration, provided that these changes inphysical conditions are not the result of direct human induced actions (Section 2.3.9). Natural disturbancefollowed by land-use change will prevent regeneration of forest and is classified as Deforestation. Change inmanagement or policy that could be reasonably expected to directly result in forest cover loss is considered to be
direct human-induced D. For example, loss of forest cover in areas that have been flooded as a result of changed
drainage patterns due to hydroelectric dams or road construction. Loss of forest cover due to environmental
change (i.e., not direct human induced), which is not subject to land use change, would not be considered D (e.g.
naturally raising or lowering of water tables in areas with permafrost thawing or river/coastal erosion).

3834
3835
3836

Linkages with methodologies in this report and the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on reporting of land areas related todeforestation (conversion of forest to other land uses) in inventories under the UNFCCC are given in the Box
2.6.1.

3837
3838

BOX 2.6.1
IDENTIFICATION OF D LANDS: LINKS WITHIN THIS SUPPLEMENT AND WITH OTHER IPCC REPORTS

3839

LINKS WITH OTHER CHAPTERS OF THIS SUPPLEMENT

3840

Section 2.2.2: Reporting Methods for lands subject to Article 3.3 and Article 3.4 activities

3841
3842

Provides methods for identifying lands subjected to direct human induced Deforestation, alongwith conditions for identifying areas of lands subject to Deforestation activities.

3843

LINKS WITH THE 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES

3844

Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

3845

Chapter 3: Consistent Representation of Lands

3846
3847
3848

Section 5.3 (Land Converted to Cropland), Chapter 5 (Cropland): methodological guidance onannual estimation of emissions and removals of GHG, which occur on Land Converted to
Cropland from different land-uses.

3849
3850
3851

Section 6.3 (Land Converted to Grassland), Chapter 6 (Grassland): methodological guidance onannual estimation of emissions and removals of GHG, which occur on Land Converted to
Grassland from different land-uses.

3852
3853
3854

Section 7.3.2 (Land Converted to Flooded Land), Chapter 7 (Wetlands): methodological guidanceon annual estimation of emissions and removals of CO2, which occur on Land Converted to
Flooded Land from different land-uses.

3855
3856
3857

Section 8.3 (Land Converted to Settlements), Chapter 8 (Settlements): methodological guidance onannual estimation of emissions and removals of GHG, which occur on Land Converted toSettlements from different land-uses.

3858
3859
3860

Section 9.3 (Land Converted to Other Land), Chapter 9 (Other Land): methodological guidance onannual estimation of emissions and removals of GHG, which occur on Land Converted to Other
Land from different land-uses.

3861

2.6.2.1

3862
3863
3864
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870
3871

D ISCRIMINATING BETWEEN DEFORESTATION AND
TEMPORARY LOSS OF FOREST COVER

Parties are required to report on how they distinguish between D and areas that remain forests but where tree
crown cover has been removed temporarily78, notably areas that have been harvested or have been subject toother human disturbance but for which it is expected that a forest will be replanted or regenerated naturally. It isgood practice to develop and report criteria by which temporary removal or loss of tree crown cover can be
distinguished from D. For example, a Party could define the expected time periods (years) between removal oftree crown cover and successful natural regeneration or planting. The length of these time periods could vary byregion, biome, species and site conditions. In the absence of land-use change (such as conversion to Cropland or
construction of settlements) areas without tree crown cover are considered “forest” provided that the time sinceforest cover loss is shorter than the number of years within which tree establishment is expected. After that time78

Paragraph 4 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.13; Paragraph 4 (b) in the Annex 2 to Decision 2/CMP.8 contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1, p.20.

2.78

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877

period, lands that were forest on or after 31 December 1989, that since then have lost forest cover due to direct
human-induced actions and that failed to regenerate are identified as deforested and the carbon stock changes
and non-CO2 GHG emissions for this land are to be recalculated and added to those of other deforested areas.
There is an exception under the CEFC which allows the carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions
from some plantation conversion to non-forest to be reported under Forest Management if a Carbon Equivalent
Forest is established elsewhere (see Section 2.7.7).

3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
3893
3894
3895

Although the loss of forest cover is often readily identified, e.g., through change detection using remote sensing
images or field inventories, the classification of this area as deforested and the identification of the new land use
may be more challenging. It involves assessing the lands on which the forest cover loss has occurred, as well as
the surrounding area, and typically requires data from multiple sources to supplement the change detection
information. In some cases a new land-use can be determined from remotely sensed data, for example where it ispossible to identify agricultural crops or infrastructure such as houses or industrial buildings. Information about
actual or planned land-use changes and actual or planned forest regeneration activities can be used to distinguish
D from temporary loss of forest cover. Where such information is missing or unavailable, only a lapse of time
will reveal whether or not the forest cover is temporarily lost. In the absence of land-use change or infrastructuredevelopment, and until the time for regeneration has elapsed, these lands remain classified as forest. Once thetime period has elapsed, if the land does not meet the definition of forest it is classified as D, and the new landuse determined. It could occur that the information needed to distinguish D from temporary loss of forest cover(e.g., the expected time for regeneration has elapsed) will be available only in the following commitment period.
To avoid a potential underestimation of emissions from D in the commitment period, it is good practice toestimate by the last inventory reporting year of the commitment period, the proportion of the lands without forest
cover that is expected not to regenerate to forest79. This estimate could be based on country-specific or regional
averages or other spatial data consistent with the national inventory methods. This proportion of the area willthen be assigned to lands subject to D, while the remaining proportion will remain classified as forest80.

3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904

It is good practice for Parties to identify and track the lands with loss of forest cover that are not yet classified as
deforested, and to report on their area and status in the annual supplementary information (see Table 2.4.1 in
Section 2.4.4.1). It is also good practice to confirm on these lands, whether or not regeneration occurred within
the expected time period. Lands for which, at the end of a commitment period, no direct information wasavailable to distinguish D from other causes of forest cover loss, could be reassessed annually or at a minimum
prior to the end of the next commitment period. If regeneration did not occur or if other land-use activities areobserved, then these lands that had remained classified as forest should be reclassified as D and the carbon stockchanges and non-CO2 GHG emissions calculated accordingly (see also Chapter 5, Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines: Time Series Consistency).

3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910

The task of distinguishing temporary forest cover loss from D can be supported by information on harvested
areas and areas subject to natural disturbances. In many countries, information on harvest cut blocks and on
natural disturbance events is more readily available than information on deforestation events. Such information
can be used to distinguish direct human-induced D from temporary forest cover loss (e.g., harvest) or non-humaninduced disturbances (e.g., wildfire or insect outbreak). Attribution of the cause of forest cover loss to theremaining areas would be made easier and would support the identification and verification of lands subject to D.

3911
3912

A decision tree for determining of whether a unit of land is subject to direct human-induced D is given in Figure
2.6.1.

3913

79

This method is necessary because emissions on the affected lands may not necessarily be reported under FM.
For instance, in the last inventory year of the commitment period, an area of1000 ha was subject to loss of forest cover; 800
ha of this area was classified as D, while for remaining 200 ha the information needed to classify it definitively was still
not available. Of these 200 ha, based on country-specific or regional statistics or other data, the country estimates that 150
ha are expected not to regenerate. This 150 ha are assigned to D, while the remaining 50 ha remain classified as forest.

80

Draft KP Supplement

2.79

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
3914
3915

3916
3917
3918
3919
3920

Figure 2.6.1

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

Note:
1. Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion (CEFC): refer to Section 2.7.7: Carbon Equivalent Forest
2. Refer to country-specific criteria for distinguishing harvesting from D. Reassess annually or at a minimum prior to the end of the next
commitment period.

2.80

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

2.6.3

3921
3922

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stockchanges and non-CO 2 GHG emissions

3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930

All carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions during the commitment period on lands subject to direct
human-induced D since 1990 are required to be reported81. Where deforestation occurred between 1 January
1990 and the beginning of the commitment period, changes in the carbon pools after the deforestation event need
to be estimated for each inventory year of the commitment period82. After the deforestation event, losses during
the commitment period will result primarily from the continuing decay of dead wood, litter, below-groundbiomass and soil carbon remaining on the site. These losses can be offset by increase in biomass pools on thisland. Definitions of pools under D should be consistent with provisions introduced by 2006 IPCC Guidelines(Section 1.2.2, Chapter1, Volume 4: Carbon pool definitions and non-CO2 gases and Table 1.1).

3931
3932
3933
3934

On areas subject to Article 3.3 activities, gross-net accounting rules are applied83 and information on carbon
stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions in the base year is therefore not required. Only the carbon stockchanges and non-CO2 GHG emissions during each year of the commitment period are required to be estimatedand reported.

3935
3936

HWP derived from D activity are accounted for as an instantaneous emission at the time of deforestation (seeSection 2.8).

3937
3938
3939

For the estimation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions, it is good practice to use the same or ahigher tier than that used for estimating emissions from forest conversion in Chapters 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (Conversion
from Forest Land to any other land-use category), Volume 4 in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951

Carbon stock changes on lands subject to D activities during the commitment period can be estimated bydetermining the carbon stocks in all pools prior to and after the deforestation event. Alternatively, the stockchanges can be estimated from the carbon transfers out of the forest, e.g., the amount harvested (Chapter 2,
Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines) or the biomass consumed in the case of burning. For deforestation
events that occur prior to the commitment period, knowledge of pre-deforestation carbon stocks will also be
useful for the estimation of post-disturbance carbon dynamics. For example, estimates of emissions from decayof litter, deadwood, and soil organic matter pools can be derived from data on pool sizes and decay rates.
Information about pre-deforestation carbon stocks can be obtained from forest inventories, aerial photographs,
satellite data, by comparison with adjacent remaining forests, or can be reconstructed from stumps where these
are remaining on the site. Information on the time since deforestation, on the current vegetation and on
management practices on that site is required for the estimation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG
emissions.

3952
3953
3954
3955

It is good practice that carbon stock changes on D lands subject to new land-use categories (such as Cropland,
Grassland, Wetlands, Settlements, or Other Land) be estimated using the established methodologies described in
relevant sections of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines to estimate carbon stocks changes. Several of these categories
may contain little or no carbon, or the change in carbon stocks may be very small.

3956
3957
3958

It is good practice to report carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions from organic soils associatedwith drainage and rewetting on land subject to D activities using the guidance provided in Section 2.12.4(Wetland Drainage and Rewetting) of this supplement, and in the Wetlands Supplement.

3959
3960

It is good practice to estimate and report non-CO2 GHG emissions and CO2 emissions from liming and urea
application using the guidance provided in Section 2.4.4.2.

3961
3962

Box 2.6.2 summarises links with methodologies for estimation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG
emissions in this supplement and with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and the Wetlands Supplement, Chapters 2-5.

3963

81

Paragraph 17, 18 and 19 of the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in
document FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.8; Paragraph 22 and 23 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in
document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.16.
82
Pools which are not a source can be excluded from accounting, though this is unlikely in the case of deforestation.
83
Except for Parties that fall under the provisions of the last sentence of Article 3.7 of the Kyoto Protocol. as adopted in
Annex I decision 1/CMP.8 (Amendment to the Kyoto protocol pursuant to its article 3, paragraph 9) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1.

Draft KP Supplement

2.81

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
3964
3965
3966

BOX 2.6.2
METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE ON ESTIMATING CARBON STOCKS CHANGES AND NON-CO2 GHG EMISSIONSON D LANDS: LINKS WITHIN THIS SUPPLEMENT AND WITH OTHER IPCC REPORTS

3967

LINKS WITH OTHER CHAPTERS OF THIS SUPPLEMENT

3968
3969

Section 2.4.4.2: Reporting non-CO2 GHG emissions and CO2 emissions from liming and urea
application

3970

Section 2.8: Harvested Wood Products

3971

Section 2.12.3: Wetland Drainage and Rewetting

3972
3973
3974

LINKS WITH THE 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES (Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other
Land Use)

3975
3976
3977

Section 5.3 (Land Converted to Cropland), Chapter 5 (Cropland): methodological guidance onannual estimation of emissions and removals of GHG, which occur on Land Converted to
Cropland from different land-uses.

3978
3979
3980

Section 6.3 (Land Converted to Grassland), Chapter 6 (Grassland): methodological guidance onannual estimation of emissions and removals of GHG, which occur on Land Converted to
Grassland from different land-uses.

3981
3982
3983

Section 7.3.2 (Land Converted to Flooded Land), Chapter 7 (Wetlands): methodological guidanceon annual estimation of emissions and removals of CO2, which occur on Land Converted to
Flooded Land from different land-uses.

3984
3985
3986

Section 8.3 (Land Converted to Settlements), Chapter 8 (Settlements): methodological guidance onannual estimation of emissions and removals of GHG, which occur on Land Converted toSettlements from different land-uses.

3987
3988
3989

Section 9.3 (Land Converted to Other Land), Chapter 9 (Other Land): methodological guidance onannual estimation of emissions and removals of GHG, which occur on Land Converted to Other
Land from different land-uses.

3990
3991

LINKS WITH THE WETLANDS SUPPLEMENT

3992
3993
3994

Guidance on estimation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions from lands withorganic and wetland mineral soils in all land-uses with these soil types is provided in Chapters 2-5of the Wetlands Supplement.

3995

2.82

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

3996

2.7

FOREST MANAGEMENT

3997
3998

According to Decision 2/CMP.7, accounting of emissions and removals from Forest Management (FM) under
the Kyoto Protocol during the second commitment period is mandatory84, and based on a reference level85.

3999
4000

This section addresses definitional issues and specific methods for identification of areas subject to FM andcalculation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions for those areas (Sections 2.7.1, 2.7.2, 2.7.3).

4001

This section also addresses the new elements introduced by Decision 2/CMP.7, including:

4002



Reporting of emissions arising from the conversion of natural forests to planted forest (within Section 2.7.1);

4003



Methodological requirements related to the Forest Management Reference Level (FMRL, Section 2.7.5);

4004



Performance of Technical Corrections for accounting purposes (Section 2.7.6);

4005
4006



Reporting and accounting of lands under the Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion provision (CEFC, i.e.,
lands under FM that would otherwise be accounted as Article 3.3 lands, Section 2.7.7).

4007
4008
4009

The treatment of HWP related to FM, according to Decision 2/CMP.7, is discussed briefly in this section and in
more detail in Section 2.8. Disturbances as they relate to FM are dealt briefly with in 2.7.4 below and in greater
depth in Section 2.3.9.

4010This section should be read in conjunction with the general methodological descriptions in Sections 2.2 to 2.4.

4011

2.7.1

4012
4013

Decision 2/CMP.7 maintains the same definition of “forest” and “Forest Management” as in Decision
16/CMP.186.

4014
4015
4016
4017

Decision 16/CMP.1 defines “forest” using threshold criteria 87 , including the potential to meet them, andincluding areas that are temporarily unstocked. Decision 2/CMP.7 specifies that, for the purpose of applying thedefinition of “forest”, each Party shall apply the definition selected in the first commitment period. See guidance
provided in Section 1.2.

4018
4019
4020
4021
4022

According to Decision 16/CMP.1, “Forest Management” is a system of practices for stewardship and use offorest land aimed at fulfilling relevant ecological (including biological diversity), economic and social functionsof the forest in a sustainable manner. It includes forests meeting the definition of “forest” in Decision 16/CMP.1
with the parameter values for forests that have been selected and reported by the Party, and that have not beenclassified by the Party under the AR or D categories.

4023
4024
4025
4026
4027
4028
4029
4030
4031

There are two approaches that countries may choose to interpret the definition of FM. In the narrow approach, acountry would define a system of specific practices that could include stand-level forest management activities,
such as site preparation, planting, thinning, fertilization, and harvesting, as well as landscape-level activities suchas fire suppression and protection against insects, undertaken since 1990. In this approach, the area subject to
FM will increase over time if the specific practices are implemented on new areas, and if these new areas are
greater than the existing FM area subject to D. In the broad approach, a country would define a system of forest
management practices, and identify the area that is subject to this system of practices during the inventory yearof the commitment period without the requirement that a specified forest management practice has occurred oneach land.

4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039

According to Decision 2/CMP.7, Parties are required to report and account for all emissions arising from theconversion of natural forests to planted forests after 31 December 2012. In this context, “conversion” does not
involve a land-use change but refers to the replacement of natural forest after harvesting with planted forests. It
is good practice that Parties, according to their national circumstances, provide their definition of natural forestand planted forest, which should include forest plantations (as defined in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines), and apply
these definitions consistently throughout the commitment periods. It is good practice that emissions andremovals on lands subject to conversion from natural forest to planted forest are reported and accounted within
FM.

Definitional issues and reporting requirements

84

See paragraph 7 in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.14.
85
See paragraph 12 in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7, contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.14.
86
See paragraphs 1, 20 and 21 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7, contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1,
p.13 and 16.
87
See footnote 81 and Section 1.2, step 1 for further guidance.

Draft KP Supplement

2.83

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
4040
4041
4042

According to Decision 2/CMP.7, Parties applying the CEFC provision described in Section 2.7.7 are required toreport these lands separately from other FM lands. These lands will include both forest and non-forest lands but
are accounted for under FM.

4043
4044
4045

Section 2.2 (Generic methodologies for area identification, stratification and reporting) explains that thegeographical location of the areas encompassing lands subject to FM activities are to be defined and reported88.
Two Reporting Methods are outlined in Section 2.2.2.

4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052

In Reporting Method 1, a boundary may encompass multiple FM lands and other kinds of land use such as
agriculture or unmanaged forests. In Reporting Method 2, a Party identifies the geographic boundaries of alllands subject to FM throughout the country. Reporting Method 1 or 2 are used for reporting the carbon stockchanges in in the above-ground biomass, below-ground biomass, dead wood, litter, and soil organic matter pools
and non-CO2 GHG emissions. Reporting and accounting for the harvested wood products pool is at the national
level. For both Reporting Methods, FM lands include also non-forest land accounted for under FM through the
CEFC provision (Section 2.7.7).

4053

2.7.2

4054

Choice of methods for identifying lands subject toForest Management

4055
4056
4057
4058
4059

It is good practice for each Party to describe in its NIR how it applies the definitions of “forest” and “Forest
Management” under Decisions 16/CMP.1 in a consistent way across space and time, and how it distinguishes
areas subject to FM from other areas. It is good practice to base the assignment of land to activities following theguidance in Sections 1.1 and 1.2 of this supplement and Chapter 3, Volume 4 (Consistent Representation ofLands) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

4060
4061
4062
4063
4064
4065

Land subject to “Forest Management” as defined by Decision 16/CMP.1 is not necessarily the same area as“managed forest” in the context of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines used for UNFCCC reporting. The latter includes
all forest lands where human interventions and practices have been applied to perform production, ecological orsocial functions (Chapter 2, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines), and thus may include forests that do not meet thecountry-specific definition of “Forest Management” under Decision 16/CMP.1 or have not been subject to any
FM practice since 1990.

4066
4067

88

According to paragraph 2 (b) of the Annex II to Decision 2/CMP.8 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1,
p.18.

2.84

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

4068
4069
4070
4071

Figure 2.7.1

Relationship between different categories under UNFCCC reporting and forest activities under
Kyoto Protocol reporting in a given inventory year. See Sections 2.7 and 2.7.1 for further
explanation.

4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
4080
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094

Figure 2.7.1 outlines the relationship between different forest categories. For UNFCCC reporting, countries may
have subdivided their forest area into managed forests (those that are included in the reporting) and unmanaged
forest (areas are reported but not the emissions). The managed forests could further be subdivided into thoseareas that meet the definitions of “forest” and of “Forest Management” in Decision 16/CMP.1 and those (if any)that do not. However, since most countries have in place policies to manage forests sustainably, and/or use
practices for stewardship and use of forest land aimed at fulfilling relevant ecological (including biologicaldiversity), economic and social functions of the forest in a sustainable manner89, the total area of managed forest
in a country will often be the same as the area subject to FM plus any area subject to AR. Where differences
occur between the areas of managed forest (as reported under the UNFCCC) and forest subject to FM (plus any
area subject to AR), it is good practice to explain and document the extent of the differences. In particular,
where areas that are considered managed forest are excluded from the area subject to FM, it is good practice toprovide the reason for the exclusion (including the use of the narrow approach), and to document how any
possible unbalanced accounting is avoided. The IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options toInventory Emissions from Direct Human-Induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation
Types (IPCC, 2003) discusses the issue of unbalanced accounting. In the context of the FMRL, unbalanced
accounting can occur if areas that are considered more likely to produce a net debit in the accounting are
preferentially excluded and areas considered more likely to produce a net credit are preferentially included in
FMRL. In addition, unbalanced accounting may potentially occur where countries increase their area of land
under FM compared to the area included in the FMRL. In the case of increase in FM area during thecommitment period beyond what included in the FMRL (e.g., when the narrow approach to FM is used), it isgood practice to document transparently that this is not a result of change in FM activity definition, but rather aresult of new implemented policies not included in the FMRL submission. The inclusion of non-forested areas89

See paragraph 1(f) in the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.5.

Draft KP Supplement

2.85

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
4095
4096

within FM accounting under the CEFC provision can also lead to differences between the reported area ofmanaged forest and the area under FM – all such areas must be clearly identified (see Section 2.7.7).

4097
4098
4099

Figure 2.7.2 gives the decision tree for determining whether land qualifies for FM. Land that is classified as
subject to FM is required to meet the country’s criteria for forest or, if non-forest, is required to be subject to
CEFC provision.

4100

Figure 2.7.2

Decision tree for determining whether land qualifies for Forest Management.

4101
4102
4103
4104

It is good practice for each Party to describe its application of the definition of FM and to identify the areas ofland subject to FM in the inventory year of the commitment period. In most cases, this will be based on
information contained in national forest inventories including criteria such as administrative, zoning (e.g.,

2.86

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

4105
4106
4107
4108
4109

protected areas or parks) or ownership boundaries, since the difference between managed and unmanaged forestsor, possibly, between managed forest meeting the definition of FM in Decision 16/CMP.1 and managed forest
not doing so, may be difficult or impossible to detect by remote sensing or other forms of observation. It is goodpractice for each Party to provide information to show how reporting and accounting of emissions and removals
due to transition of natural forest to planted forest have been captured within FM.

4110
4111

According to Decision 2/CMP.7, the carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions on lands subject to FM
can be excluded from accounting if they are associated with natural disturbance (See Sections 2.2.3 and 2.3.9).

4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121

The area of land subject to FM can increase or decrease over time. For example, if a country expands its roadinfrastructure into previously unmanaged forests and initiates management activities, or in the case of the narrowapproach, as new specific FM practices are applied to new areas of forest land. In both these cases the area ofland subject to FM is increasing and the associated carbon stock changes need to be estimated accordingly. If an
area of forest expansion after 1990 does not qualify for direct-human induced AR, and if this area meets therequirements of the Decision 16/CMP.1, it is included under FM (see Figure 2.7.1). On the other hand, D
activities decrease the area under FM. Where changes in area occur over time, it is essential that the methods forcarbon stock change calculation are applied in the sequence outlined in Section 2.3.3 of this supplement. Failure
to use the correct computational methods may result in an apparent but incorrect increase or decrease in carbon
stocks that is the result of the area change.

4122
4123
4124
4125

Once an area has been included in the reporting under the KP it cannot be removed, but the reporting category of
the area can change (as outlined in Section 1.3). Lands that are deforested are subject to the rules of Article 3.3
and future carbon stock changes must be reported under D. Accordingly, the area reported under Article 3.4
would decrease, and the area reported under Article 3.3 would increase by the same amount.

4126
4127
4128
4129
4130

Forests that are harvested and converted to non-forest lands under the CEFC provisions are not regarded as being
deforested (see Section 2.7.7). These lands are reported under FM, as are the compensating non-forest lands
converted to forest land. This means that the area reported under FM may increase without an increase inforested land. Decision 2/CMP.7 mandates that lands subject to CEFC provisions be transparently identified andtracked.

4131
4132

Box 2.7.1 summarises links with methodologies in this report and with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for theidentification of land areas.

4133
4134

BOX 2.7.1
LINKS WITH THE 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES

4135

Volume 4: Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Use

4136

Chapter 3: Consistent Representation of Lands

4137

Section 4.2, Chapter 4: Forest Land Remaining Forest Land

4138

2.7.3

4139

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stockchanges and non-CO 2 GHG emissions

4140
4141
4142

The methods to estimate carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions within FM lands follow those in the2006 IPCC Guidelines using guidance provided in Section 4.2 (Forest Land Remaining Forest Land), Chapter 4,
Volume 4 including for conversion of natural forests to planted forests.

4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149

For the HWP pool, estimation methods in line with Decision 2/CMP.7 are provided in Section 2.8 of this
supplement including guidance to distinguish among HWP originating from lands subject to each forest-related
activity, i.e. AR, FM or D, or from lands not subject to any of those activities. On areas subject to FM activities,
the reference level accounting rule is applied for the second commitment period, i.e. for each Party theaccounting is based on the comparison between the emissions and removals reported for FM during thecommitment period and the FMRL inscribed in the Appendix to the Decision 2/CMP.7 (see Section 2.7.5). In
certain cases, it is good practice to apply Technical Corrections for accounting purposes (see Section 2.7.6).

4150
4151
4152
4153

It is good practice to use the same tier or a higher tier for estimating stock changes and GHG emissions as theone that was used for the corresponding land-use in the UNFCCC inventory, following the guidance on
methodological choice and identification of key categories included in Chapter 4, Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. In particular:

4154
4155
4156



Tier 1 can only be applied if FM is not considered a key category, or if the pool is not significant, according
to the guidance in Section 2.3.6 (Choice of method) of this supplement. Tier 1 as elaborated in Chapter 4,
Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines assumes that for Forest Land Remaining Forest Land the net

Draft KP Supplement

2.87

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164

change in the carbon stocks in litter, dead wood and soil organic matter pools is zero, but Decision 2/CMP.7
specifies that above- and below-ground biomass, litter, dead wood, and SOC shall all be accounted unlessthe country chooses not to report changes in a pool demonstrating it is not a source. Therefore Tier 1 canonly be applied if the litter, dead wood and soil organic matter pools can be shown not to be sources using
the methods outlined in Section 2.3.1 (Pools to be reported) of this supplement. It is important to note that,once a pool has been included in the FMRL, for consistency reasons, this pool is required to be reported andaccounted also during the commitment period, irrespective of the pool being a sink or a source (see Section
2.7.5.2 on methodological consistency). For the HWP, specific guidance is given in Section 2.8.

4165
4166
4167
4168



It is good practice to apply Tier 2 and 3 methods if FM is a key category and if the pool is significant,according to the guidance in Section 2.3.6. With the exception of the pools already included in the FMRL, a
country may decide to exclude those pools that can be shown not to be a net-source, using the methods
described in Section 2.3.1.

4169
4170
4171



Where it is possible to obtain estimates from both the Gain-Loss method and the Stock-Difference methods,
it is suggested that a comparison between the two methods is used for verification purposes because this mayhelp identify errors and understand better the trends and reasons of interannual variations.

4172
4173
4174

It is good practice to report carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions from organic soils associatedwith drainage and rewetting under FM activities using the guidance provided in Section 2.12.3 (Wetland
Drainage and Rewetting) of this supplement, and in the Wetlands Supplement.

4175
4176

It is good practice to estimate and report non-CO2 GHG emissions and CO2 emissions from liming and urea
application using the guidance provided in Section 2.4.4.2.

4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185

In most cases, the information requirements for KP reporting exceed the information contained in the national
UNFCCC inventory. To meet the KP reporting requirements, national inventory systems need be able to identify
and track all forest areas as specified in Section 2.2, whether these are classified as managed forest (UNFCCC)
or subject to Articles 3.3 and/or 3.4 of the KP, and whether they have been subject to natural disturbances or to
the CEFC accounting provisions. Such systems can then be used to calculate and report the carbon stock changes
and non-CO2 GHG emissions in all relevant categories for both UNFCCC and KP reporting. Properly
implemented, such a comprehensive approach ensures consistency among the methods used for calculating andreporting carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions, because the same forest and land-use change
inventories are the basis for the computations used in both UNFCCC and KP reporting.

4186
4187

Box 2.7.2 summarises links with methodologies in this supplement and with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines toestimate carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions.

2.88

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

4188
4189
4190
4191

BOX 2.7.2
METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE FOR ESTIMATION OF CARBON STOCK CHANGES AND NON-CO2 GHG
EMISSIONS FROM FM ACTIVITIES: LINKS WITHIN THIS SUPPLEMENT AND WITH OTHER IPCC REPORTS

4192

LINKS WITH OTHER CHAPTERS OF THIS SUPPLEMENT

4193
4194

Section 2.4.4.2: Reporting non-CO2 GHG emissions and CO2 emissions from liming and urea
application

4195

Section 2.8: Harvested Wood Products

4196

Section 2.12.3: Wetland Drainage and Rewetting

4197
4198

LINKS WITH THE 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES

4199

Section 4.2, Chapter 4: Forest Land Remaining Forest Land.

4200
4201

Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from managed soils, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea
application.

4202
4203

The area subject to FM may not be the same as the area of Forest Land Remaining Forest Landand estimates may have to be adjusted accordingly.

4204

LINKS WITH THE WETLANDS SUPPLEMENT

4205
4206
4207

Guidance on estimation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions from lands withorganic and wetland mineral soils in all land-uses with these soil types is provided in Chapters 2-5of the Wetlands Supplement.

4208

2.7.4

4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
4217

Calculation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions on areas subject to FM can be influenced bynatural disturbances, i.e. non-anthropogenic events or non-anthropogenic circumstances that cause significant
emissions in forests and are beyond the control of, and not materially influenced by a Party. Accounted
emissions from FM can be influenced by natural disturbances in three ways: 1) through emissions from natural
disturbances occurring in the commitment period and; 2) through the choice of the background level and themargins; and 3) through an inconsistency between the treatment of natural disturbances in the reporting of FM
emissions in the commitment period and the FMRL. Methods for addressing natural disturbances in cases 1) and2) are provided by Section 2.3.9. Guidance to address inconsistencies in the treatment of natural disturbances inreported data and the FMRL are presented in Sections 2.7.5 and 2.7.6.

4218

2.7.5

4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232

According to Decision 2/CMP.790, for the second commitment period, accountable anthropogenic greenhousegas emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting from Forest Management under Article 3.4, …shall beequal to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks in the commitment period,
less the duration of the commitment period, in years, times the FMRL inscribed in the appendix [to the Decision].
The FMRL is a value of annual net emissions and removals from Forest Management, against which the net
emissions and removals reported for Forest Management during the second commitment period will becompared for accounting purposes.
This section addresses methodological issues related to the FMRL, including: (i) an overview of approaches andmethods used and the elements taken into consideration by Parties for the construction of their FMRL (2.7.5.1);(ii) a description of how to demonstrate methodological consistency between the FMRL and reporting for FM
during the commitment period (2.7.5.2); and (iii) a description of how and when to perform TechnicalCorrections for accounting purposes, if necessary to ensure consistency applying IPCC methods, or to exclude
from the accounting any impact due to inconsistencies (2.7.6). This section should be read in conjunction withthe general guidance on FM in Sections 2.7.1 to 2.7.4.

4233
4234
4235

The guidance on how to construct the FMRL is provided by the Appendix II to the Decision 2/CMP.6 and is notrepeated in this section. The overview of approaches, methods and elements used in construction of FMRLs isprovided below to clarify the discussions on methodological consistency and Technical Corrections.
90

Methods to address natural disturbanceForest Management Reference Levels

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

Draft KP Supplement

2.89

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
4236

2.7.5.1

4237

O VERVIEW OF A PPROACHES , METHODS AND ELEMENTSCONSIDERED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF FMRL

4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245

Decision 2/CMP.6 requested Annex I Parties to submit information on how the country’s FMRL was constructed
and provided guidelines for the submission of such information. The objectives of the submissions were: (a) toprovide information consistent with the general reporting principles set out by the Convention and elaborated by
the IPCC on how the elements contained in footnote 1 in paragraph 4 of Decision 2/CMP.691 were taken into
account by Parties in the construction of FMRLs, and to provide any additional relevant information; (b) to
document the information that was used by Parties in the construction of FMRLs in a comprehensive andtransparent way; and (c) to provide transparent, complete, consistent, comparable and accurate methodologicalinformation used at the time of the construction of the FMRL.

4246
4247
4248
4249
4250

The information provided by the Parties on how the FMRL was constructed provides the basis for assessing themethodological consistency between the FMRL and the reporting of FM during the second commitment period.
This section summarizes the approaches and methods used and the elements considered in the construction of the
FMRL, based on the FMRL submissions made by Parties and the synthesis report of the technical assessments
provided by the UNFCCC Secretariat92.

4251

APPROACHES AND METHODS USED TO CONSTRUCT FMRL

4252
4253
4254
4255

The FMRL submissions included a description of the approaches, methods and models used in the constructionof the FMRLs, including assumptions used and referring, where relevant, to the latest available NIR. Based on
the submissions on FMRL made by Parties, three general approaches used to construct FMRLs may berecognized, as described in the Box 2.7.3.

91

These elements are: (a) removals or emissions from forest management as shown in greenhouse gas inventories andrelevant historical data; (b) age-class structure; (c) forest management activities already undertaken; (d) projected forest
management activities under a ‘business as usual’ scenario; (e) continuity with the treatment of forest management in thefirst commitment period; (f) the need to exclude removals from accounting in accordance with Decision 16/CMP.1,
paragraph 1. Points (c), (d) and (e) above were applied where relevant. The FMRLs also took into account the need forconsistency with the inclusion of carbon pools and the provisions for addressing natural disturbances.
92
Submissions on forest management reference levels submitted by Parties to the secretariat by 28 February 2011, andSynthesis report of the technical assessments of the forest management reference level submissions (note by the secretariat)
FCCC/KP/AWG/2011/INF.2, http://unfccc.int/bodies/awg-kp/items/5896.php.

2.90

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

4256
4257

BOX 2.7.3
APPROACHES AND METHODS USED FOR CONSTRUCTING FOREST MANAGEMENT REFERENCE LEVELS

4258
4259
4260
4261
4262

Based on the UNFCCC’s synthesis report of the technical assessments of the FMRL submissions, it emergesthat out of the 38 Parties submitting FMRLs, 17 used country-specific projections, 14 used a common
approach for projections, one proposed a historical average, two proposed an extrapolation of historical data,
three proposed historical FMRLs based on a single year, and one proposed an FMRL of zero. Below aresummarized the three approaches used. The first approach is further split into two methods.

4263

1)

FMRLs based on projections under a ‘business as usual’ scenario. It includes two methods:

4264

a)

modelled projections under a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario

4265
4266
4267

Model-based projections using country-specific methodology. Most of the country-specific approaches
used data from national forest inventory as a source of information on future forest resources, combined withprojections of future harvest demand from partial equilibrium models or scenario analysis.

4268
4269
4270
4271
4272

Model-based projections using a common methodological approach. Several EU countries followed acommon approach developed by Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission, in collaboration
with modelling groups from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and theEuropean Forest Institute (EFI). Two models were used to project annual estimates of emissions and removals
for FM and averaged to calculate the FMRL.

4273
4274

b)

4275
4276

Average of historical data. One Party for its FMRL used the average of historical removals under theForest land Remaining Forest Land category.

4277
4278

Extrapolation from a historical time series trend. Two Parties used a linear extrapolation of net
historical emissions data to construct the FMRLs.

4279

2)

4280

Three Parties proposed the use of a historical FMRL based on 1990 data.

4281

3)

4282

One Party used the narrow approach for FM, and set its FMRL equal to zero.

projections based on the elaboration of historical data from greenhouse gas inventories, assumed asproxy for a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario

Historical FMRL based on the single year 1990

FMRL equal to zero

4283
4284

ELEMENTSCONSIDERED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF FMRL

4285
4286
4287
4288
4289

Pools and gases

4290
4291
4292
4293
4294

Decision 2/CMP.7 also specified that for the second commitment period, Parties shall account for all changes
in … above-ground biomass, below-ground biomass, litter, dead wood, soil organic matter and harvested wood
products (see Section 2.3.1 for additional information and methodological guidance). Nevertheless, with the
exception of HWP, a Party may choose not to account for a given pool in a commitment period, if transparent
and verifiable information is provided that demonstrates that the pool is not a source.

4295
4296
4297
4298
4299
4300
4301
4302
4303

Area under Forest Management

Decision 2/CMP.6 requested Parties to identify pools and gases which have been included in the FMRL, toexplain the reasons for omitting a pool from the FMRL construction (i.e. including evidence for the pool not
being a source), and to explain consistency between the pools and gases included in the FMRL and thoseincluded in the reporting of FM or Forest Land Remaining Forest Land.

The FMRL submissions contain information on the FM area used in the construction of the FMRL with the aimof showing consistency with the reporting of FM or Forest Land Remaining Forest Land. Parties also explained
how the area used in the construction of the FMRL relates to the area accounted for as subject to D and AR
activities. In the case of modelled projections, consistency between FMRL area and area under FM means thatthe future D is taken into account by projecting a decreasing FM area in the second commitment period93, andthat the expected future AR does not affect the evolution of FM area considered for FMRL. In some cases, anincrease in the future FM area was included in FMRL due to new forest area (e.g., previously unmanaged)
assumed to enter the FM area.

4304

93

Some Parties did not consider the impact of future deforestation rate on the evolution of the FM area, assuming this has aconservative impact on the FMRL value.

Draft KP Supplement

2.91

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
4305
4306
4307
4308
4309
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314

Historical data from greenhouse gas inventory

4315
4316
4317
4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324

Forest characteristics and related management

4325
4326
4327
4328
4329
4330
4331

Historical and assumed harvesting rates

4332
4333
4334
4335
4336
4337
4338
4339
4340
4341

For projected FMRLs, Parties provided information on the assumptions about the future harvesting rates, basedon business-as-usual scenarios (i.e. considering domestic policies adopted and implemented no later thanDecember 2009). Some Parties used averages of historical harvest rates as a proxy of business-as-usual scenario,
while other Parties predicted the future harvest amount (or the future harvest relative increase or decrease ascompared with historical period) based on macroeconomic scenarios or based on the continuation of current
forest management activities associated with the actual age-class structure. For transparency purposes,
information on the assumptions made on the disaggregation of future harvest, by type of wood use (i.e. industrial
wood/wood for energy use) and/or by assortment types (as feedstock for HWP production, see Section 2.8.1),
was useful to demonstrate consistency between the biomass losses due to assumed future harvest rates and thebiomass used for HWP estimates.

4342
4343
4344
4345
4346
4347

Harvested wood products

4348
4349
4350
4351
4352
4353
4354

Natural disturbances

4355
4356
4357
4358

Since FMRL have been submitted before the Decision 2/CMP.7, a Technical Correction for accounting purposes
may be needed if a country intends to apply the provision on natural disturbances for the second commitment
period. See Section 2.3.9 for detailed information and good practice guidance on emissions from natural
disturbances.

Parties were requested to include in the FMRL submissions information on the relationship between FM and
Forest Land Remaining Forest Land as shown in GHG inventories and relevant historical data, including
information provided under Article 3.3, and, if applicable, Article 3.4. The purpose of this information is to show
the consistency between the proposed FMRLs and historical data as reported in each Party’s GHG inventory and
NIR. The historical data came from the 2010 GHG inventory, unless otherwise specified. In case of modelled
projections, the consistency with historical data can be shown by the fact that the model used for constructing the
projected FMRL reproduces historical data for FM or Forest Land Remaining Forest Land from the GHG
inventory or that ex-post calibrations have been carried out to align the model results with the historical data.
The FMRL submissions included information on forest characteristics, including age-class structure, increments,
rotation lengths, and other relevant information, including information on forest management activities alreadyundertaken and assumed under business-as-usual. In many cases information included the forest types, the soil
types, the growing stock, the tree species composition and the silvicultural practices (including the regeneration
modality, the type and frequency of cuttings, etc.). In the case of models used for projected FMRLs, otherinformation included the assumptions on future silvicultural practices, on key drivers (i.e., harvest rates), on the
expected evolution of key forest characteristics (age structure, increment), with the aim to describe transparently
the forest management activities foreseen under the business-as-usual scenario and to demonstrate theirfeasibility.
Harvest rate is a major driver of emissions and removals from FM. The FMRL submissions included the timeseries of historical harvesting rates and the predicted future harvest rates. In the case of modelled projections, it
is particularly important that the information showing that the historical harvest used by the models is consistent
with data used in the GHG inventory or, in case harvest is not used in GHG inventories (i.e., if the StockDifference method is used), that the historical harvest used by the models is consistent with official country
statistics.

Many Parties presented in their FMRL submissions values related to the contribution of HWP, assuming either
instantaneous oxidation, or a first-order decay function with default half-lives (see Section 2.8.). Since FMRL
have been submitted before the Decision 2/CMP.7, it is essential to consider the need for a Technical Correction
for accounting purposes in order to reflect the Decision 2/CMP.7. See Section 2.8 for detailed information andgood practice guidance on HWP.
Decision 2/CMP.6 also requested Parties to consider including in the construction of their FMRLs information
on disturbances in the context of force majeure (as defined in Decision 2/CMP.6). Most Parties did not consider
disturbances explicitly in the construction of their FMRLs, often noting the low frequency of such events. In
some cases, the average impact of past disturbances is incorporated in the FMRL through the methodologies
used. In other cases, the impact of natural disturbances on FMRL was expressed as a range of possible
disturbances scenarios or as a constant background level of natural disturbances.

4359

2.92

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

4360
4361
4362
4363
4364
4365
4366
4367
4368
4369
4370
4371
4372
4373
4374

Factoring out

4375
4376
4377
4378
4379
4380
4381

Continuity with the treatment of FM in the first commitment period

4382
4383
4384
4385
4386
4387
4388
4389

Policies included

4390
4391

Parties proposing historical FMRLs based on 1990 emissions do not take into account policies and measuressince that year.

4392

2.7.5.2

Decision 2/CMP.6 required Parties to consider in their FMRL submissions factoring out in accordance withparagraph 1(h) (i) and 1(h) (ii) of Decision 16/CMP.1 (i.e. to factor out the removals from elevated carbon
dioxide concentrations above pre-industrial level, indirect nitrogen deposition, and the dynamic effects of age
class structure resulting from activities and practices before the reference year 1990). Parties did not explicitly
consider factoring out in their FMRLs. In the case of historical FMRLs, it is noted that, given the present state ofscientific knowledge, the effects of elevated CO2 concentrations and indirect nitrogen deposition are considered
to be approximately the same in the FMRL and in the commitment period estimates, and therefore they can beassumed to be factored out. For projected FMRLs, it is generally assumed that the removals resulting fromelevated CO2 concentrations above the pre-industrial level and indirect nitrogen deposition will be factored out
when subtracting the FMRL from net emissions or removals that occur during the commitment period (assumingthat both include or exclude these effects). Similarly, the dynamic effects of differing age-class structures acrossthe forests resulting from past activities and practices and natural disturbances are included in both theconstruction of the FMRL and the estimation of net FM emissions during the reporting period and therefore they
cancel out.
This is not a relevant element for most approaches used to calculate the FMRL. For one Party, the continuity
with the treatment of FM in the first commitment period means that the same narrow approach with gross–net
accounting will continue, and therefore FMRL was set as zero. In this case, the narrow approach accounts foremissions and removals only from Forest Land where these activities, including thinning, are implemented orwhere any additional activity is to be implemented to enhance sustainable forest management in the future. In
doing this, the narrow approach provides continuity with the first commitment period.
Following Decision 2/CMP.6, Parties were requested to include in their FMRL submissions a description of thedomestic policies adopted and implemented no later than December 2009 and explain how these polices havebeen considered in the construction of the FMRL. Parties were also requested to confirm that the construction of
the FMRL does not include assumptions about changes to domestic policies adopted and implemented after
December 2009. The aim of this information is also to document the policies and the assumptions included in the
FMRL, in relation to the country-specific circumstances. A few Parties also clarified the effects of policies
related to use of biomass as a renewable source included in the calculation of their FMRLs.

4393

M ETHODOLOGICAL CONSISTENCY BETWEEN FMRL AND
REPORTING FOR FM DURING THE COMMITMENT PERIOD

4394
4395
4396
4397
4398
4399

According to Decision 2/CMP.7, when accounting for Forest Management, Parties shall demonstrate
methodological consistency between the [FMRL] 94 and reporting for Forest Management during the second
commitment period… and …shall make technical corrections, if necessary, to ensure consistency, including
applying IPCC methods for ensuring time-series consistency... This section discusses general issues and goodpractice guidance related to methodological consistency. Technical Corrections are addressed in the following
section.

4400
4401
4402
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407

Consistency is a key principle in the estimation of GHG inventories. In the UNFCCC reporting guidelines,
consistency means that an inventory should be internally consistent in all its elements with inventories of otheryears, i.e. it refers to the need of time-series consistency of an inventory. An inventory is consistent if the same
methodologies are used for all years and if consistent data sets are used for estimating carbon stock changes andnon-CO2 GHG emissions during the whole period. Under certain circumstances95 an inventory using different
methodologies for different years can be considered to be consistent if it has been recalculated in a transparent
manner, and if potential inconsistencies are minimized in accordance with the guidance provided in the 2006
IPCC Guidelines (Chapter 5, Volume 1) and with GPG-LULUCF (Chapter 5).

4408
4409
4410
4411

Chapter 5, Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Time series consistency) describes common situations inwhich time series consistency may not be achieved, including: (i) recalculations due to methodological changes
and refinements; and (ii) adding new categories. A methodological change is a switch to a different tier (or to adifferent method, e.g. from Stock-Difference to Gain-Loss, or from inventory-based to process-based method)94

As inscribed in the Appendix of Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1
Referred to in paragraph 4(b) of Annex I to Decision 15/CP.17 contained in document FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.2, p.27.

95

Draft KP Supplement

2.93

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
4412
4413
4414
4415
4416

from the one previously used for reporting, often driven by the development of new and different data sets. A
methodological refinement occurs when an inventory compiler uses the same tier to estimate emissions but
applies it using a different data source, a different model version or a different level of aggregation. Bothmethodological changes and refinements over time are an essential part of improving inventory quality. The
adding of new categories includes also the addition of new carbon pools and gases.

4417
4418
4419
4420

In the context of FMRL methodological consistency refers to the need, during the commitment period, thatconsistency is ensured between the methodological elements used in the construction of FMRL and those used in
the reporting of FM. To this end it is good practice to consider all the specific elements highlighted inparagraphs 14 and 15 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7. Specifically, the methodological elements include:

4421
4422

(i)

The method used to establish the FMRL (only for the approach 1 in Box 2.7.3: projected FMRL), as
reported in the FMRL submission: models or average/extrapolation of historical time series;

4423
4424
4425

(ii)

The historical data96 used to establish the FMRL, as reported in the FMRL submission, e.g. forest area,
harvest, increment, age structure, forest characteristics and management, net emissions and related
estimation parameters, etc.;

4426
4427
4428

(iii)

Other methodological elements used to establish the FMRL as reported in the FMRL submission,
including: pools and gases, the treatment of HWP, the treatment of natural disturbances, climate andother ecological parameters used by models for projecting FMRL;

4429
4430
4431

(iv)

Elements newly introduced or modified by Decision 2/CMP.7 as compared to the text in Decision
2/CMP.6, including: the accounting HWP removed from areas under FM (see Section 2.3.8); thepossible exclusion of emissions associated with natural disturbances (see Section 2.3.9).

4432
4433

A change in methodological elements used in the construction of FMRL triggers a methodological inconsistency,
to be addressed through a Technical Correction (see section 2.7.6.1).

4434
4435
4436
4437
4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445
4446

By contrast, for projected FMRL only, a deviation in policy assumptions under business-as-usual scenario (asreported in the FMRL submission) from those assumed in constructing the FMRL does not represent a
methodological inconsistency, and thus is not considered for Technical Correction. Specifically, policy
assumptions under business-as-usual scenario include economic assumptions or responses (e.g. harvesting
decisions), and assumptions on future FM area, on future management of forest (including activities such as
fertilization and planting), on forest characteristics, on harvesting rates (including variations in harvesting rates
as compared to historical period) or amounts, on production of HWP (including the assumptions about thequantities of HWPs produced in the major categories, i.e. sawnwood, panels, paper). In the event of change inFM area during the commitment period (e.g., if the narrow approach to FM is used), it is good practice todocument transparently that this is not a result of change in FM activity definition, but rather a result of newly
implemented policies not included in the FMRL submission. During the commitment period, the country’s
chosen definitions of “forest” and “Forest Management” need to be consistently applied across the time series
and be the same as the ones used for the FMRL calculations.

4447
4448
4449
4450
4451
4452
4453
4454
4455
4456

A common situation of methodological inconsistency is the change, after the FMRL has been set, of one or moreof the methodological elements used in the construction of FMRL. For instance, a methodological change (e.g.,
from Stock-Difference to Gain-Loss) or refinement (e.g., updated data or model parameters) may lead to therecalculation of historical data used to establish FMRL, or the treatment of HWP or natural disturbances maychange in the commitment period as compared to the FMRL. These changes would introduce methodologicalinconsistencies. Other possible cases of inconsistency between the FMRL and reporting for FM during thecommitment period are possible. For this reason, for the purpose of demonstrating that the accounting ofemissions and removals during the commitment period is not affected by methodological or time-series
inconsistency, additional information and/or checks may be needed, depending on the approach and method used
to set FMRL.

4457
4458
4459
4460
4461
4462
4463
4464
4465

For projected FMRLs, it is good practice to provide information on the main factors generating the accounted
quantity (i.e., the difference in net emissions between reporting of FM during the second commitment period andthe FMRL); for instance, given that harvest rate is generally the main driver of the forest carbon balance in the
short term, it is good practice to show that, e.g., a higher (or lower) sink during the second commitment period,
as compared to what was assumed in the business-as-usual scenario, is quantitatively consistent with theobserved lower (or higher) harvest rate, and/or to provide evidence that other major factors are contributing to
the difference. It increases transparency to provide in the annual inventory submission concise information to
explain major drivers (e.g. harvesting rates) affecting the trend in net emissions under FM as compared to what
was assumed in the FMRL. The aim of this information is to show that the estimates reported in the second
96

Historical data refers to data for the time period used in the construction of the FMRL (including model parameters,
emission factors, etc.)

2.94

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

4466
4467
4468
4469
4470
4471
4472
4473
4474
4475

commitment period can be explained in terms of deviations in policy assumptions or responses to them (e.g.,
harvest rate) as compared to what was assumed in the FMRL. In addition, it is good practice to show that modelbased calculations used for constructing a projected FMRL reproduce the data for FM or Forest Land Remaining
Forest Land for the historical period reported in the FMRL submission (i.e. for the period not affected bypossible deviations from policy assumptions under business-as-usual scenario). It is also good practice toprovide documentation fulfilling the general criteria listed in the Annex I of the Use of Models and Facility-level
Data in Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Report of the IPCC Expert Meeting on the Use of Models andMeasurements in GHG Inventories (IPCC, 2010), including information on model selection and development, onmodel calibration and evaluation, on input data used, on uncertainties, on model implementation and on theevaluation of model results.

4476
4477
4478
4479
4480
4481

According to Decision 2/CMP.7, a Party may choose not to account for a given pool in a commitment period(with the exception of harvested wood products) if transparent and verifiable information is provided that
demonstrates that the pool is not a source. However, for any of the approaches used to set FMRL, once a poolhas been included in the FMRL inscribed in the Appendix to Decision 2/CMP.7, for consistency reasons thispool is required to be reported and accounted also during the commitment period, irrespective of the pool being asink or a source.

4482

2.7.6

4483
4484
4485
4486
4487

Estimation of the FMRL typically relies upon data inputs, assumptions, and models brought together in aconsistent and transparent way. For accounting of FM, what counts is the difference in emissions and removals
between the FMRL and the actual FM emissions and removals in the second commitment period. Therefore, it isimportant to ensure that the FMRL and the reporting of FM during the commitment period are as
methodologically consistent as possible (see Section 2.7.5.2).

4488
4489
4490
4491
4492
4493

If the reported data on FM or Forest Land Remaining Forest Land used to establish the reference level are
subject to recalculations, or if other methodological inconsistency exists between the FMRL and the FM
reporting during the commitment period, to ensure consistency, Parties are required 97 to apply a TechnicalCorrection. The Technical Correction removes the impact of any methodological inconsistency when accounting
and thus ensures methodological consistency between the FMRL and the reporting of FM during thecommitment period.

4494
4495
4496
4497

Essentially, the Technical Correction is a net value of emissions and removals, which is added at the time ofaccounting to the original FMRL (contained in Decision 2/CMP.7) to ensure that accounted emissions andremovals will not reflect the impact of methodological inconsistencies, as expressed in Equation 2.7.1 (in Mt
CO2eq yr-1):

4498
4499
4500

EQUATION 2.7.1
TECHNICAL CORRECTION
Technical _ Correction  FMRLcorr  FMRL

4501

Technical Corrections for accounting purposes

Where:

4502

FMRL = Forest Management Reference Level inscribed in the Appendix of Decision 2/CMP.7

4503
4504

FMRLcorr = Forest Management Reference Level recalculated for the purpose of calculating theTechnical Correction

4505
4506
4507

FMRL itself is not changed through a Technical Correction. However, when the need for Technical Correction is
identified, i.e. if a methodological inconsistency is found at any time during the commitment period, theFMRLcorr represents the recalculated reference level which is not affected by any methodological inconsistencies.

4508
4509

This section describes how to detect the need for Technical Correction, how to calculate FMRLcorr, and when to
apply the Technical Correction.

4510

2.7.6.1

4511
4512
4513

Figure 2.7.3 provides a general decision tree on how to identify the need for Technical Correction. Table 2.7.1
provides the specific criteria and the elements to be checked to detect a possible methodological inconsistency
and the consequent need for Technical Correction.
97

H OW TO DETECT THE NEED FOR T ECHNICAL C ORRECTIONSParagraphs 14 and 15 of Annex to the Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.15.

Draft KP Supplement

2.95

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
4514
4515

Figure 2.7.3

Decision tree for identifying methodological inconsistencies and the need forTechnical Correction during the second commitment period.

4516
Start

Did the method used for GHG
reporting change?
(Table 2.7.1 – 1)No
Yes

Did any of the methodological elements used toestablish the FMRL change after the adoptionof FMRL?
(Table 2.7.1 – 2)

Yes

No

Is there any other methodologicalinconsistency between FMRL and reporting ofFM in second CP?
(Table 2.7.1 – 3)

Yes

No

There is no need for TechnicalCorrection

There is a methodological inconsistency(Section 2.7.5.2)

Calculate FMRLcorr to quantify the impactof any inconsistency identified above(Section 2.7.6)

Calculate the Technical Correction andadd it to the original FMRL when
accounting (Section 2.7.6)

4517
4518

2.96

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

4519
4520

The need for Technical Correction may arise only if at least one of the following conditions is met (see Table
2.7.1 for a full list of criteria and elements to be checked, and examples in Box 2.7.4):

4521
4522
4523
4524
4525
4526
4527

1.

4528
4529
4530
4531

The method used for GHG reporting changed after the adoption of FMRL, or errors in the methods havebeen identified, as part of improving inventory quality. For instance, in the future new methods may be
developed that take advantage of new datasets, and modelling tools, new technologies or improved scientificunderstanding. For example, remote-sensing technology and site-specific modelling are making it feasible toestimate historic emissions from land clearing activities more accurately than by using simple aggregate
emission factors and activity data. The development of new or refined inventory methods for reporting ispart of the broader process of continuous improvement, which countries are encouraged to follow.
This change will lead to a recalculated time series which might also lead to an inconsistency between FMRL
and reporting of FM in the second commitment period.

2.

Any of the following methodological elements used to establish the FMRL (as reported in the FMRL
submission) changed after the adoption of FMRL:

4532
4533
4534
4535

(i)

New carbon pools or non-CO2 GHG sources are included in the reporting for FM in the second
commitment period. For instance, if a pool that was not a source and therefore not reported earlier (andalso not included in the FMRL) becomes a source in the future, it is good practice to include this pool in
the reporting of FM and applying a Technical Correction.

4536
4537
4538
4539
4540

(ii) Recalculated historical data. For example, forest inventory data may be compiled only once in a five or
ten year period. In the case recalculated historical forest inventory data (e.g., new area, age structure,
carbon stock, net removals, harvest or increment rates) become available that could not be used for theconstruction of the FMRL, and these new data are used in GHG reporting in the second commitment
period, a Technical Correction would allow the inclusion of such new information in the FMRLcorr

4541
4542
4543

In the case of FMRLs based only on the elaboration of historical data from GHG inventories (average ofpast data, linear extrapolation) or FMRLs based on the single year 1990, any recalculation of the timeseries used to establish the FMRL will trigger a Technical Correction.

4544
4545
4546
4547

(iii) In the case the FMRL was constructed using models that are responsive to climate variability, if climate
data observed during the commitment period is different from that assumed by the models used toconstruct FMRL, then a Technical Correction would allow applying the actual climate data to themodels (see also Section 2.3.5 on interannual variability).

4548(iv) Treatment of the elements newly introduced or modified by Decision 2/CMP.7:

4549
4550
4551

-

The accounting of HWP as agreed in Decision 2/CMP.7. Since FMRL have been submitted
before the Decision 2/CMP.7, a Technical Correction related to HWP is expected to be acommon case.

4552
4553
4554
4555
4556
4557
4558
4559
4560
4561

-

The application of natural disturbances provision as agreed in Decision 2/CMP.7. Since FMRL
have been submitted before the Decision 2/CMP.7, the FMRLs may be inconsistent with theagreed provisions, including those specifying that the expectation of neither credits nor debits are
to arise from application of the disturbance provisions. For instance, if the background level asestablished by the Party requires to exclude emissions from the projected FMRL (either due tothe background level and the margin selected, or because the emissions are outliers), it is goodpractice to remove these emissions, to calculate FMRLcorr and to apply a Technical Correction.
Using the methods set out in Section 2.3.9 (on natural disturbances) it is good practice that theParties provide information in NIRs on how the Technical Correction for changes in thetreatment of emissions from natural disturbances was calculated.

4562
4563
4564
4565
4566

3.

Other kinds of methodological inconsistency may exist between the FMRL and the FM reporting during thecommitment period. For example, if a model used for constructing a projected FMRL does not reproduce
the data for the historical period reported in the FMRL submission for FM or Forest Land remaining Forest
Land, this is a likely sign of inconsistency. In this case, it is good practice either to provide additional
evidence demonstrating consistency or to apply a Technical Correction.

4567

Draft KP Supplement

2.97

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
4568
TABLE 2.7.1
CHECK LIST TO DETECT METHODOLOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES AND THE NEED FOR TECHNICAL CORRECTION
Criteria
1

The method used for GHG reporting of FM or Forest Land remaining Forest
Land (FL-FL) changed after the adoption of FMRL

2.

Any of the following methodological elements used to establish the FMRL (asreported in the FMRL submission) changed after the adoption of FMRL

Comment /action
Calculate FMRLcorr ensuring consistency
between reported FM and FMRL (seeexamples in Box 2.7.4)

Elementa) Pools and gases

Addition to or modification in the GHG inventory
New pools or gases98b) Area under FM

Recalculated historical data* on areac) Historical data from GHG
inventory

Recalculated historical data* for FL-FL or FM.

Calculate FMRLcorr using the recalculateddatad) Forest characteristics andrelated management99

Recalculated historical data*

Calculate FMRLcorr using the recalculated
data and informatione) Historical Harvesting
ratesf) Climate data assumed bymodels for projecting
FMRLg) Harvested wood products

Recalculated historical data*

Calculate FMRLcorr using the recalculated
harvesting rates
Calculate a FMRLcorr by applying theactual climate data to the models (seeSection 2.3.5)
Calculate a FMRLcorr by applying the newdata and/or method or provision
Calculate a FMRLcorr by applying the newdata and/or method or provision

Different observed climate data as compared to whatassumed in FMRL

New/recalculated data and/or methods; inclusion ofprovisionh) Natural disturbances
New/recalculated data (Section 2.3.9.6, Step 2) and/or
method; inclusion of submitted (in 2015) or revised(later) background level and margin with assumptions
inconsistent with those of the FMRL (Section 2.3.9.6,
Step 5)
3. Other possible methodological inconsistencies, e.g., the FMRL model’s outputs
are not capable of reproducing the historical data* reported for FM or FL-FL.

Calculate FMRLcorr by including the newpools or gases
Calculate FMRLcorr using the recalculatedarea

If needed, calculate a FMRLcorr, e.g., byapplying IPCC methods to ensure timeseries consistency.

4569
4570
4571
4572
4573
4574
4575
4576

For projected FMRLs, deviations from policy assumptions under business-as-usual scenarios, including
economic assumptions or responses (e.g., harvesting decisions), and assumptions on future FM area, on future
management of forest, on forest characteristics, on harvesting rates or amounts, on production of HWP(including the assumptions about the quantities of HWPs produced in the major categories) do not affectmethodological consistency, and thus are not considered for Technical Corrections (see Section 2.7.5.2).

4577
4578
4579
4580
4581
4582
4583

Under Decision 2/CMP.7100, Parties may account for emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting fromthe harvest and conversion of a forest plantation to non-forest land under FM, provided that a forest of at least
the same area and carbon stock potential is established on non-forest land, and provided that all the otherrequirements are satisfied (CEFC, see Section 2.7.7). Given that the emissions and removals from the plantation
harvesting and replanting are already included in the FMRL, the implementation of the CEFC provisions does
not trigger a Technical Correction. The effects of implementing CEFC will be accounted for against the FMRL
(see Section 2.7.7).

* For each of the methodological elements, “historical data” refers to data for the time period used in the construction of the FMRL
(including model parameters, emission factors, etc.).

4584

98

Note that, when accounting, it is not possible to exclude a pool or gas already included in the FMRL.
This includes, among others: age-class structure, increment, species composition, rotation lengths, management practices,
etc.
100
Paragraphs 37-39 of Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.19.
99

2.98

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

4585
4586
4587

BOX 2.7.4
EXAMPLES OF CASES WHICH MAY LEAD TO METHODOLOGICAL INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN FMRL AND
REPORTING OF FM DURING THE SECOND COMMITMENT PERIOD.

4588

Case 1:4589

At the time of FMRL submission:

4590-The GHG inventory used a Stock-Difference or Gain-Loss method (i.e. not a model)

4591-The FMRL was constructed using model X

4592

Can this country apply a different method in GHG reporting during the second commitment period?

4593

Yes, but this will create a methodological inconsistency, which triggers a Technical Correction process.

4594

Can this country apply the model X (same version used for FMRL) in GHG reporting?

4595
4596

Yes, this will ensure consistency between the methods used for FMRL and FM reporting. However, it is always
good practice to check the need for Technical Correction (Figure 2.7.3).

4597
4598
4599
4600

Can this country apply a new model Y (or a new version of model X) in GHG reporting?
Yes, but this will create a methodological inconsistency, which needs to be addressed through a TechnicalCorrection process. In this case, a possible way to address the inconsistency is using the new model Y (or a newversion of the model X) also for calculating the FMRLcorr as part of the Technical Correction process.

4601

Case 2:

4602
4603
4604
4605
4606
4607

At the time of FMRL submission:- The GHG inventory used model X- FMRL was constructed using model X
Can this country use a new model Y (or a new version of model X) in GHG reporting?
Yes, this will create a methodological inconsistency, which may be addressed by using the new model Y (or new
version of the model X) also for calculating the FMRLcorr as part of a Technical Correction process.

4608

Case 3:4609

At the time of FMRL submission:

4610

-

The GHG inventory used data from a NFI for the year 1995 and 2005

4611
4612

-

FMRL was modelled using historical input data for the period 2000-2009, where data for 2006-2009 wereextrapolated using the 2005 NFI.

4613
4614
4615
4616
4617
4618
4619

In the year 2012, a new NFI was finalized resulting in recalculation of data for the period 2006-2009. This
triggers a recalculation of the GHG inventory, and consequently a Technical Correction has to be applied using
the recalculated historical data for period 2006-2009 for calculating the FMRLcorr. The same approach would
apply in the case where, at the time of FMRL submission, the greenhouse gas inventory and the FMRL usedpreliminary data from an on-going NFI (e.g., to be completed after the FMRL submission). In this case, when the
NFI is completed, the historical data used in the FMRL construction are recalculated and consequently aTechnical Correction has to be applied using the recalculated historical data for calculating the FMRLcorr.

4620

Case 4:

4621
4622
4623
4624

At the time of FMRL submission, the FMRL submission included emissions from natural disturbances. In the2015 NIR, the background level (and the margin if relevant, see Section 2.3.9) were set to zero. In this case, it isgood practice that zero emissions are factored in the FMRL, and that all emissions from natural disturbances are
excluded. This requires a Technical Correction to the FMRL.

4625

4627

2.7.6.2 H OW TO PERFORM AND DOCUMENT THE CALCULATION OF
FMRL C O R R

4628
4629
4630
4631
4632
4633

If the need for Technical Correction is determined, it is good practice to calculate FMRLcorr. Several methods
may be considered to address methodological inconsistencies and to calculate FMRLcorr, depending on theapproach used to construct FMRL, the cause of the inconsistency and the data that are available to perform therecalculations. Irrespective of the method used, it is good practice to provide information that the method usedavoids the expectation of net credits and net debits linked to any methodological inconsistency between
FMRLcorr and reporting for FM during the commitment period.

4634
4635
4636

In the case of projected FMRLs, FMRLcorr may be calculated by, inter alia, a new model-based projection using
new historical data or applying a different treatment of a specific element (e.g., HWP, natural disturbances).
When new projections are made, it is essential to keep all the policy assumptions under the business-as-usual

4626

Draft KP Supplement

2.99

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
4637
4638
4639
4640
4641

scenario (as reported in the FMRL submission) unchanged. It is also good practice to show that the new modelbased calculations used for constructing FMRLcorr are capable of reproducing the data for FM or Forest Land
Remaining Forest Land for the historical period reported in the FMRL submission (i.e. for the period notaffected by possible deviations from policy assumptions under business-as-usual scenario), or to provide any
explanation if it is not the case.

4642
4643
4644
4645
4646

If the need for a Technical Correction due to a methodological inconsistency has been identified, but a newmodel run cannot be performed, the time-series consistency may be ensured by using one of the methods
described by 2006 IPCC Guidelines, including the overlap between models results and data for FM of Forest
Land remaining Forest Land reported for the historical period (before the FMRL submission). In this case,consistency would be ensured ex-post, i.e. adjusting existing model results to the historical reported data.

4647
4648
4649
4650
4651
4652
4653

It is essential that the criteria to calculate FMRLcorr are the same as those used for setting FMRL, i.e., if the
FMRL is calculated as a linear extrapolation of any historical period trend, it is good practice to use the same
period for FMRLcorr in case a recalculation of historical time series occurs. This is because, for the FMRL
submission, the period selected was assumed as proxy for a business-as-usual scenario, and changing the period
would mean changing the policy assumptions. In the case of FMRL based on elaboration of historical data only
(average of past data, linear extrapolation) or on the single year 1990, any recalculation of the time series willautomatically produce FMRLcorr.

4654
4655

Irrespective of the method applied to calculate FMRLcorr, it is good practice to complement any TechnicalCorrection with transparent information on:

4656



Rationale for calculating FMRLcorr (description of which criteria in Table 2.7.1 have been met);

4657
4658
4659



Methods used to calculate FMRLcorr. In case a model is used, it is good practice to document theimplementation of the model following the criteria listed in the Annex I of the IPCC Expert Meeting Reporton the Use of Models in GHG Inventories (IPCC, 2010);

4660
4661
4662
4663



Results (i.e. the FMRLcorr) and discussion of the differences between FMRLcorr and FMRL. For this purpose,
it is good practice to report a comparison of recalculated estimates with previous estimates, e.g., as shown in
Table 2.7.2 and if possible also as a graphical plot showing the temporal dynamics of the estimates
underlying FMRLcorr and FMRL.
TABLE 2.7.2
EXAMPLE OF SUMMARY TABLE WHEN PERFORMING A TECHNICAL CORRECTION FOR A SINGLE YEAR
Emissions and Removals
FMRL-10,000 [Gg yr-1]

FMRLcorr-10,500 [Gg yr-1]

Difference in per cent =100●[(FMRLcorr–FMRL)/FMRL] %5%

Technical Correction= FMRLcorr - FMRL

-500 [Gg yr-1]

FM reported during the commitment period-12,000 [Gg yr-1]

Accounting Quantity101 = reported FM – (FMRL + Technical Correction)-1,500 [Gg yr-1]

4664

2.7.6.3 W HEN TO APPLY T ECHNICAL C ORRECTION

4665

According to Decision 2/CMP.7102, Technical Correction shall be applied when accounting.

4666
4667
4668
4669
4670

Information on technical corrections and methodological consistency shall be reported as part of the annual GHG
inventories and inventory reports. To this aim, it is good practice for Parties to assess annually the need forTechnical Correction (Figure 2.7.3), i.e. checking the criteria set in Table 2.7.1, to estimate FMRLcorr and toreport transparent information on this in the annual NIR.

The accounting quantity is the total quantity of units to be added to or subtracted from a Party's assigned amount for aparticular activity in accordance with the provisions of Article 7.4 of the KP. Negative values means credits, positive valuesmeans debits.
102
Paragraph 14 of Decision 2/CMP.7
101

2.100

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

4671

2.7.7

Carbon Equivalent Forests4672

2.7.7.1

D EFINITIONAL ISSUES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

4673
4674
4675
4676
4677
4678

Under Decision 2/CMP.7, Parties may account for emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting fromthe harvest and conversion of some forest plantations to non-forest land under FM, provided that certain
requirements are met. The main requirement is that a new forest of at least equal area and carbon stock potential(including soil carbon) is created on non-forest land. Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion (CEFC) is thepractice of converting a forest plantation to non-forest land while establishing a “Carbon Equivalent Forest” on
non-forest land elsewhere.

4679
4680
4681
4682
4683
4684
4685
4686

CEFC requires two land components – the existing forest land to be harvested and converted to non-forestland(CEF-hc) and the non-forest land on which a forest is to be newly established (CEF-ne). Both components shallmeet the criteria for CEFC set out in Decision 2/CMP.7103 in order to be accounted for under FM. The forest
cleared is required to be a forest plantation as defined in Annex 4A.1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, and both thisand the new forest established have to meet the definition of forest as selected by the Party and used forreporting other FM lands. It is good practice for Parties to provide, according to their national circumstances,the definition of forest plantation that is used in the application of the CEFC provision. This definition needs tobe consistent throughout the time series and the inventory.

4687
4688
4689

Decision trees for categorising forest clearance (Figure 2.6.1) and forest establishment (Figure 2.5.1) areprovided in Section 2.5 (Afforestation and Reforestation) and 2.6 (Deforestation) respectively. Criteria for
eligibility under the CEFC provision are described in Section 2.7.7.2.

4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704

In accordance with Decision 2/CMP.7 all lands and associated carbon pools subject to the CEEC provision
shall be identified, monitored and reported, including the georeferenced location and year of conversion.
Accounting for FM lands is with respect to the FMRL, so pools need to be consistent with the pools included
within the FMRL, including HWP. Section 2.2 (Generic methodologies for area identification, stratification andreporting) describes two Reporting Methods that can be used to define and report the geographical location ofland areas subject to FM activities. Reporting Method 1 can only meet the CEFC reporting requirements if
additional, georeferenced information about specific land areas within the geographic boundaries is provided.
This additional information could be reported using a time series of maps or data sets containing thegeoreferenced information about the location of these lands. The year of conversion will be between 1 January
2013 and the end of the last inventory year. For practical reasons harvesting, conversion to a non-forest land use
and new forest establishment may occur in different years within the commitment period. The year of CEFC
conversion is taken as the year in which land use change on CEF-hc land is confirmed or the year in which newforest is established on CEF-ne land, whichever is earliest within the commitment period

4705
4706



The area of lands subject to CEFC activity in each productivity class and species combination (where
relevant) to support the calculation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions;

4707
4708



Documentation that demonstrates the relationship between forest land cleared and the corresponding landestablished in forest under the CEFC provision;

4709
4710
4711



The normal harvesting cycle (in years) and the carbon stock at the time of harvest of each unit of CEF-hc
land. If the FMRL is based on a business as usual projection then it is good practice that the normal
harvesting cycle is used as it was assumed in the FMRL.

4712
4713
4714



Information to demonstrate that the new forest established has the potential to reach a carbon stock no lessthan the stock that was contained in the harvested forest plantation it replaces at the time of harvest, within
the normal harvesting cycle of the harvested forest plantation.

4715
4716
4717
4718
4719

The carbon stock at harvest and the normal harvesting cycle of the forest plantation harvested and converted
provide the targets for the new forest established on CEF-ne land. It is good practice to monitor progress of the
CEF-ne land towards achieving carbon equivalence by reporting the current area, age and estimated carbon stockin each inventory year. This needs to be reported until the carbon stock in the original forest plantation has been
met or exceeded.

It is good practice for the Party to also provide:

4720
103

Paragraphs 37-39 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.19.

Draft KP Supplement

2.101

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

4722

C HOICE OF METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING LANDS SUBJECTTO C ARBON E QUIVALENT F OREST C ONVERSION

4723
4724
4725
4726

For eligibility under the CEFC provision, conditions apply to both the land converted from forest plantation to
non-forest (CEF-hc) land and the corresponding land converted from non-forest to forest (CEF-ne land). The
Decision 2/CMP.7 requirements for a forest plantation to be harvested and converted under the CEFC provisions(CEF-hc) are:

4727
4728



the forest plantation meets the requirements for the country’s definition of forest as well as their specificdefinition of forest plantation at the time of conversion;

4729



the forest plantation existed on 31 December 1989;

4730



The forest plantation had been first established by direct-human induced planting and/or seeding;

4731
4732
4733
4734
4735
4736



The forest plantation had been first established onto non-forest land. If this non-forest land was previously
forested (that is to say it had been converted from forest to another land use), it is good practice to apply thesame criteria used to distinguish D from harvesting or forest disturbance that is followed by the reestablishment of a forest (see Section 2.6.2.1). For example, if normal practice in a country is to re-establish
forests within three years after harvesting, then a forest plantation that was first established on land that hadremained non-forest for more than three years would normally be eligible under the CEFC provision;

4737
4738



The forest plantation is still the original forest established before 1 January 1990, or, if re-established after
harvesting, this had last occurred through direct human induced planting and/or seeding after 1 January 1960.

4739
4740
4741

It is good practice to apply the methods described in Section 2.6.2 for identifying lands subject to direct humaninduced D, to also identify lands cleared of forest which may be accounted for under the CEFC provision, since
only land that would otherwise qualify as D land will qualify as CEF-hc land.

4742
4743

The decision tree for determining eligibility for forest land to be converted to non-forest land under the CEFC
provision is shown in Figure 2.7.4.

4721

2.7.7.2

4744

2.102

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

4745
4746

Figure 2.7.4

Decision tree for determining the eligibility of land to be harvested andconverted to non-forest under CEFC provision (CEF-hc land)

4747

4748
4749

The Decision 2/CMP.7 requirements for forest land established under the CEFC provision (CEF-ne land) are:

4750



The land did not contain forest at the time of conversion;

4751



The land did not contain forest on 31 December 1989;

4752



The land has been converted to forest land through direct human-induced planting and/or seeding;

4753



The forest established is at least equal in area to the forest plantation converted to non-forest;

4754
4755
4756



The forest established is shown to have the potential to reach a carbon stock no less than the stock that was
contained in the harvested forest plantation it replaces at the time of harvest, within the normal harvesting
cycle of the harvested forest plantation.

4757
4758
4759

It is good practice to apply the methods described in Section 2.5.2 for identifying lands subject to direct humaninduced AR also for identifying lands established in forest which may be accounted for under the CEFC
provision, since only land that would otherwise qualify as AR land will qualify as CEF-ne land.

4760
4761

The decision tree for determining eligibility for non-forest land to be converted to forest land under the CEFC
provision is shown in Figure 2.7.5.

4762

Draft KP Supplement

2.103

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
4763
4764

Figure 2.7.5

Decision tree for determining eligibility of land to be established in forest
plantation under CEFC provision (CEF-ne land)

4765
4766
4767

All lands and associated carbon pools subject to the CEFC provision should be accounted under FM. This
includes any HWP resulting from the conversion of forest to non-forest land under the CEFC provision.

4768
4769

It is good practice to provide documentation that the CEF-ne lands identified are forests established by direct
human-induced planting and/or seeding.

4770
4771

DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN ARD LAND AND CARBON EQUIVALENTFOREST CONVERSION LAND

4772
4773
4774

Both the CEF-hc and CEF-ne lands are reported as part of FM lands from the time of conversion, and any double
counting with AR and D land needs be avoided. Documentation should be provided to demonstrate that all therequirements for the CEFC provision have been met and there is no double-counting of emissions or removals.

4775
4776
4777

If CEF-ne land is deforested during the commitment period before reaching the country-specific thresholds fordefining forest, both this land and the associated CEF-hc land need to be reclassified under D. The emissions
associated with harvesting and conversion of the CEF-hc land should be included under D. Any removals

2.104

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

4778
4779

occurring on CEF-ne land before the deforestation event should be accounted for under AR. If D of CEF-ne landtakes place after the forest thresholds are reached, only the CEF-ne land needs to be classified as D land.

4780
4781

DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN CM, GM AND RV LAND AND CARBON
EQUIVALENT FOREST CONVERSION LAND

4782
4783
4784
4785
4786
4787

It is a requirement under Decision 2/CMP.7 that areas subject to the CEFC provision are reported under FM
which has priority over elected activities under Article 3.4 (see Section 1.2). This means that there may be lands
that are subject to elective Article 3.4 activities (e.g. CM) but are reported under FM. It is good practice toidentify and report these lands separately from other FM lands. Methodologies appropriate to the actual land-use
can be applied to ensure that emissions and removals are neither under- nor over-estimated. It is good practice toprovide documentation to show how double counting of emissions and removals has been avoided.

4788

2.7.7.3

4789

C HOICE OF METHODS FOR ESTIMATING CARBON STOCKCHANGES AND NON -CO 2 GHG EMISSIONS

4790
4791
4792
4793
4794
4795
4796
4797
4798
4799

It is good practice to apply the same methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissionson CEF-ne lands as are applied on AR lands, described in Section 2.5.3. Estimation and reporting for these lands
begin from the year of conversion, which may be before the new forest is established, but anyhow within thecommitment period. Methods that apply for harvesting on FM lands are appropriate for CEF-hc lands, because
stock changes will be captured in all pools, including HWPs. In both cases, it is good practice to use the same ora higher tier. In addition, Forest Land converted to non-forest under the CEFC provision may be subject tomanagement that results in carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions over-and-above what would havebeen expected if the forest had been re-established. It is good practice to capture these emissions and removals
by applying the methods for the appropriate land-use (e.g. Cropland or Grassland) found in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines.

4800
4801
4802

Accounting for FM is based on the reference level approach (FMRL), as described in Section 2.7.5. The basis
for determining accounting credits or debits in the commitment period is a comparison of actual emissions andremovals in FM, including any emissions and removals in CEF-hc and CEF-ne lands combined, with the FMRL.

4803
4804
4805
4806
4807

If forest land established under the CEFC provision is affected by natural disturbance, the emissions andsubsequent uptake on that land can be excluded from accounting in accordance with the natural disturbanceprovisions in Section 2.3.9. The natural disturbance accounting provisions apply to emissions from forests socannot be used for natural disturbances affecting non-forest CEF-hc land even though these lands are accounted
for under FM.

4808

Draft KP Supplement

2.105

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
4809

2.8

HARVESTED WOOD PRODUCTS (HWP)

4810
4811
4812
4813
4814

Section 2.8 provides good practice guidance for estimating annual changes in carbon stocks and associated CO2
emissions and removals from the Harvested Wood Products (HWP) pool (hereinafter referred to as the HWP
contribution) to be reported and accounted for in accordance with Decision 2/CMP.7 and 2/CMP.8.104 It gives
guidance for selecting adequate data and methods consistent with the system boundaries of the accounting
approach defined in the Decision.

4815
4816
4817
4818
4819
4820
4821
4822

Various approaches have been proposed to estimate and report the HWP contribution. They differ in thereference to the atmosphere and the treatment of HWP trade, due to different interpretations of some key terms
relevant for the reporting framework (Winjum et al., 1998, Cowie et al., 2006). This situation is reflected in
Chapter 12, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines which states that the guidance given “does not prefer any ofthese [approaches] and does not attempt to prejudge whether these, or any other approach, should be used toaccount” for the HWP contribution (IPCC 2006). Hence, it suggests calculating different variables that areneeded to estimate the HWP contribution according to the different approaches (see Table 12.1, Chapter 12,
Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines).

4823
4824
4825
4826
4827

One of the implications of Decision 2/CMP.7 is that accounting of HWP is confined to products in use where thewood was derived from domestic harvest, i.e. trees harvested in the reporting country.105 In principle, this issimilar to basing estimates of the HWP contribution on changes in the pool (i.e. stock-changes) reflected byvariable 2A in Table 12.1, Chapter 12, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, however Decision 2/CMP.7
imposes some additional constraints and limits the extent of HWP which can be included in the estimates.

4828

2.8.1

4829
4830

To estimate the HWP contribution and account for the changes in the HWP pool in line with Decision 2/CMP.7,
it is good practice to follow the decision tree (Figure 2.8.1) and the steps described below.

4831
4832
4833
4834
4835
4836
4837

STEP 1:
Check the construction of the forest management reference level(FMRL) and the availability of transparent and verifiable activity data on HWP
According to Decision 2/CMP.7 Parties are required to account for HWP on the basis of the change in the HWPpool during the second and subsequent commitment periods, provided that transparent and verifiable activity
data are available for the three HWP categories, sawn wood, wood panels and paper.106 In case the country’s
FMRL is based on a projection, accounting shall be on the basis of the change in the HWP pool (i.e. Tier 2 or 3
methods).107 To meet the requirements of Decision 2/CMP.7 countries should:

4838
4839

STEP 1.1: Check whether the FMRL has been based on a projection (see 2.7.5). If this is the case, skip thenext steps and go to STEP 1.4.

4840
4841
4842

STEP 1.2: Check databases of international organizations, such as the public database of the Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)108 for the availability of production and trade statistics on
the HWP categories defined in Decision 2/CMP.7. Detailed guidance is given in Section 2.8.1.1.

4843
4844
4845

STEP 1.3: Check whether other activity data (i.e. country-specific) are available which fulfil the requirement
to be transparent and verifiable. Further guidance is given in Section 2.8.4.1. In case data from STEP 1.2 and/or
1.3 are available go to STEP 1.4, otherwise apply Tier 1 (Section 2.8.2).

4846
4847
4848
4849

STEP 1.4: Ensure that HWP data represent information on the material use of wood (products in service) inorder to exclude HWP used for energy purposes and HWP in solid waste disposal sites (SWDS)109 and crosscheck the information with guidance given in Sections 2.8.1.1 and 2.8.4.1. If activity data represent information
on material use of HWP in service go to STEP 2, otherwise apply Tier 1 (Section 2.8.2).

Initial steps to estimate the HWP contribution

104

References to paragraphs in this chapter refer to the Annex of Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, unless indicated otherwise

105

Paragraph 27

106

Paragraph 29

107

Paragraph 16108

http://faostat.fao.org/site/630/Default.aspx

109

Paragraph 32

2.106

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

4850
4851

Figure 2.8.1

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

STEP 1Has
the FMRL been
constructed on the basisof a projection?
(2.7.5)

Start

Yes

No

No

Are
transparent andverifiable activity data
available for the specified
HWP categories?
(2.8.1.1)
Yes

No

Do HWP
activity data represent
information on material use of
HWP in service?
(2.8.1.1 / 2.8.4.1)

Yes
STEP 2No

Do HWP
originate from forests
which are accounted for by
the country under
Articles 3.3
and 3.4?

Yes

Calculate the domestic feedstock
and allocate to the relevant forest
activities AR, D and FM(2.8.1.2)

STEP 3Yes

Do HWP
originate from
Deforestation (D)?

No
Are
country-specifichalf-lives and/or
methodologies
available?

Yes

Demonstrate that themethodologies used are at least
as detailed and accurate as under
Tier 2 approach (2.8.4)

No
Apply Tier 1‘Instantaneous oxidation’(2.8.2)

Apply Tier 2(2.8.3)

Apply Tier 3(2.8.4)4852
4853

Draft KP Supplement

2.107

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
4854
4855
4856
4857
4858
4859
4860

Decision 2/CMP.7 limits the mandatory accounting to HWP originating from domestic forests which areaccounted for under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4. Imported HWP, irrespective of their origin, are excluded110.
Figure 2.8.1 shows that Decision 2/CMP.7 specifies the methods to be used for the estimation of the HWP
contribution depending on the land of origin of HWP.111

4861

Detailed guidance on how to implement all the following steps is given in Section 2.8.1.2.

4862
4863
4864
4865

STEP 2.1: Estimate the share of HWP originating from forests within the country. The default assumption isthat domestically consumed industrial roundwood represents the domestic production feedstock for thesubsequent processing of the semi-finished product categories sawnwood and wood panels. Domesticallyconsumed wood pulp is the feedstock for paper production.

4866
4867
4868
4869

STEP 2.2: Estimate the share of HWP originating from Afforestation (A), Reforestation (R) andDeforestation (D) under Article 3 paragraph 3 and Forest Management (FM) under Article 3 paragraph 4 as themethods for estimating the HWP contribution will differ according to the provisions outlined in the decision tree
for tier selection (Figure 2.8.1).

4870
4871
4872

STEP 2.3: The amount of HWP entering the accounting framework (i.e. activity data) is obtained by
combining the information from STEPS 2.1 and 2.2 with the annual production of HWP commodity categories
obtained from STEP 1.

4873
4874
4875
4876

STEP 3:Check availability of country-specific information and estimate
carbon stock in HWP and its annual change
Depending on the results of STEPS 1 and 2, and on the availability of country-specific half-lives and/or countryspecific methodologies, the estimation of the HWP contribution follows different tier methods.

4877
4878
4879
4880
4881
4882
4883

Tier 1 method specifies the assumption of instantaneous oxidation and is to be used under certain circumstancesand for specific parts of the HWP pool as explained further down below. The combination of HWP activity data
following the international classification system of semi-finished wood products (Figure 2.8.2) with default
conversion factors and default half-lives constitutes Tier 2. Under a Tier 3 method, more accurate countryspecific information is applied. This includes activity data and/or emission factors (i.e. service life information of
HWP), which is intended to improve the accuracy of the estimates. In order to choose the appropriate tiermethod, please follow all the steps below.

4884

STEP

4885
4886
4887
4888

STEP 3.2: Check whether country-specific HWP activity data following the international classification
system outlined in Section 2.8.1.1 together with specific conversion factors are available for the country
following guidance given in Section 2.8.4.1. If this is the case, allocate HWP activity data in line with STEP 2
and apply Tier 3 (Section 2.8.4).

4889
4890
4891

STEP 3.3: Check whether country-specific half-life values for the three HWP categories and/or theirdisaggregates (see Section 2.8.1.1) can be obtained following the guidance given in Section 2.8.4.2. If this is thecase, apply Tier 3 (Section 2.8.4).

4892
4893
4894

STEP 3.4: Check whether other country-specific methods are available that meet the requirements as
specified in Section 2.8.1.1 and 2.8.4. If this is the case, allocate HWP activity data in line with STEP 2 andapply Tier 3 (Section 2.8.4).

4895
4896

STEP 3.5: In case the country is unable to apply a Tier 3 method as outlined for the STEPS 3.2 to 3.4,
allocate HWP activity data in line with STEP 2 and apply Tier 2. Guidance on Tier 2 is given in Section 2.8.3.

4897

2.8.1.1

STEP 2:Check whether HWP categories originate from forests that are
accounted for by the country and allocate HWP to the particular forest related
activity

3.1: In case HWP originate from Deforestation (D) use Tier 1 method (Section 2.8.2).

4898
4899
4900

A VAILABILITY OF TRANSPARENT AND VERIFIABLE
ACTIVITY DATA

A prerequisite for Parties when accounting for HWP on the basis of the change in the HWP pool is theavailability of “transparent and verifiable activity data” for the three specified HWP categories “paper, […]110

Paragraph 27

111

Paragraphs 28, 29, 31 and 32

2.108

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft
112

4901
4902

wood panels, and […] sawnwood” (see STEP 1). This section gives guidance on when available data is to beconsidered transparent and verifiable for estimating the HWP contribution.

4903
4904
4905
4906
4907
4908
4909
4910
4911
4912
4913

Whereas the term “harvested wood products” is based on a concept containing the two separate elements “forest
harvesting” and “wood products” (Brown et al., 1998, UNFCCC Secretariat 2003), the categories named in
Decision 2/CMP.7 refer to the definitions of semi-finished wood products of the international classification
system of forest products.113 It is thus good practice to assume that the three HWP categories named in Decision
2/CMP.7 accord with these commodities. Other terms commonly used include “removals” (i.e. roundwood) are asubset of “forest harvesting” of biomass (i.e. fellings) at the beginning of the forest-wood chain (see definitions
below). Following the forest products definitions of the FAO, Figure 2.8.2 furthermore shows the relevance of
the aggregate commodity “industrial roundwood”. Its subcategories provide the feedstock for the subsequent
processing of the three named semi-finished HWP commodities along the value chain (cf. FAO 2012). Theinternational classification system for forest products can be related to the Harmonized Commodity Description
and Coding System (HS) of tariff nomenclature provided by the World Customs Organization (WCO).114

4914
4915

Figure 2.8.2

Simplified classification of wood products based on FAO forest products
definitions

Process
chain

Harvest (fellings)
Roundwood (wood-removals)

Slash

Industrial roundwood

Fuelwood and charcoal

Sawlogs and veneer logs

Pulpwood, round and split

Other industrial roundwood

Wood pulp
Sawnwood

Wood-based panels

Paper and paperboard

Finished products in different end uses

4916
4917
4918
4919
4920
4921
4922
4923
4924

Definitions of semi-finished product commodities, which are relevant for the application of the guidance on
estimating the HWP contribution in line with Decision 2/CMP.7, are listed below (cf. Figure 2.8.2). They are
drawn from the definitions of the Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire (JFSQ) as established by the Intersecretariat
Working Group on Forest Sector Statistics115 and form the basis for the forest products statistics e.g. provided by
FAO. The JFSQ also includes conversion factors to be used for converting e.g. from nominal to solid volume inthe compilation of statistics if required.113 Datasets for these aggregate product categories are freely and easily
accessible, are updated on at least an annual basis with a 6-month or one year reporting lag, and time series areavailable for most countries worldwide.116

4925
4926
4927
4928
4929
4930
4931

SAWNWOOD (Decision 2/CMP.7 refers to this as “sawn wood”): “Wood that has been produced from both
domestic and imported roundwood, either by sawing lengthways or by a profile-chipping process and thatexceeds 6 mm in thickness. It includes planks, beams, joists, boards, rafters, scantlings, laths, boxboards and"lumber", etc., in the following forms: unplaned, planed, end-jointed, etc. It excludes sleepers, wooden flooring,mouldings (sawnwood continuously shaped along any of its edges or faces, like tongued, grooved, rebated, Vjointed, beaded, moulded, rounded or the like) and sawnwood produced by resawing previously sawn pieces. It
is reported in cubic metres solid volume.”113

112

Paragraph 29

113

http://www.fao.org/forestry/statistics/80572/en/ (2013/08/27)

114

http://www.wcoomd.org/en/topics/nomenclature/instrument-and-tools/hs-online.aspx (2013/08/27)

115

Comprising the Forestry Department of FAO, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), theStatistical Office of the European Communities (EUROSTAT) and the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO)

116

http://faostat.fao.org/site/630/default.aspx (2013/08/27)

Draft KP Supplement

2.109

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
4932
4933
4934

WOOD-BASED PANELS (Decision 2/CMP.7 refers to this as “wood panels”): “This product category is anaggregate comprising veneer sheets, plywood, particle board, and fibreboard. It is reported in cubic metres solid
volume.”113 For the definitions of these subcategories please see FAO.

4935
4936
4937
4938

PAPER AND PAPERBOARD (Decision 2/CMP.7 refers to this as “paper”): “The paper and paperboard category is
an aggregate category. In the production and trade statistics, it represents the sum of graphic papers; sanitary andhousehold papers; packaging materials and other paper and paperboard. It excludes manufactured paper products
such as boxes, cartons, books and magazines, etc. It is reported in metric tonnes.”113

4939
4940
4941
4942
4943
4944
4945
4946
4947
4948

By definition, these three aggregate commodities of semi-finished wood products represent information on thematerial use of HWP and equal the default categories mentioned in Decision 2/CMP.7. All datasets are reported
in cubic metres solid volume or metric tonnes, which is information that enables countries to convert the data
given into carbon units. Commodities which are excluded from the definitions above (e.g. V-jointed sawnwood
or laminated veneer lumber (LVL)) may be the result of subsequent processing and therefore fall under the
category of finished wood products as illustrated in Figure 2.8.3. This also applies e.g. to wooden flooring that is
produced from sawnwood and/or hardboard which belongs to the category of wood-based panels; wooden
flooring in this case is therefore implicitly covered by the semi-finished HWP categories sawnwood and woodbased panels and included in the estimates for the HWP contribution. Thus, using statistical data both forsawnwood and for wooden flooring would result in double counting.

4949
4950

Figure 2.8.3

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

Raw material

Semi-finished products

Finished products and uses
(Energy)

Sawlogs

Sawnwood
Wood chips

Pulpwood,
round and split

V-joint sawnwood(E.g. wall panelling)
Wood-based panels(E.g. particle board)

Wall system

Wooden house

Furniture(E.g. book shelf)

Wood pulp
Recovered paper

Window

Paper(E.g. graphic paper)Book, newspaper or magazine

4951
4952
4953
4954
4955
4956

To avoid potential double counting, countries are encouraged to consult e.g. FAO for further clarification on themass flows along the forest wood processing chain depending on the classification and definition of the relevant
commodities.113 The inclusion of the commodity wood pulp under the HWP category “paper” would for example
result in double counting, as wood pulp by definition constitutes the feedstock for the production of paper andpaperboard (cf. definition below and Figure 2.8.2).

4957
4958
4959
4960
4961
4962
4963

In order to implement STEP 2 (see Section 2.8.1), further information is needed on commodities representing the
raw materials eventually used as feedstock for the production of the semi-finished HWP categories listed above(cf. Figure 2.8.2). Some possible feedstock commodities are not included in the default method to allocate HWP
to domestic forest activities as described in Section 2.8.1.2 below, due to difficulties in determining sources andmultiple uses, e.g. wood chips used in wood-based panel and wood pulp production as some chips come fromindustry co-products, others could be recycled products and others go to energy use (see Figure 2.8.3).
Definitions of some key feedstocks used are provided below.

4964

According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, “WOOD-REMOVALS are generally a subset of fellings”.

4965
4966
4967
4968
4969
4970
4971

ROUNDWOOD: “All roundwood felled or otherwise harvested and removed. It comprises all wood obtained fromremovals, i.e. the quantities removed from forests and from trees outside the forest, including wood recoveredfrom natural, felling and logging losses during the period, calendar year or forest year. It includes all wood
removed with or without bark, including wood removed in its round form, or split, roughly squared or in otherform (e.g. branches, roots, stumps and burls (where these are harvested) and wood that is roughly shaped orpointed. It is an aggregate comprising wood fuel, including wood for charcoal and industrial roundwood (woodin the rough). It is reported in cubic metres solid volume underbark (i.e. excluding bark).” 113

2.110

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

4972
4973
4974
4975
4976
4977

INDUSTRIAL ROUNDWOOD (WOOD IN THE ROUGH): “All roundwood except wood fuel. In production, it is anaggregate comprising sawlogs and veneer logs; pulpwood, round and split; and other industrial roundwood. It isreported in cubic metres solid volume underbark (i.e. excluding bark). The customs classification systems usedby most countries do not allow the division of Industrial Roundwood trade statistics into the different end-use
categories that have long been recognized in production statistics (i.e. sawlogs and veneer logs, pulpwood andother industrial roundwood). Thus, these components do not appear in trade. It excludes: telephone poles.”113

4978
4979
4980
4981

WOOD PULP: “Fibrous material prepared from pulpwood, wood chips, particles or residues by mechanical and/or
chemical process for further manufacture into paper, paperboard, fibreboard or other cellulose products. It is anaggregate comprising mechanical wood pulp; semi-chemical wood pulp; chemical wood pulp; and dissolving
wood pulp.”113

4982
4983
4984
4985
4986
4987
4988
4989
4990
4991

Production data on finished wood products processed from the three semi-finished product categories (see Figure
2.8.2) are not included in international databases. However, the WCO HS tariff nomenclature (see above) also
includes some commodities for finished HWP (e.g. furniture, builders' joinery and carpentry of wood).
Accordingly, information on such commodities could be available in national production and trade statistics (seeSection 2.8.4.1). Consequently, good practice in providing transparent and verifiable activity data for HWP,
which qualifies for the provision of Decision 2/CMP.7 to account for the HWP contribution on the basis ofchanges in the HWP pool, is achieved by the availability of data for the three aggregate HWP commodities
sawnwood, wood-based panels and paper and paperboard in publicly available databases of internationalorganizations, such as FAOSTAT (cf. IPCC 2006 Guidelines). It is good practice to report on uncertainties
related to these datasets (see Section 2.8.6)

4992
4993

In addition, countries with available data on finished wood products produced from the default HWP categories
are encouraged to use these data following the guidance given in Section 2.8.4.

4994

2.8.1.2

4995

A LLOCATION OF HWP TO DOMESTIC FOREST ACTIVITIESUNDER A RTICLE 3, PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 4

4996
4997
4998
4999
5000
5001

According to Decision 2/CMP.7, accounting for the HWP contribution is restricted to carbon in HWP fromforests which are accounted for by the particular Party under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4. Carbon in imported
HWP is to be excluded. 117 As the accounting framework differentiates between activities under Article 3
paragraph 3 and activities under Article 3 paragraph 4, it is good practice to allocate the carbon in HWP to these
activities. Within Article 3 paragraph 3, HWP from Deforestation (D) is treated differently from HWP derived
from A and R activities.

5002
5003

This section describes a default method on how to implement STEP 2 (see Section 2.8.1) for estimating the HWP
contribution originating from forests that are accounted for under the particular forest activities.

5004
5005
5006
5007
5008
5009
5010
5011
5012
5013
5014

Firstly, the share of carbon in HWP coming from domestic forests is estimated. For this purpose, the share offeedstock from domestic sources remaining within the country as against the overall availability of feedstock
used for subsequent processing within the country (i.e. apparent consumption generally computed fromproduction data plus import minus export) is calculated. In the case of HWP categories sawnwood and woodbased panels, the apparent consumption of industrial roundwood (see Section 2.8.1.1) is assumed to equal thefeedstock used to manufacture those products (Rüter 2011, Johannsen et al., 2011). Some industrial roundwood
can also be used for the production of pulp, serving as feedstock for the semi-finished HWP commodity paper
and paperboard. As pulp is also a traded commodity, the share of pulp produced from domestic sources asagainst the overall availability of pulp is to be calculated in a second step. Generally, domestic consumption iscomputed from production data plus imports less exports.

5015
5016
5017
5018
5019
5020
5021
5022

However, commodities other than industrial roundwood and/or wood pulp can also serve as feedstock for the
production of HWP and the fraction of domestic feedstock in reality differs within the different productcategories (Rüter and Diederichs 2012). For example, substantial amounts of industrial wood residues including
wood chips are used for the manufacture of particle board (Wilson 2010) (cf. Figure 2.8.3). If detailed andrepresentative information on the composition of feedstock and the associated wood flows is available for thesedomestically produced HWP commodities, countries are encouraged to use this country-specific information toestimate the fraction of feedstock from domestic harvest for HWP production and apply Tier 3 (see Section
2.8.4.1).

5023
5024

If country-specific methods and/or estimates are not available to determine the processing of feedstock coming
only from domestic origin (e.g. track and trace systems), it is good practice to apply Equation 2.8.1 for

Implementation of STEP 2.1

117

Paragraph 27

Draft KP Supplement

2.111

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
5025
5026

estimating the annual fraction of the feedstock coming from domestic harvest
sawnwood and wood-based panels.

for the HWP categories

5027
5028
5029
5030
5031

EQUATION 2.8.1
ESTIMATION OF ANNUAL FRACTION OF FEEDSTOCK FOR HWP PRODUCTION ORIGINATINGFROM DOMESTIC HARVEST

5032
5033

Where:

5034= share of industrial roundwood for the domestic production of HWP originating from domestic

5035

forests in year i.

5036= production of industrial roundwood in year i, Gg C yr-1

5037

= import of industrial roundwood in year i, Gg C yr-1

5038

= export of industrial roundwood in year i, Gg C yr-1

5039
5040
5041
5042

In consideration of the HWP process chain (i.e. paper is also produced from traded pulp) and in order to provide
more reliable estimates, it is likewise good practice to apply Equation 2.8.2 to estimate the annual fraction ofdomestically produced wood pulp as feedstock originating from domestic harvest for the production of the HWP
category paper and paperboard (
).

5043
5044
5045
5046
5047

EQUATION 2.8.2
ESTIMATION OF ANNUAL FRACTION OF DOMESTICALLY PRODUCED WOOD PULP AS FEEDSTOCK
FOR PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTION

5048
5049

Where:

5050= share of domestically produced pulp for the domestic production of paper and paperboard in

5051

year i.

5052= production of wood pulp in year i, Gg C yr-1

5053

= import of wood pulp in year i, Gg C yr-1

5054

= export of wood pulp in year i, Gg C yr-1

5055
5056
5057
5058
5059

The resulting feedstock factor
is then applied for the aggregate commodities sawnwood and wood-based
panels in Equation 2.8.4 below. For estimating the HWP contribution of the aggregate commodity paper andpaperboard, both feedstock factors
andapply in order to exclude both wood pulp produced
from imported industrial roundwood, and paper produced from imported wood pulp (see above and Equation
2.8.4).

5060
5061
5062
5063
5064
5065

Implementation of STEP 2.2
In STEP 2.2, the carbon in HWP is allocated to the particular forest activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4(see Figure 2.8.1) as the HWP contribution is estimated differently depending on the origin of the wood. Under
Article 3 paragraph 3, the HWP contribution originating from forest activities A, R and D is estimated since thebase year 1990. The HWP contribution from HWP originating from the activity FM under Article 3 paragraph 4
is accounted for in the second commitment period consistently with the FMRL 118 (see Sections 2.7.5 and 2.8.5).

118

Paragraphs 12 and 14

2.112

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

5066
5067
5068
5069
5070

It is good practice to apply Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods for the particular fractions of HWP derived from domestic
forests accounted for under FM and AR activities (HWPFM and HWPAR) in line with the provisions set out in
Decision 2/CMP.7119 (see Section 2.8.1.2 and Figure 2.8.4). In both cases, guidance on estimation methods isprovided in Sections 2.8.3 and 2.8.4. For HWP originating from D activities the Tier 1 method shall be applied(Section 2.8.2).

5071
5072

Figure 2.8.4

Relationship between sources of feedstock for HWP, forest activities and theapplication of the relevant tier method for estimating the HWP contribution

Lands not accounted for under Articles
3.3 and 3.4 forest activities (e.g. CM)
Forests not accounted for under Articles
3.3 or 3.4 activities

5073
5074
5075
5076
5077
5078

Forests accounted for under Article 3.4(Forest Management)

Carbon in HWP estimated for accounting in FMRL (HWPFM).
Apply Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods

Forests accounted for under Article 3.3(Afforestation and Reforestation)

Carbon in HWP estimated on the basis of changes in the HWPpool since 1990 (HWPAR). Apply Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods

Forests accounted for under Article 3.3(Deforestation)

Carbon in HWP estimated on the basis of instantaneousoxidation. Apply Tier 1 method

If country-specific approaches are not available to allocate domestic harvest and subsequently produced HWP
therefrom to the activities AR, D and FM (e.g. by track and trace systems), it is good practice to apply Equation
2.8.3 for estimating the annual fraction of HWP derived from the specific forest activity () as a default. This
also includes harvest that has been subject to salvage logging. The identified share of the total harvest is thenassigned to the HWP associated with the particular forest activity by application of Equation 2.8.4.

5079
5080
5081
5082
5083

EQUATION 2.8.3
ESTIMATION OF ANNUAL FRACTION OF FEEDSTOCK FOR HWP ORIGINATING FROM FOREST
ACTIVITIES UNDER ARTICLE 3, PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 4

5084
5085

Where:

5086= share of harvest originating from the particular activity j in year i5087= activity FM or AR or D in year i

5088
5089
5090
5091

Where countries already collect data of harvesting discriminating among different activities (i.e. lands subject toFM, lands subject to AR, lands subject to D, and any other treed land) – and among material and energy use of
harvested roundwood (i.e. industrial roundwood and fuelwood, cf. Figure 2.8.2), this information can be used.
This is usually the case where countries apply the gain-loss (i.e. flux data) method120.

5092
5093
5094
5095
5096
5097
5098

Most countries only report industrial roundwood from forests to the statistics and the uncertainties associatedwith feedstock for HWP production (cf. Figure 2.8.2) originating from lands other than forests (see Figure 2.8.4)
are generally expected to be insignificant. However, due to the definition of roundwood (see Section 2.8.1.1), it
may be the case that the specified HWP categories are produced from industrial roundwood (or domestic
feedstock), which does not originate from forests which are accounted for under Article 3, paragraphs 3 (AR andD) and 4 (FM) (cf. Figure 2.8.2).121 In the Kyoto Protocol accounting framework, activities on lands which are
not considered to be forests (see Section 1.2) and which could provide industrial roundwood to the markets (e.g.
119Paragraphs 16, 29 and 30

120

Section 4.2.1.1, Chapter 4, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines

121

Paragraph 27

Draft KP Supplement

2.113

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
5099
5100
5101
5102
5103
5104
5105

short-rotation plantations), could possibly be accounted for under the activity Cropland Management122 (e.g. as
perennial crops including trees, see Section 2.9). Following the guidance given in Sections 2.9.1 and 2.9.2
countries are encouraged to provide information on how lands that could potentially be the source of industrial
roundwood have been included in their accounting. This is relevant also for forest lands which are not subject toFM, depending on the countries’ interpretation of FM (see Section 2.7.1). It is thus good practice to ensure thatno significant amounts of biomass not originating from forests-related activities have been used as feedstock forthe production of the HWP default commodities, and explain how this has been achieved.

5106
5107
5108
5109
5110

Countries that apply the stock-difference method to estimate forest carbon stock changes as outlined in Section
2.3.3 may need to collect additional data for estimating harvest fractions associated with the particular activity jrelated to forests under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 to apply Equation 2.8.3. When countries cannot track the
harvested wood by the land of origin (FM, AR, D, or from treed lands, cf. Figure 2.8.4) and by different uses ofwood (i.e. industrial roundwood, fuelwood), the following good practice applies:

5111
5112

For deforested lands, the starting information is the standing volume of tree before the deforestation event, whichcorresponds to the total harvest (i.e. fellings). The following steps apply:

5113

STEP 1: Disaggregate the harvest into roundwood and slash by one of the following methods.

5114
5115



Either multiply the standing volume by the ratio of roundwood to total harvested removals that has been
calculated for other activities or at national level;

5116
5117



Or divide the standing volume by the biomass expansion factors (BEF2) provided in Table 3A.1.10, Annex
3A.1 to Chapter 3 of the GPG-LULUCF, thereby deriving the amount of roundwood.

5118
5119

STEP 2: Disaggregate the roundwood into industrial roundwood and fuelwood (cf. Figure 2.8.2) by one of thefollowing methods.

5120
5121



Either multiply the roundwood by the ratio of industrial roundwood to roundwood that has been calculated
for other activities or at national level;

5122
5123
5124
5125



Or multiply the roundwood data derived from STEP 1 by the factor 0.87123 in order to exclude harvest losses,
bark (cf. FAO roundwood definition, Section 2.8.1.1) and fuelwood not covered by the statistics andsubsequently disaggregate the result by using the proportion derived from FAOSTAT production data of thecommodities industrial roundwood and wood fuel.

5126
5127
5128
5129
5130

For AR lands, the starting information is the standing volume of trees from which fellings is derived accordingwith the age-class structure and/or yield tables and/or information on the timing of harvesting and thinning
operations for each management system. Then, STEPS 1 and 2 as described above for deforested lands apply inorder to divide harvest into roundwood and slash and disaggregate roundwood into industrial roundwood andfuelwood.

5131
5132
5133
5134

For lands that are not reported under any forest-related activity (see Sections 1.1 and 1.2), and that produce
significant amounts of harvest (i.e. lands from which timber is extracted, cf. Figure 2.8.4), then the country
should estimate the amount of industrial roundwood annually produced from those lands in order to exclude it
from the HWP estimation.

5135

Industrial roundwood from those lands could be estimated by:

5136
5137
5138
5139



Either by determining, for each tree species, the total amount of harvest, from which the amount of harvest
originating from AR and D lands is subtracted and the remaining amount is apportioned among lands
subject to FM and other lands from which significant amounts of timber are extracted based on the
proportion of the total area covered by each species under FM and under those other lands; or

5140
5141
5142



Or by subtracting from the total harvest the amount of fellings originating from AR and D lands, as
quantified by available data or as estimated according to above-listed guidance, and, then, apportioning theremaining quantity on the basis of the proportion of the area under FM and under those other lands.

5143
5144
5145

Once the fellings amount has been apportioned to lands not reported under any forest-related activity from whichsignificant amounts of timber are extracted the industrial roundwood is estimated by applying the same steps as
those described for afforested/reforested lands.
122

Paragraph 6

123This factor represents a mass weighted average for the years 2003-2007 that has been derived from information on harvest
data included in countries' FMRL submissions (http://unfccc.int/bodies/awg-kp/items/5896.php) and production data of the
UNECE statistics for the commodity roundwood (Rüter 2011). Please note that this factor varies between countries
depending inter alia on the national definition of volume of living stems above stump. Further guidance can be found e.g.
in Lawrence et al., 2010 and Karjalainen et al., (2004).

2.114

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

5146
5147
5148

Finally, the amount of industrial roundwood produced from FM lands is estimated by subtracting from the total
harvest the quantity of fellings originating from AR, D and those other lands and by calculating the amount ofindustrial roundwood associated with FM in line with the guidance given above.

5149
5150
5151
5152

For each forest-related activity, for the years of the time series for which a ratio of industrial roundwood
originated by the activity to the total produced roundwood cannot be estimated, it is good practice to derive
missing values from the values of the ratio that have been calculated according to methods of gap-filling as
provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

5153
5154
5155
5156

Countries that use the stock-difference method to estimate forest carbon stock changes as outlined in Section
2.3.3, and that apply the above-listed good practice for estimating the fellings for D, AR and/or FM, areencouraged to ensure the quality of estimated values of harvesting by checking their consistency with theestimated net changes in aboveground biomass.

5157
5158
5159
5160
5161
5162
5163
5164

In case it is not possible to differentiate between the harvest from AR and FM, it is conservative and in line withgood practice to assume that all HWP entering the accounting framework originate from FM. The reason is thatthe potential contribution to the reported carbon stock changes is higher if HWP originate from AR rather thanfrom FM, as for AR, the estimates start in 1990 and AR is accounted against a benchmark value of 0 (i.e. grossnet accounting, see Sections 2.5.3 and 2.8.3). It is furthermore conservative and in line with good practice toassume that all harvested wood prior to the start of the first commitment period is derived from FM as the annual
fraction of feedstock for HWP originating from forest activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 (canonly be estimated from information available from the first and second commitment periods.

5165
5166
5167
5168
5169
5170
5171

In order to obtain the annual fractions of HWP entering the accounting framework from domestic harvest
associated with the particular activity j (AR, D and FM), the results of STEP 2.1 (i.e. the factors
andfrom Equations 2.8.1 and 2.8.2) and STEP 2.2 (i.e.
from Equation 2.8.3) are, as a default, to be
combined with the annual production of the HWP commodity categories (HWPP) as specified in Section 2.8.1.1(i.e. sawnwood, wood-based panels, paper and paperboard). In case no country-specific track and trace systems
are available, it is good practice to apply Equation 2.8.4 for this purpose.

Implementation of STEP 2.3

5172
5173
5174
5175
5176

EQUATION 2.8.4
ESTIMATION OF ANNUAL HWP AMOUNTS PRODUCED FROM DOMESTIC HARVEST RELATED TO
ACTIVITIES UNDER ARTICLE 3, PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 4
•

5177
5178
5179
5180
5181

=

with:

for HWP categories ‘sawnwood’ and ‘wood-based panels’; and

•
with:

•

for HWP category ‘paper and paperboard’= 0 if< 0 and= 0 if<0

Where:

5182
5183= share of domestic feedstock for the production of the particular HWP category originating fromdomestic forests in year i

5184
5185

= HWP amounts produced from domestic harvest associated with activity j in year i, in m³ yr-1 or
Mt yr-1

5186
5187= production of the particular HWP commodities (i.e. sawnwood, wood-based panels and paper
and paperboard, or their sub-categories, see Section 2.8.1.1) in year i, in m³ yr-1 or Mt yr-1

5188
5189

Note: Equation 2.8.4 must be applied separately to each of the defined HWP commodities (HWPp) andseparately to HWP related to activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 (HWPj).

5190
5191
5192
5193
5194

The estimates associated with the forest related activities AR, D and FM also apply in case countries provide
estimates for sub-categories of the three HWP default categories (see Section 2.8.3.1), or for country-specificactivity data e.g. on assemblies composed of a combination of products, such as in wooden buildings. Further
guidance on how to estimate fraction of HWP originating from forests accounted for under Article 3, paragraphs
3 and 4 using country-specific activity data is provided in Section 2.8.4.1.

5195

Draft KP Supplement

2.115

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
5196

2.8.2

Tier 1: “Instantaneous oxidation”

5197
5198
5199
5200
5201
5202

The method presented in this section is to be applied by countries as the default method to estimate the HWPContribution.124 It is based on the assumption that the annual amount of carbon leaving the HWP pool is thesame as the annual carbon inflow to the pool. In consequence, this method corresponds to an estimate of nochange in HWP carbon stocks. It equals the assumption that all carbon in the biomass harvested is oxidised in
the removal year (i.e. year of harvest) and is equivalent to reporting no net-emissions from HWP, as the annualchange in carbon stock in HWP is zero (cf. IPCC 1997, IPCC 2006).

5203
5204
5205
5206
5207

For the first commitment period, the storage of carbon in HWP was not included in the reporting since “the mere
presence of carbon stocks be excluded from accounting” 125 and HWP were “not included in the reporting since it
is not listed as a pool covered by the Marrakesh Accords” (IPCC 2003). Countries following the good practice as
described in GPG-LULUCF (IPCC 2003) and applying instantaneous oxidation, did thus not report and/or
account for emissions from HWP in the first commitment period.

5208
5209
5210
5211
5212
5213
5214

Decision 2/CMP.7 establishes mandatory accounting of all changes in the HWP pool. 126 A prerequisite foraccounting HWP on the basis of delayed emissions is the availability of transparent and verifiable HWP activity
data (see Section 2.8.1.1). Consequently, it is good practice to apply the Tier 1 method as outlined in this section(i.e. reporting no net-emissions from HWP) only in case that transparent and verifiable activity data for thedefault HWP categories sawnwood, wood-based panels and paper and paperboard as outlined in Section 2.8.1.1
are not available.127 However, Decision 2/CMP.7 specifies that “the treatment of HWP in the construction of a
projected FMRL (see Section 2.8.5) shall not be on the basis of instantaneous oxidation”.128

5215

For the following HWP fractions instantaneous oxidation (i.e. Tier 1) shall be applied (see Figure 2.8.1):

5216



HWP resulting from D activities under Article 3 paragraph 3 (see Section 2.8.1.2);129

5217



HWP in SWDS 130

5218



Harvested wood used for energy purposes.130

5219
5220
5221
5222
5223
5224
5225

Following the guidance given in Section 2.8.1.2, the fraction of HWP originating from domestic forests
accounted for under the activities AR and FM can be derived. Thereby, the fraction of HWP resulting from D is
implicitly excluded from further estimation of the HWP contribution and which is equivalent to applying
instantaneous oxidation. In line with the requirements of Decision 2/CMP.8131, it is good practice to demonstratethat harvested wood originating from D (i.e. harvestD, see Equation 2.8.3) has not been included in the estimateson the basis of the change of the HWP pool. This can be done by reporting the annual share of the overall harvest
originating from D (harvestD (i)).

5226
5227
5228
5229
5230
5231

By estimating the HWP contribution on the basis of methodologies as outlined in Sections 2.8.3 and 2.8.4, only
the HWP contribution of HWP in use is estimated. HWP in SWDS and wood harvested for energy are thus
implicitly treated on the basis of instantaneous oxidation (i.e. reporting no net-emissions from HWP). Estimatesthat are based on the three default commodities are by definition not derived from wood harvested for energy
purposes. Where CO2 emissions from HWP in SWDS are separately accounted for, it is good practice to include
them on the basis of “instantaneous oxidation”.

5232

2.8.3

5233
5234
5235

Provided that transparent and verifiable activity data are available for the three default HWP categories
sawnwood, wood-based panels and paper and paperboard, as defined in Section 2.8.1.1, and no appropriate
country-specific information required to apply a Tier 3 method are available (see Section 2.8.4), Parties are

Tier 2: First order decay

124

Paragraph 28

125

Decision 16/CMP.1

126

Paragraph 26

127

Paragraph 29

128

Paragraph 16

129

Paragraph 31

130

Paragraph 32

131

Paragraph 2 of the Annex II of Decision 2/CMP.8 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1

2.116

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

5236
5237

required to obtain estimates on the HWP contribution by application of the Tier 2 method as outlined in thissection.132

5238
5239
5240
5241

In line with Decision 2/CMP.7, it is good practice to estimate the change in carbon stocks separately for each of
the HWP fractions originating from AR (HWPAR) and from FM (HWPFM) as estimated from Equation 2.8.4. For
this purpose, the first-order decay (FOD) function as presented in Equation 2.8.5, which is a flux data methodthat corresponds to Equation 12.1, Chapter 12, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, is to be applied:

5242
5243
5244
5245
5246

EQUATION 2.8.5
ESTIMATION OF CARBON STOCKS AND ANNUAL CARBON STOCK CHANGES IN HWP POOL OF THE
REPORTING COUNTRY

1

•

1

•

5247
∆

5248
5249

1

Sources: IPCC 2006 ; Pingoud and Wagner 2006

Where:

5250

i = year5251

C (i) = the carbon stock in the particular HWP category at the beginning of year i, Gg C

5252
5253

k = decay constant of FOD for each HWP category (HWPj) given in units yr-1 (k = ln(2)/HL, where HL ishalf-life of the HWP pool in years (see Section 2.8.3.2).

5254

Inflow (i) = the inflow to the particular HWP category (HWPj) during year i, Gg C yr-1

5255

ΔC(i) = carbon stock change of the HWP category during year i, Gg C yr-1

5256
5257
5258
5259
5260
5261
5262
5263

It is good practice to apply Equation 2.8.5 with activity data for the semi-finished wood product categories
sawnwood, wood-based panels and paper and paperboard that have been assigned to the particular forest
activities (HWPAR and HWPFM) (see Section 2.8.1). In combination with semi-finished wood productcommodities, FOD implicitly includes finished HWP in the pool estimates, and it is assumed that “immediate
losses of the HWP pool due to final processing along the processing chain (cf. Figure 2.8.2) are described
realistically by the exponential decay pattern” (Pingoud and Wagner 2006). The timing of emissions from woodprocessing residues used for energy purposes along the process chain of HWP are also well described by FOD(cf. Rüter and Diederichs 2012).

5264
5265
5266

Whereas Equation 12.1, Chapter 12, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines suggests to start with i = 1900,
application of FOD in the context of the Decision 2/CMP.7 necessitates a differentiated approach to enable HWP
accounting associated with the different forest activities (see Section 2.8.1.2).

5267
5268
5269
5270
5271
5272
5273
5274
5275
5276
5277
5278
5279

In order to produce an estimate of the existing HWP carbon pool by means of Equation 2.8.5, and based on thesubsequent changes of this pool to produce an estimate of the HWP contribution, the historical wood use (i.e. theaccumulation of the historic Inflow to the HWP pool) has to be included. This procedure is needed as this also
includes the historic and current discard from the HWP pool, which is also termed “inherited emissions” (IPCC
2006). This is reflected in Decision 2/CMP.7, which states that “emissions that occur during the second
commitment period from harvested wood products removed from forests prior to the start of the second
commitment period shall also be accounted for.”133 The term “emissions” from HWP (which are defined as apool134) thus refers to the “decay” from that pool, which is the discarding of HWP from end uses described e.g.
by FOD (i.e. Equation 2.8.5). Discarding, thus, does not mean that the carbon in the products is oxidized, but
describes the release of HWP from the HWP pool in use (or in service) from where the products are potentiallyrecycled, burned, composted or transferred to solid waste disposal.135 The discard from the pool of HWP in use(comprising wood products in service), therefore depends on the historic level of Inflow (see Section 2.8.1) andthe particular service life and/or half-life of the HWP commodities (see Sections 2.8.3.2 and 2.8.4.2).
132

Paragraph 29

133

Paragraph 16

134

Paragraph 26

135

For more information see IPCC FAQ, Q4-29 (http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/faq/faq.html)

Draft KP Supplement

2.117

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
5280
5281
5282
5283

In order to account for the HWP contribution from AR activities, estimates are to be based on activity data since
the base year 1990. It is thus good practice to include inherited emissions from the pool that has been establishedfrom HWPAR since 1990. This is implemented by the use of Equation 2.8.5 starting with i = 1990 andC(1990) = 0.

5284
5285
5286
5287
5288
5289
5290

For HWP from FM activities, the inclusion of inherited emissions in the estimates of the HWP carbon pooldepends on the Party’s approach used for FMRL construction. In case the FMRL is based on a projection which
represents a ‘business as usual scenario’ (see Sections 2.7.5.1 and 2.8.5), Parties may exclude inherited
emissions from before the start of the second commitment period in their estimates.136 In this case, the estimation
by means of Equation 2.8.5 starts with i = 2013 and C(2013) = 0. If the Party’s FMRL is not based on a
projection representing a ‘business as usual scenario’, it is thus good practice to include inherited emissions fromthe pool.

5291
5292

As reflected by Equation 2.8.4 (), it is also good practice to separately estimate and report by the above
procedure the annual HWP contribution for:

5293



HWP from AR activities (HWPAR) and for HWP from FM activities (HWPFM)

5294
5295



HWP for each of the particular commodities (i.e. sawnwood, wood-based panels, paper and paperboard ortheir subcategories)

5296
5297
5298
5299

The availability of activity data series (i.e.
varies. For most countries the FAO statistics provide dataon the HWP commodity categories since 1961.137 However, for some countries activity data are available only
since their independence or foundation (e.g. in 1991). Further guidance on the activity data to be used for Tier 2
method is provided in Section 2.8.3.1.

5300
5301
5302
5303
5304
5305

As a proxy in the Tier 2 method it is assumed that the HWP pools are in steady state at the initial time t0 fromwhich the activity data start. This means that as a proxy ΔC(t0) is assumed to be equal to 0. This steady statecarbon stock C(t0) for each HWP commodity category is approximated by means of Equation 2.8.6 based on the
average of Inflow(i) during the first 5 years of which statistical data are available. By substituting C(t0) in
Equation 2.8.5, the C(i) and ΔC(i) in the sequential time instants can be calculated. In the Tier 2 method, it isgood practice to use Equation 2.8.6 for estimating stock at t = t0.

5306
5307
5308
5309
5310

EQUATION 2.8.6
APPROXIMATION OF THE CARBON STOCKS IN HWP POOLS AT INITIAL TIME, I.E. SINCE WHEN
ACTIVITY DATA ARE AVAILABLE

5311
With:

5312

∑

⁄5

5313
5314
5315
5316
5317
5318
5319

Only in case a projected FMRL is applied (see Section 2.8.5), other methods could also be used. Further
estimation methods for calculating the carbon inflow to the HWPFM pool (Inflow(i)) back to the year 1900 areprovided by the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (i.e. on the basis of estimated annual rates of increase for industrial
roundwood production that are based, inter alia, on the annual per cent change of population growth) or in Rüter
2011 (i.e. calculate missing activity data since the year 1900 on HWPFM carbon pool inflow from the average ofthe first five years for which activity data are given for the country).

5320
5321
5322
5323
5324
5325

In case the FMRL has been based on a projection representing a ‘business as usual scenario’ (see Section 2.7.5
and 2.8.5), in line with Decision 2/CMP.8, it is good practice to provide information whether and how inherited
emissions have been included in the HWP estimates. Otherwise, if the inclusion of HWP in the countries’ FMRL
is not based on a projection, it is good practice to explain that the approach chosen to include inherited emissions
in the estimates of the HWP carbon pool reflects best the countries’ circumstances (e.g. data availability).
Further guidance on the consideration of HWP in the FMRL is provided in Section 2.8.5.

136

Paragraph 16137

http://faostat.fao.org/site/630/default.aspx

2.118

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

5326
5327
5328

The carbon stock change in all the HWP pools of the commodities associated with the particular activities isobtained by summing the stock changes ΔC of each commodity category. The carbon stock change is thenconverted into Gg CO2 yr-1 by multiplying by –44/12.

5329
5330
5331
5332
5333
5334

Under the Tier 2 method, Equation 2.8.5 is equally applied for domestically consumed as well as for exported
HWP together with the same half-life parameters (see Section 2.8.3.2). Therefore, it complies with good practice
not to differentiate between domestic consumption and exports in the reporting of the HWP contribution. In
order to increase transparency and facilitate potential changes in the methodology used to estimate the HWP
contribution (e.g. by application of country-specific half-lives following the guidance provided in Section 2.8.4),
however, Parties are encouraged to report separately for domestically consumed and exported HWP.

5335

2.8.3.1

5336
5337
5338

Activity data include the carbon stock of the HWP pool at the beginning of each year ( C(i)) and the inflow to the
HWP pool during each year (Inflow (i)) for each HWP category. In order to apply Equation 2.8.5, it is goodpractice to determine C(i) and Inflow (i).

A CTIVITY DATA

5339
TABLE 2.8.1
DEFAULT CONVERSION FACTORS FOR THE DEFAULT HWP CATEGORIES AND THEIR SUBCATEGORIES
Density(oven dry massover air dry
volume)[Mg / m3]

Carbon fraction

Sawn wood (aggregate)

0.458

0.5

0.229

1

Coniferous sawnwood

0.45

0.5

0.225

2

Non-coniferous sawnwood

0.56

0.5

0.28

2

Wood-based panels (aggregate)

HWP categories

Source[Mg C / m3]

0.595

0.454

0.269

3

Hardboard (HDF)

0.788

0.425

0.335

4

Insulating board (Other board, LDF)

0.159

0.474

0.075

5

Fibreboard compressed

0.739

0.426

0.315

6

Medium-density fibreboard (MDF)

0.691

0.427

0.295

4

Particle board

0.596

0.451

0.269

4

Plywood

0.542

0.493

0.267

7

Veneer sheets

0.505

0.5

0.253

8

Paper and paperboard (aggregate)
1

C conversion factor(per air dry
volume)(oven dry massover air dry
mass)(per air dry mass)[Mg / Mg]

[Mg C / Mg]

0.9

0.386

9

Calculated from the weighted average of coniferous and non-coniferous sawnwood production volumes (FAOSTAT average of the years
2006-2010) of the countries as listed in Appendix of the Annex of Decision 2/CMP.7

2

IPCC 2003, Appendix 3a.1

3Calculated from the weighted average of included subcategories of the production volumes (FAOSTAT average of the years 2006-2010)of the countries as listed in Appendix of the Annex of Decision 2/CMP.7

4

Rüter and Diederichs (2012)5

Derived from Environmental product declarations EPD-GTX-2011111-E, EPD-KRO-2009212-E and EPD-GTX-2011211-E provided by
IBU e.V. (http://bau-umwelt.de/hp550/Insulating-materials.htm)

6

Calculated from 50% of HDF and 50% of MDF

7Derived from Wilson and Sakimoto (2005) and basic density for non-coniferous species listed in the table above

8

Calculated from 50% sawnwood (Coniferous) and 50% of sawnwood (Non-Coniferous)

9

Calculated from the weighted average of included subcategories of the production volumes (FAOSTAT average of the years 2006-2010)of the countries as listed in Appendix of the Annex of Decision 2/CMP.7, including information derived from Fengel and Wegener(1984), Paulapuro (2000), Gronfors (2010) and industry information.

5340

Draft KP Supplement

2.119

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
5341
5342
5343
5344
5345

For this purpose, Tier 2 uses forest products data from FAO or other international organizations, such as United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), for semi-finished HWP commodities as set out in Section
2.8.1.1. As a default, the annual Inflow(i) to the HWP pool comprises of the three default HWP commodity
categories, i.e. sawnwood, wood-based panels, paper and paperboard), separated by the particular activity(, see Section 2.8.1.2).

5346
5347
5348
5349
5350

In order to estimate carbon amounts in HWP, default conversion factors are provided in Table 2.8.1. In fact, theconversion factors for the HWP default commodities (i.e. aggregates) are largely dependent on the compositionof countries’ production amounts of the particular subcategories (e.g. particle board). If Parties havedisaggregated data on subcategories of semi-finished wood products as listed in Table 2.8.1, it is thus goodpractice to apply Equation 2.8.5 to the disaggregated subcategories.

5351
5352
5353
5354

In order to reduce uncertainties associated with assumptions on the conversion factors of activity data (i.e. dataon semi-finished wood product commodities derived from statistics) (see Section 2.8.6), Parties are encouraged
to use country-specific activity data comprising further items of the HWP subcategories as listed in Table 2.8.1.
More information can be obtained in Section 2.8.4.1.

5355

2.8.3.2

5356
5357
5358
5359
5360
5361

The rate at which carbon in the default HWP categories is removed from the HWP pool in service in a given year
is specified by a constant decay rate (k) expressed as half-life in years. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines define thehalf-life as “the number of years it takes to lose one-half of the material currently in the pool“. As the half-life in
the context of Decision 2/CMP.7 refers to HWP in use (see Section 2.8.1.1), the half-life to be applied is afunction of the adjusted estimated service life (ESL) of the particular HWP commodities (with HL = Adjusted
ESL * ln(2), see Section 2.8.4.2).

5362
5363
5364

When applying the Tier 2 method, Decision 2/CMP.7 requires countries to use the default half-lives of the three
HWP categories as specified in Table 2.8.2. The same half-lives apply for the particular subcategories of theaggregate HWP categories as specified in Table 2.8.1.

E MISSION FACTORS

5365
TABLE 2.8.2
TIER 2 DEFAULT HALF-LIVES138 OF HWP CATEGORIESHWP categories139

Default half-lives (years)

Paper

2

Wood panels

25

Sawn wood

35

5366
5367
5368
5369
5370
5371

In order to reduce uncertainties associated with the assumptions on the half-lives of the HWP commodities (seeSection 2.8.6) Parties are encouraged to use country-specific half-lives, both for the domestic use of HWP
categories, as well as country-specific half-lives as being applied by the importing country for the exported HWP
categories. Further guidance on how to use and obtain country-specific half-life information (i.e. Tier 3) for the
relevant HWP categories is available in Section 2.8.4.2.

5372

2.8.4

5373
5374
5375
5376
5377

This section provides good practice guidance on the use of country-specific methods to estimate the HWP
carbon pool and its changes in order to estimate the HWP contribution. They may include country-specific halflives and/or methodologies and may be applied by Parties where sufficient data are available, in line withrequirements as outlined in Section 2.8.1 and the Decision 2/CMP.7140 covering the three semi-finished HWP
categories.141 It complies with good practice to apply country-specific methods “provided that verifiable and138

Tier 3: Country-specific methods

See footnote of paragraph 29 of Decision 2/CMP.7: Half-lives are based on Table 3a.1.3 of the GPG-LULUCF.

139

HWP categories as defined in paragraph 29 of Decision 2/CMP.7 refer to the commodities sawnwood, wood-based panels,
paper and paperboard, acc. to the international classification system for forest products (see guidance in Section 2.8.1.1)

140

Paragraph 30

141

Use of Tier 3 methods does not apply to exported wood in circumstances where the importing country uses Tier 3
methods and the exporting country uses Tier 2 methods. This would lead to inconsistencies in the accounting. An example

2.120

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

5378
5379
5380
5381
5382

transparent activity data are available and that the methodologies used are at least as detailed or accurate”140 as
those described in Section 2.8.3 (Tier 2). Good practice thus includes a verification of the Tier 3 methods used,
e.g. by comparing the results derived using the Tier 2 method (see Section 2.8.3), and by providing all relevant
information in a transparent and verifiable way to demonstrate how the HWP contribution has been estimated.
More information on how to verify Tier 3 methods can be found in IPCC FAQs on HWP.142

5383
5384
5385

Two key Tier 3 methodological pathways allow for estimating changes in the HWP carbon pool in line with therequirements as outlined in Decision 2/CMP.7, comprising (i) flux data methods, and (ii) combinations of stock
inventory and flux data methods.

5386

FLUX DATA METHODS

5387
5388
5389
5390
5391
5392
5393
5394

In flux data methods HWP carbon pool and its changes are basically calculated from the difference of the
production (i.e. carbon inflow to the HWP pool) and decay/discard rate. There are comprehensive international
activity databases on production and trade of HWP (See Section 2.8.1.1), whereas information on the discard
from the HWP pool is incomplete. Using this incomplete discard information (e.g. from waste statistics) to
calculate the above difference would lead to overestimation of HWP carbon pool and its changes. Thus
practicable flux data methods that comply with good practice rely on service life information of HWP. They arebased on the use of decay functions and dynamic models ensuring the continuity of mass so that all HWP carbon
entering the pool will be discarded eventually.

5395

Following alternatives under a Tier 3 method could be used:

5396
5397



The Tier 2 FOD function (see Equation 2.8.5) is a special case of flux data methods and could also be
applied under Tier 3 with:

5398
5399
5400
5401

(i)

Default half-lives in combination with country-specific activity data for disaggregated commodity
items (e.g. HS code 440792 sawnwood made of beech (Fagus spp.) of a certain dimension)
included in the three HWP commodities that follow the HS nomenclature system as explained in
Section 2.8.1.1 (see Section 2.8.4.1)

5402
5403

(ii)

Country-specific half-lives to be based on national information on service life of the default HWP
commodities or their sub-categories (see below and Section 2.8.4.2).

5404
5405
5406



Other country- or product-specific decay functions could be applied. Examples of different decay functions
include logarithmic decay (e.g. Karjalainen et al., 1994), retention curves (e.g. Skog and Nicholson 1998)
and distribution functions (e.g. Marland et al., 2010). They could be used in combination with:

5407

(i)

Default half-lives (see Table 2.8.2), or country specific half-lives as specified in Section 2.8.4.2

5408

(ii)

Country-specific activity data (see Section 2.8.4.1).

5409
5410

Furthermore, it is with good practice to separately estimate and report the HWP contribution of the HWP poolfor the domestic market (i.e. reporting Party) and for export markets, in case:

5411



Country-specific half-lives or decay functions, and/or

5412



Country-specific activity data (i.e. other than specified in Section 2.8.3.1) are used.

5413
5414
5415

In the case HWP pools of both semi-finished and finished products are included in Tier 3 calculation models it isgood practice to eliminate any overlapping of the HWP pools and thereby to avoid any double-counting of HWP
carbon stock changes.

5416

COMBINED HWP STOCK INVENTORY AND FLUX DATA METHODS

5417
5418
5419
5420
5421

HWP stock inventory methods use HWP carbon pool data for two or preferably more separate points in time toestimate changes in the pool. Its application is basically relevant for HWP pools in the reporting country alone(see Section 2.8.4.1) and could be used to estimate the annual change in carbon stock of some specific finishedHWP pools (cf. Figure 2.8.3) such as buildings. Examples of such inventories are reported in Gjesdal et al.,(1996) for Norway, in Pingoud et al., (2001) and Statistics Finland (2011) for Finland.

5422
5423
5424

In the case of inventory methods, no procedure for adding up wood use data from historical data is needed toestimate the existing HWP stock or annual change in stock, which is an advantage compared to the flux methods(IPCC 2006). However, a fundamental problem in the application of inventory methods alone for the presentof this situation would be exported sawnwood accounted for under a Tier 2 method, which is then processed into floorboards by the importing country, which applies a Tier 3 method with half-lives for HWP subcategories.
142

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/faq/faq.html

Draft KP Supplement

2.121

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
5425
5426
5427

accounting purpose is the estimation of that part of the HWP carbon stock originated from domestic forests andbeing thus accountable for (see Section 2.8.1). Furthermore, in line with Decision 2/CMP.7, imported HWP must
be excluded from the estimated HWP pool increasing the uncertainties.143

5428
5429
5430

Since in practice inventory data are not available for all finished HWP for domestic and export markets covering
the HWP categories sawnwood, wood-based panels, paper and paperboard (e.g. wooden houses, furniture,
newspaper), it is good practice to apply inventory methods only in combination with flux data methods.

5431
5432
5433
5434
5435

In cases where a Party applies inventory methods for specific HWP end uses (e.g. the housing sector), it is thus
good practice to estimate the HWP contribution for the remaining fraction of the three HWP default
commodities in combination with the flux-data method under Tier 2 or 3. For this purpose, the three HWP
categories being used in the housing sector must be factored out from the flux-data calculation to avoid doublecounting and to meet the requirements of Decision 2/CMP.7.

5436

2.8.4.1

5437
5438
5439
5440
5441
5442
5443

Section 2.8.1.1 introduces the international classification system of forest products following HS nomenclature,
which is also relevant for activity data used for a Tier 3 method. Whereas data for semi-finished HWP can beobtained from national statistics as well as from international databases, HWP activity data other than outlined in
Section 2.8.3.1 (see Table 2.8.1) are available from national sources only. In the case of Parties using countryspecific activity data as described in this section, it is good practice to disclose the source of data and provide in
a transparent and verifiable manner additional information for items that make up subcategories and/or final
products produced from the three default HWP categories as defined in Decision 2/CMP.7144 (cf. Figure 2.8.2).

5444

Country-specific HWP activity data that could be used for Tier 3 include:

5445

1.

5446
5447
5448
5449
5450
5451

These data could be available from country-specific statistics containing further disaggregated items of thesubcategories as specified in Table 2.8.2. Examples would be coated particle board, fibreboard with specificdensity or surface, or coniferous sawnwood made from specific tree species (e.g. larch). Introducing
disaggregated item data using appropriate carbon conversion factors e.g. based on information on wood densities
can contribute to considerably improve the accuracy of the HWP estimations. Further information could beobtained e.g. in Forest Products Laboratory (2010).

5452
5453
5454
5455
5456

In some cases, the aggregated datasets for the specified HWP categories available from national statistics aredifferent from available databases of international organizations (e.g. FAO or UNECE). In order to reduce
uncertainties associated with the use of these datasets (see Section 2.8.6) and in order to provide country-specificactivity data in a transparent and verifiable way, Parties are encouraged to explain the differences between data
used from national sources from data provided in international databases.

5457

2.

5458
5459
5460
5461

These types of activity data refer to finished HWP that do not contain components with different potential halflives. They are made up from at least one of the (default) semi-finished HWP categories (see Figures 2.8.2 and2.8.3). This group of products comprise e.g. doors, flooring systems, books or furniture, which could also be
obtained from national production statistics (e.g. furniture production statistics).

5462

3.

5463
5464
5465
5466
5467

These types of products rather represent a market segment where finished products (see above) are used (seeFigure 2.8.3). Wooden houses are composed of different construction components with different renovationintervals, e.g. long lived roof construction made of beams, wall systems, and comparatively short-lived wooden
flooring systems. Country-specific activity data for buildings could again be derived from the production
statistics (e.g. Building Construction Starts Statistics) or from inventories and surveys.

5468
5469
5470
5471
5472
5473

Some of the above mentioned country-specific activity data (1, 2 and 3) may be available from annual statistics
being applicable for flux data methods. Other activity data might be available only at the start and at the end of
the commitment period for use in combined HWP stock inventory and flux data methods. Whereas data derived
from inventories (e.g. for buildings, see 3) could not be used for the share of exported HWP, data fromproduction and export statistics for finished product categories, such as books or furniture, could be used toestimate the contribution of exported HWP.

C OUNTRY - SPECIFIC ACTIVITY DATA

Item data following the international HS nomenclature and classification system

Finished HWP not containing components with different service lives

Data on buildings with different wooden construction components with different renovation intervals

143

Paragraph 27

144

Paragraph 30

2.122

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

5474
5475
5476
5477
5478
5479
5480

In order to allocate the carbon in HWP to the particular forest activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 (see2.8.1.2) Parties could apply the relevant equations as suggested in Section 2.8.1 for use in Tier 3 methods.
Nevertheless, Parties are encouraged to estimate carbon in HWP originating from domestic forests using morecountry-specific information, including e.g. detailed data on the use of timber assortments for the subsequent
processing of HWP categories. Provided country-specific approaches are available for this purpose, it is goodpractice to demonstrate and report how the allocation has been done to meet the requirements as set out in
Decision 2/CMP.7.

5481
5482
5483
5484
5485
5486
5487
5488
5489

When using country-specific activity data, information on carbon conversion factors (see Table 2.8.1) may not
be readily available. Especially HWP activity data representing finished commodities (see Figure 2.8.2) ormarket segments of wood use (e.g. wooden building components, see Figure 2.8.3 in Section 2.8.1.2 and Table
2.8.3 in Section 2.8.4.2) often include mixes of wood and other materials. In this case, specific conversion
factors could be obtained from statistics or from life cycle inventory (LCI) information, which forms the basis
for life cycle assessment (LCA) according to ISO 14040:2006 (ISO 2006a) and 14044:2006 (ISO 2006b).
Information on the average amount of wood content per unit could be provided e.g. per square meter of floor
space (Tsunetsugu and Tonosaki 2010). Examples of representative LCI information are reported e.g. in Rüter
and Diederichs (2012) for Germany.

5490
5491
5492

When using such specific conversion factors, it is good practice to demonstrate and report how conversion
factors have been derived and provide information on the representativeness of associated data with regard totime, technology and geographical scale (see e.g. European Union 2010).

5493

2.8.4.2

5494
5495

This section gives guidance on the concept of service life and half-life information to estimate the HWP
contribution on the basis of flux data methods.

5496
5497
5498
5499
5500
5501

In general, national values for service- or half-life could be derived for the three default HWP categories andtheir subcategories (see Section 2.8.1.1). But also other HWP categories could be established and combined withthe respective service life information. However, in order to ensure that the methodology used is at least as
accurate as the one described in Section 2.8.3, Parties are encouraged to make those HWP categories broad
enough to capture significant carbon volumes contributing to the HWP pool. As a guide, the volumes of HWP
categories are deemed significant if they represent at least 5% of the total HWP production.

5502
5503
5504
5505
5506
5507

Potential data providers and sources for national service life information are national and industry agencies,
technical literature and direct consultations (i.e. surveys of experts, industry and the general public). It is
important to note that service- and half-life values representing the material use of wood can differ notably
among and within countries depending on factors such as construction practices, culture, fashion, and climate.
Thus, in case country-specific information is used, a national quality control system is encouraged in order toprovide transparent and verifiable data.

5508
5509

Several approaches can be used to derive country-specific service- and half-life values based on transparent andverifiable data:

5510
5511
5512



Following the ISO 15686 standard series approach, since this is an already established system for service
life estimation on a national (not case specific) level in combination with obsolescence on national level (seeBox 2.8.1),

5513
5514



A combination of production and trade statistics data with building stock inventory information in order toestimate more realistic country-specific service and half-live values through this calibration, and/or

5515



National surveys on the final market use of wood.

5516
5517
5518

Below examples on how to improve service life estimates based on the ISO 15686 series are shown, and an
example of HWP half-life calculation for HWP categories is given based on its ESL (see Section 2.8.3.2), in
combination with an obsolescence factor and information on its market share.

5519
5520
5521

In order to adequately apply flux data methods based on information on country-specific HWP service life (i.e.
time carbon is held in HWP pool in use before they are disposed or recycled), apart from the concept of half-life(see Section 2.8.3.2), the following terms and concepts are to be differentiated:

5522
5523
5524



C OUNTRY - SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORSISO 15686-1:2011 defines the reference service life (RSL) as the service life of a product, component,
assembly or system which is known to be expected under a particular set, i.e. a reference set of in-use
conditions;.

Draft KP Supplement

2.123

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
5525
5526
5527



The ESL on the other hand is the service life that a wooden or wood based component would be expected tohave in a set of specific in-use conditions. It is determined from RSL data after taking into account any
differences from the reference in-use conditions (ISO 15686-1:2011);

5528
5529



The factor method is used to calculate the ESL. It is a modification of RSL by seven factors to take accountof the specific in-use conditions (ISO 15686-8:2008); and

5530
5531
5532



Obsolescence arises (according to ISO 15686-1:2011) when a facility no longer can be adapted to satisfychanging requirements. Obsolescence tends to result from unexpected changes, often unrelated to theconstruction, and includes:

5533

(i)

Functional obsolescence: function no longer required.

5534
5535

(ii)

Technological obsolescence: new alternatives can offer better performance, change the patternof use.

5536
5537

(iii)

Economic obsolescence: Fully functional but less efficient, more expensive than alternatives.
This includes also replacement due to changing fashion or taste.

5538
5539
5540
5541
5542

ISO 2011 states that estimates of obsolescence should be based on the designer’s and clients experience, and, if
possible, documented feedback from practice. In order to estimate the carbon storage of HWP in use and its
impact on emissions/removals by means of flux data methods using country-specific service life information, itis thus good practice to take into account obsolescence and to distinguish replacement of HWP in use due to e.g.
a defective performance from obsolescence (cf. ISO 2011).

5543

For example:

5544
5545
5546
5547
5548

In northern Europe a wooden decking can last for 50 years or more given proper construction and choice ofmaterial. But the same decking is likely to be replaced already after 20 years (or less) e.g. due to aestheticalreasons. Hence, for calculating country-specific ESL or half-life values an obsolescence factor is needed in Tier
3 estimates of the HWP contribution to reflect the time actually spent in the HWP carbon pool, not the potential
full service life of a wooden component given by ESL.

5549
5550

In this guidance document the ESL is applied for estimates on a national level and not for a specific case as
suggested in the ISO 15686 standard series. To include the effect of obsolescence:

5551



Either an additional factor (O) is included, with

5552
5553

(i)

Obsolescence = 1 when there is considered to be no significant effect of obsolescencecompared to RSL

5554

(ii)

Obsolescence is given a value < 1 based on the intensity of obsolescence

5555

(iii)

Obsolescence can never be larger than 1.

5556
5557
5558



5559
5560

An example of how to derive national service life estimates by means of the factor method is given in the box
2.8.1 below.

145

Or a decay function to be assigned that uses the service life data to estimate the decay profile (based on
products leaving the pool, not only biological decay and not a biological decay profile) or the actual time
path that products take to go out-of-use.145

For more information see IPCC FAQ, Q4-29 (http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/faq/faq.html)

2.124

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

5561
5562

BOX 2.8.1
EXAMPLE ON THE CALCULATION OF NATIONAL ESL BY MEANS OF FACTOR METHOD

5563
5564
5565

A theoretical example with wooden claddings in Norway is given based on ISO 15686-8:2008, butelevated from the case specific level given in the standard to a national level. Details about RSL
and service life estimation are in ISO 15686-8:2008.

5566
5567
5568
5569

A factor of “1” is used when the factor does not deviate from the RSL conditions. A higher value(x>1) is given if the national performance is better than RSL conditions; a lower value (x<1) isgiven if the national performance is lower than the RSL conditions. Non relevant factors are
excluded from the equation.

5570
5571

The RSL is based on accelerated field trials and the threshold for failure was defined when themean decay rating reached 2 (on a scale from 0–4 where 0 is no decay and 4 is failure).

5572

National ESL = 55(RSL)*1(A)*1(B)*1(C)*1.2(E)*1(F)*0.9(G) = 59.4 years

5573
5574
5575
5576

Factor D ‘indoor environment’ is excluded because it is not relevant. It is good practice to include
factors that do not deviate from the RSL even if they do not contribute in changing the RSL since
they are given the value 1. A more detailed explanation for the choice of factors used is to beprovided in the countries’ annual reporting.

5577

A = Inherent performance level represents the grade of the component as supplied.

5578- Here equals the RSL.

5579
5580
5581

B = Design level reflects the component’s installation in the building/constructed asset and istypically based on the level of shelter and protection from agents provided by the design of thebuilding/constructed asset.

5582- Here equals the RSL.

5583

C = Work execution level considers the level of skill and control in sitework.

5584- Here equals the RSL.

5585
5586

D = Indoor environment considers the exposure of the object to indoor agents of degradation andtheir severity.

5587- Not relevant in this example.

5588
5589

E = Outdoor environment considers exposure to outdoor agents of degradation and their severity.
- In this example the climate on a national level is less harsh than at the test sites included in RSL.

5590

F = Usage conditions reflects the effect of the use of the building/constructed asset.

5591- Here equals the RSL.

5592
5593
5594

G = Maintenance level reflects the level of maintenance assumed. For certain components that are
inaccessible or require special equipment for access, a particularly low maintenance level should
be considered.

5595- Here slightly lower than RSL intervals.

5596
5597
5598
5599
5600
5601
5602
5603
5604
5605
5606
5607
5608

Another example in Table 2.8.3 shows how to derive country-specific half-life values for the three aggregate
HWP categories (see Section 2.8.1.1) as a function of information on market share of the use of wood (seeabove), ESL and obsolescence. The use of composed HWP categories in different markets, such as in theconstruction sector, can be divided further into different segments (e.g. wall systems, flooring, and roof
construction). These different segments normally have different service lives and obsolescence factors. Hence,
Parties are encouraged to allocate the contribution of the different HWP categories or subcategories (e.g.
coniferous sawnwood) to markets and their segments in order to obtain improved service life estimates for theparticular HWP categories. Thereby, it is important to note that the assumed service life is driven by the products
technical properties and, depending on this, its particular application area (e.g. load-bearing beam or wood
panelling, both made of sawnwood). Thus, in order to calculate a country-specific emission factor (i.e. serviceor half-life), different sources of information, e.g. on the market use of different HWP categories, could be
combined as illustrated in Table 2.8.3.

5609
5610

The definition of half-life and also guidance on how to calculate half-life for Tier 2 is provided in Section
2.8.3.2.

Draft KP Supplement

2.125

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
5611
TABLE 2.8.3
EXAMPLE ON HOW TO DERIVE COUNTRY-SPECIFIC HALF-LIFE FOR HWP CATEGORIES AS A FUNCTION OF INFORMATION ON
MARKET SHARE, ESTIMATED SERVICE LIFE (ESL) AND OBSOLESCENCE
HWP categories(here:
aggregates)

Markets*

Marketshare of
HWP
category

National
estimated
service life
(ESL), years

National
obsolescenc
e factor (O)Adjusted ESL of
HWP category(=ESL*O* market
share adjustment)

Half-life(=Adjusted
ESL* ln(2))

Sawn woodconstruction

60%

70

0.9

41.0

28.4

furniture

10%

45

0.6

packaging

30%

6

0.3

paper

0%

-

30.5

21.2

1.5

1

Wood-based
panelsPaper and
paperboard

construction

50%

60

0.7

furniture

45%

35

0.6

packaging

5%

6

0.3

paper

0%

-

-

construction

0%

-

-

furniture

0%

-

-

packaging

50%

3

0.3

paper

50%

10

0.2

5612
5613
5614

* As the use of the HWP categories in different markets, such as the construction sector, consists of different end uses (e.g. wall systems,
flooring, roof construction), Parties are encouraged to allocate the contribution of the different end uses to the relevant HWP category or
subcategory (e.g. non-coniferous sawnwood used for windows).

5615

HALF-LIFE DATA TO BE USED FOR EXPORTED HWP

5616
5617
5618
5619
5620
5621
5622
5623
5624
5625

“In the case of exported HWP, country-specific data refers to country-specific half-lives and HWP usage in theimporting country.”146 Thus, if country specific half-life information should be used also for the exported HWP
categories, the half-life information from the importing country must be used. For this purpose, it is necessary toquantify export activity data within the three HWP categories and/or sub categories. Furthermore, in order toensure that the country-specific half-life information from the importing country complies with the categories of
the activity data for the exported HWP, it is good practice to only apply country-specific half-life information incase the same categories of activity data for the exported HWP both in the exporting and importing country areused. Otherwise the default values (Tier 2) are to be used. When transparent and verifiable activity data are
available, the categories should be broad enough to capture significant volumes contributing to the pool. The
amount of exported and domestic wood should be separately reported.

5626

2.8.5

5627
5628
5629

In this section, guidance is given on the relation of HWP originating from FM as described in Section 2.8.1 andits consideration in the FMRL as outlined in the Decisions 2/CMP.6147, 2/CMP.7 and 2/CMP.8. Guidance on the
FMRL is provided in Section 2.7.5.

5630

APPROACHES AND METHODS FOR CONSIDERATION OF HWP IN FMRL

5631
5632
5633

Decision 2/CMP.6 requested Parties to inter alia submit descriptions of how HWP were considered in theconstruction of the FMRL.148 In line with the different approaches and methods used by Parties to construct the
FMRL as listed in Section 2.7.5.1, two general approaches on how to treat HWP in FMRL can be differentiated:

5634

1.

5635
5636

In this case, Parties only presented values for a FMRL which do not contain estimates on the HWP
contribution.149 Similar to the treatment of HWP in the first commitment period as described in GPG-LULUCF,

Consideration of the HWP pool in FMRLs

Instantaneous oxidation

146

Paragraph 30, Footnote 6

147

Paragraphs 2, 4 and 9 of Appendix II contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2010/12/Add.1

148

See submissions by Parties on FMRL as requested by Decision 2/CMP.6 (http://unfccc.int/5896.php) and document
FCCC/KP/AWG/2011/Inf.2

2.126

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

5637
5638

as result of the assumption of instantaneous oxidation, changes in the HWP carbon pool are not reported (cf.
Section 2.8.2). This approach mirrors the HWP Tier 1 estimation method as described in Section 2.8.2.

5639

2.

5640
5641
5642
5643
5644
5645
5646
5647

In this case, Parties presented values for the FMRL that include estimates of the HWP contribution based onchanges in the HWP pool.150 This approach was chosen by Parties following the FMRL approaches 1a) and 1b)
as described in Box 2.7.3. Many countries derived the values for the projected HWP contribution by means of
FOD as specified in Section 2.8.3 for the Tier 2 HWP estimation method (Equation 2.8.5) applying default halflives as listed in Table 2.8.2 for the HWP categories sawnwood, wood panels and paper (see Section 2.8.1.1).151
However, different approaches had been used in regard to the consideration of HWP originating from forests
prior to the start of the second commitment period152, as indicated in the application of HWP activity data (i)since 1900, or (ii) since 1990.

5648
5649

BOX 2.8.2
EXAMPLE ON THE ESTIMATION OF THE HWP CONTRIBUTION AS PRESENTED IN PARTIES’ FMRL

5650
5651
5652
5653
5654

The following example is intended to show, how estimates of the projected HWP contribution
based on changes in the HWP pool could be derived that are consistent with the assumed
harvesting rates following a ‘business as usual’ scenario in case no country-specific information on
assumed future production of HWP and/or ‘track and trace’ models were available (cf. Rüter
2011).

5655
5656
5657

In line with the guidelines for the submission and review of information on FMRL contained in the
Appendix II of Decision 2/CMP.6, Parties had been requested to provide information on historicand assumed harvesting rates following a ‘business as usual’ scenario for FM.

5658
5659

STEP 1: Calculation of the rates of change of the projected harvest as compared to the last five
years’ average of the historic harvest, for which up-to-date data were available.

5660

Numeric example:

5661
5662
5663

(i)
(ii)
(iii)

5664
5665
5666

STEP 2: Application of these annual change rates to the same five year average of historic carbon
inflow to the HWP pool, which has been calculated from HWP production (see Section 2.8.3), in
order to project the future carbon inflow to the HWP pool.

5667

Numeric example:

5668
5669

(i)
(ii)

5670
5671
5672

As a result, it is assumed that the same average proportion of harvested timber used as feedstock
for the subsequent production of HWP in the chosen historic five year period will also apply in the
projection period.

5673
5674
5675
5676
5677

A five year average was chosen, in order to reduce the uncertainties associated with theconsiderable variability in the proportions of harvested timber being used for HWP production
from year to year. A similar approach had been proposed by Kangas and Baudin (2003). In case of
substantially varying time series, they suggest to use a ‘fixed constant’ as the projection that is anaverage over the last five years.

Inclusion of the HWP pool on the basis of modelled projections under a ‘business as usual’ scenario

Average historic harvest for the years 2005-2009: 50 Mm³ yr-1
Projected harvest (in Mm³ yr-1): in 2013=52, in 2014=53, in 2015=55 …
Rates of change as compared to historic average: in 2013=4%, in 2014=6%, in 2015=10%

Average production of sawnwood for the years 2005-2009: 10 Mm³ yr-1
Projected production of sawnwood (in Mm³ yr-1): in 2013=10.4, in 2014=10.6, in 2015=11 …

5678
5679
5680
5681
5682

Besides these two basically different methodological approaches in the treatment of HWP in the FMRL, further
distinction between Parties’ estimates on the HWP contribution to the FMRL can be recognized for (i) theapplied models that have been used (including activity data, carbon conversion factors, etc.), and (ii) the applied
underlying assumptions regarding the projected HWP contribution and/or its relation to particular projected149

See FMRL values in column ‘Reference level’ in the table of the Appendix of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7

150

See FMRL values in column ‘Applying first-order decay function for HWP’ in the table of the Appendix of the Annex ofDecision 2/CMP.7

151

Paragraph 27 of Chapter II, Annex I contained in document FCCC/KP/AWG/2010/18/Add.1.

152

Paragraph 15 sexies, ibid.

Draft KP Supplement

2.127

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
5683
5684

harvest rates of Parties. An example of how estimates of the HWP contribution in the FMRL could be derived islisted in Box 2.8.2.

5685
5686

METHODOLOGICAL CONSISTENCY BETWEEN HWP IN THE FMRL AND
THE REPORTING DURING THE SECOND COMMITMENT PERIOD

5687

General guidance on methodological consistency in relation to the FMRL is provided in Section 2.7.5.2.

5688
5689
5690
5691
5692
5693
5694

In line with Decision 2/CMP.7, it is good practice to demonstrate methodological consistency between thetreatment of HWP in the FMRL and the reporting for FM during the second commitment period.153 Since thefinal agreement on HWP, included in the Decision 2/CMP.7, was reached after the FMRL submissions, atechnical correction for accounting purposes as described in Section 2.7.6 might be needed in the estimation of
the HWP contribution to the FMRL to reflect the changes in the applied methodological elements as described
below and in the relevant Sections 2.8.1, 2.8.2, 2.8.3 and 2.8.4. In order to check methodological consistency it isgood practice to follow the decision tree provided in Figure 2.8.5.

5695

Figure 2.8.5

Start

Decision tree for consistency check of HWP estimates with FMRL

Does theFMRL include HWP
estimates consistent with theguidance provided in
Sections 2.8.1
to 2.8.4?

No

Follow the guidance provided in
Sections 2.8.1 to 2.8.4 and apply
a technical correction of FMRLYes
Are theestimates for annual
HWP contribution from FM(HWPFM) consistent with
HWP estimates in
the FMRL?

No

Follow the guidance provided in
Sections 2.8.1 to 2.8.4 and revise
HWP estimates or apply atechnical correction of FMRL

Yes
Provide information on how
consistency has been achieved
between FMRL and annual
HWP estimates

5696
5697
5698
5699
5700
5701
5702

Provided that Parties comply with the requirements as outlined in Section 2.8.1 to estimate the HWP
contribution on the basis of changes in the HWP pool following a Tier 2 or Tier 3 method (see Sections 2.8.3 or
2.8.4), methodological consistency between the treatment of HWP in the FMRL and the reporting as explainedin Section 2.7.5.2 can be demonstrated by providing following information in the annual greenhouse gas
inventory in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Kyoto Protocol, which shall be submitted startingwith the annual inventory for the first year of the second commitment period154:

5703
5704



Time series of HWPFM separately for the included HWP categories (HWPP), including historic information
as appropriate (see Sections 2.8.3, 2.8.4 and below), in order to also demonstrate that

5705
5706
5707

(i)

the method(s) to be used for estimating HWP contribution following the different tiers havebeen applied consistently including the treatment of inherited emissions (see Sections 2.8.2,
2.8.3 and 2.8.4);

5708
5709

(ii)

the method to determine the fraction of HWP originating from FM has been appliedconsistently (see Section 2.8.1.2);

153

Paragraph 14

154

This information includes methodological elements as used in the estimation of the HWP contribution to the FMRL andthe reporting during the second commitment period as defined in Annex II to Decision 2/CMP.8

2.128

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

5710

(iii)

the same HWP categories (HWPP) have been applied (see Sections 2.8.1.1, 2.8.3.1 and 2.8.4.1);

5711

(iv)

the same carbon conversion factors have been used (see Sections 2.8.3.1 and 2.8.4.1)

5712
5713



5714
5715

Further general guidance on the detection of the need for, the procedures of performance and documentation of,and the timing of the application of a technical correction is provided in the relevant Section 2.7.6.

5716

2.8.6

5717
5718
5719

This section provides information on potential sources of uncertainty associated with the estimates of the HWP
contribution. The uncertainties can be divided into uncertainties associated with the methods as well as
parameter uncertainties.

5720

METHOD UNCERTAINTIES

5721
5722
5723
5724
5725
5726
5727
5728
5729
5730
5731
5732
5733

In the Tier 2 flux data method the basic model uncertainties are related to the assumption of FOD (Equation
2.8.5). A model is always a simplification of real world inducing method based uncertainties. The reason forusing decay models instead of just counting the inflow minus outflow from the HWP pools is that there are no
extensive and reliable statistics on the real discard flows (unlike on the inflows of semi-finished products), butsome knowledge on the service life of wood products. Although FOD decay is assumed to be a good proxy forthe decay of semi-finished products, other types of distributions could also be used to describe the true decay
process. However, the real world is even more complex. The service life and decay pattern of wood products are
not just a technical issue, but are also related to socio-economic factors (see Section 2.8.4.2). For instance, thedemand for wood products is likely to grow in economic booms resulting simultaneously in increasing
replacement of old HWP with new ones. Thus also discards of HWP correlate with their increasing consumption.
This is not reflected in the FOD pattern, where the discard rate is a constant fraction of the HWP pools in use
over time. As a result of FOD the annual change of carbon stock in HWP is steered too strongly by the
instantaneous production rate of HWP of domestic origin.

5734
5735
5736
5737
5738
5739
5740
5741
5742
5743

In the Tier 2 method another uncertainty is associated with the initialisation of the FOD model. Due to lack oflong historical data series on semi-finished HWP – for some countries data series are only available since theearly 1990s – the initial stocks of the HWP categories (C (t0)) are approximated by assuming that the stockchange was zero at the initial time. This proxy slightly overestimates the inherited emissions within the second
commitment period from the long-lived HWP categories sawnwood (with half-life of 35 years) and wood based
panels in case their stock in reality was growing at initial time, particularly when the calculation in Equation
2.8.5 is started only from the early 1990s. Depending on the accounting of HWP under Article 3 paragraph 4,
this could thus potentially increase the uncertainties of the HWP contribution provided especially from productswith high half-life values. In case the accounting approach for FM is based on a projected FMRL, however, thissource of uncertainty is of no relevance and consequence for the accounting of the HWP contribution.

5744
5745
5746
5747
5748
5749

Another model uncertainty is related to the number of HWP categories in the model. In the simplest Tier 2
method there are three HWP sub-pools for the main categories: sawnwood, wood-based panels and paper andpaperboard, each of which follows the FOD pattern but with different half-lives. The uncertainty could basicallybe lowered by introducing disaggregated sub-pools (e.g. for sawnwood) with differing half-lives based on their
end-use (cf. Table 2.8.3) or based on subcategories (e.g. wood-based panels disaggregated to particle board,
fibreboard etc., see Table 2.8.1).

5750
5751
5752
5753
5754
5755
5756
5757
5758
5759
5760
5761

In Tier 3, direct inventories of HWP in service (e.g. in the construction sector) could also be used to reduce theuncertainties associated with the flux data based method of Tier 2. The advantage of direct inventories is thatthey remove the need for idealised models with uncertain assumptions on decay pattern and whose verificationand validation could be questioned. The inventory method could in principle provide more robust and lessuncertain estimates for the carbon stock changes of the included HWP pools. Sequential direct inventories could
also be applied in the calibration of the flux-data models and their half-life parameters (see Box 2.8.1) and thus
reducing their uncertainties. However, the limitation of the method is that the statistics, if available, contains
only some major pools such as the housing sector of the reporting country: but there is no information e.g. on theuse of wood for furniture or packaging. Inventory methods cannot be applied for HWP in export markets by thereporting country either. Thus it must always be combined with flux data methods, inducing double-counting
risks of semi-finished and final products. Furthermore, it is applicable only in those few countries from which
relevant and sequential statistics are available.

Emission factors (i.e. service- or half-life information) associated with the particular HWP categories(HWPP)

Uncertainty assessment

5762

Draft KP Supplement

2.129

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
5763

UNCERTAINTIES OF ACTIVITY DATA

5764
5765

Uncertainties related to activity data on HWP from international databases (e.g. FAO) and associateduncertainties of the estimates of the level of the HWP contribution could arise due to:

5766
5767



Lack of time series: some Annex I countries were founded in the early 1990s and thus older activity data
might not be available (see above).

5768
5769
5770



Definitional uncertainties (i.e. data provided do not conform to what has been requested). Removals data e.g.
tend in fact to be only commercial forestry operations or planned cuts, sawnwood production is being
provided in nominal, not solid m3, and pulp is only market (commercially sold) pulp.

5771
5772
5773



The scope of data collection, as not all information is collected, particularly in the informal sector and fromsmall operators. This tends to affect especially the sawmilling industries, as limits to collect statistical data
might be linked to business volume or number of employees.

5774
5775



Double counting (e.g. final products counted in semi-finished commodities, such as cut paper being added topaper in rolls).

5776
5777



Reporting errors in providing correct data; that is numbers are put into the wrong category or incorrectly
processed by reporter or collecting agency.

5778
5779
5780
5781



Uncertainties associated with aggregate HWP commodities (e.g. wood-based panels): in general, the sum of
the subcategories accords with the value for the aggregate commodities, but some categories may
underreport because of missing subcategories (e.g. missing data on veneer sheets result in an underestimate
for wood-based panels).

5782
5783
5784

Concerning data on the feedstock of production of semi-finished HWP categories (i.e. industrial roundwood andwood pulp as proposed in Section 2.8.1.2), uncertainty could be caused by unreported sources, by-product use ortrade data.

5785
5786
5787

The semi-finished HWP categories (i.e. sawnwood, wood-based panels and paper and paperboard) are also
subject to the above mentioned conditions. An overall estimate of these factors results in an estimateduncertainty of the reported values between -25% to +5% (based on the authors’ expert judgement).

5788
5789
5790
5791

All of these sources of uncertainty together tend to result in an under-reporting of HWP commodity data ininternational databases, that is, actual figures are usually higher. As this is particularly the case in roundwood (i.e.
wood-removals, see Figure 2.8.2) the allocation of the HWP categories to forest activities as described in Section
2.8.1.2 should be fairly conservative.

5792
5793
5794

Further uncertainties associated with activity data are caused by conversion factors. The provided conversion
factors (see Table 2.8.1) are highly generalized and reflect averages which may not correct for species andspecific items.

5795
5796
5797

In order to reduce uncertainties around conversion factors for carbon, Parties are encouraged to use subcategories under Tier 2 (see Section 2.8.3.2) or use a Tier 3 approach where they can make use of commodity
specific conversion factors linked e.g. to various wood species of the particular items (see Section 2.8.4.2).

5798
5799
5800
5801

Aside from reviewing the data to check if it fits with a general understanding of the forest products supply in acountry, it is most useful for reducing the uncertainties relating to activity data to cross-check if the amount ofdomestic production of HWP categories balances with the available supply of wood. Other validation methods
could include a review of trade unit values and determination of per capita apparent consumption.

5802
5803

UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH EMISSION FACTORS (SERVICEAND HALF-LIFE ESTIMATES)

5804
5805
5806
5807
5808
5809
5810
5811
5812

The half-life parameters are in general the most uncertain part of the Tier 2 calculation method. The scientificevidence behind the default values given in Table 2.8.2 is not robust155. Nor do they present a conservative
estimate that would rather lead to underestimation than overestimation of the carbon stock changes in HWP. For
decreasing uncertainty, countries are strongly encouraged to adjust the Tier 2 half-life parameters by calibrating
the FOD model either a) with direct inventories of HWP in use, or b) with market information as shown in Table
2.8.3. The application of stock inventory information, however, due to the lack of appropriate statistics is notpractical for most countries. Furthermore, it does not cover export markets of the reporting country. Two specificcalibration studies (Pingoud, et al. 2001, Statistics Finland 2011) indicate that the true half-life of sawnwood andwood-based panels in Finland is likely to be much shorter than the default half-lives (Table 2.8.2). Thus, in this155

Paragraph 29

2.130

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

5813
5814

particular case the use of default half-lives would substantially overestimate the HWP pool in use. The results ofsuch calibration studies could possibly be generalised to obtain better estimates for default half-lives.

5815
5816
5817

Even though the uncertainty associated with Tier 2 estimates using default data could be high, working throughsuch estimates can be the first step in identifying ways to improve them. Initial improvements can be made using
country-specific data with country-specific half-lives instead of the default half-lives in Tier 3.

5818
5819
5820
5821

To decrease uncertainties in Tier 3 Parties are encouraged to use direct inventories of HWP in use, to develop
more realistic decay patterns for HWP and use more sub-pools in case transparent information is available.
However, the model calibration procedure to direct HWP inventories requires in practice a model with very few
adjustable parameters.

5822

2.8.7

5823
5824
5825
5826
5827

Detailed steps to improve estimates of HWP activity data are already described in detail for Tiers 2 and 3
methods in Sections 2.8.3 and 2.8.4, and also in Section 2.8.6 (as it relates to uncertainties). These steps include
the use of country-specific data and half-lives for Tier 2 methods (Sections 2.8.3.1.and 2.8.3.2) and theapplication of potential steps to derive improved Tier 3 estimates (Sections 2.8.4.1. and 2.8.4.2). Therefore, thissection does not provide a separate, detailed sub-section on Quality Assurance and Quality Control.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

5828

Draft KP Supplement

2.131

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
5829

2.9

CROPLAND MANAGEMENT

5830

2.9.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements

5831
5832
5833

Cropland Management (CM) is the system of practices on land on which agricultural crops are grown and on
land that is set-aside or temporarily not being used for crop production156.CM includes all lands under annual andperennial crops, and all fallow lands set at rest for one or several years before being cultivated again.

5834
5835
5836
5837
5838

It is good practice to include, in land subject to CM, all the lands in the Cropland category of Section 3.2,
Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, namely cropped land, including rice fields. It is also goodpractice for countries to specify how land subject to CM is distinguished from other activities under the KP
using the guidelines provided in Section 3.3, Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, together withthe guidance presented here.

5839
5840
5841
5842
5843
5844
5845
5846

Perennial crops can include orchards, vineyards and plantations such as cocoa, coffee, tea and bananas. In thefirst commitment period, some countries included certain types of perennial crops (e.g. fruit orchards, Christmas
tree plantations) within CM even if the cover met the thresholds for forest. For consistency and to achievetransparency in reporting, it is good practice in the second commitment period for those countries to ensure that
double counting with FM is avoided and to document how consistency is achieved with KP activities reported
previously. Areas having tree cover, such as orchards or shelterbelts that were established after 1990 and meetthe definition of a forest can qualify as AR and are included under AR in such cases. Further guidance about theinclusion of orchards and other tree crops under CM is provided in Section 1.2.

5847
5848
5849
5850
5851

Rice paddies are also included under Cropland, but associated CH4 and N2O emissions are reported under
Agriculture in reporting under the UNFCCC and KP and hence not under this activity. Cropland that is
temporarily used for grazing or perennial fodders can also be included under CM. Set-aside lands are included in
CM when they return, or are expected to return, to cropping after some period of time. Countries are encouraged
to develop consistent criteria for defining set-aside lands and their allocation among activities.

5852
5853
5854
5855
5856
5857
5858
5859
5860
5861
5862

The aim of the reporting exercise is to identify and report trends and systematic changes in the carbon stocks
resulting from changes in CM practices over time. The premise is that changes in soil carbon stocks result fromchanges in CM practices that influence the rates of either additions to, or losses of, soil organic carbon. However,
CM is not the only driver of changes in carbon stocks. Natural phenomena, such as weather, wild fire, abnormal
flooding or prolonged drought can also influence the rate of carbon gains and losses in cropland, and if theireffects are large enough, can mask the carbon trend or signal resulting from CM practices, as elements of CM
activities. Countries are encouraged to use higher tier methods (Tier 2 or Tier 3) to develop emissions
coefficients or models to represent the effects of management practices rather than those of inter-annual
variability and natural disturbances on carbon stocks. More information about how to use higher tier methods toestimate management effects on CM emissions and removals is provided in Sections 2.3.6 and 2.9.4 of this
supplement.

5863
5864
5865
5866
5867
5868
5869
5870
5871
5872

The main processes involved in estimating emissions and removals are stratification of croplands followed byestimation of emissions and removals resulting from changes in land management within each stratum. Inventory
compilers first identify croplands and subdivide the total cropland area into strata that represent consistentclasses of land, biophysical characteristics and management practices for the base year and each of the years in
the commitment period (see Section 2.9.3 of this supplement and examples in Table 5.5, Chapter 5, Volume 4 ofthe 2006 IPCC Guidelines). CM practices that affect soil carbon emissions and removals include tillage practices,
rotation and cover crops, fertility management, plant residue management, erosion control and irrigation
management (IPCC, 2000). The second main process is to estimate how the types of and changes in management
practices influence emissions and removals over time, using methods discussed in Section 2.9.4 of this
supplement.

5873
5874
5875
5876

It is good practice that Parties ensure consistency in methods applied for estimating emissions and removals
from KP activities, e.g., methods across different practices covered under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 and management
practices occurring on land that was deforested should be consistent with methods used for the surrounding CM
practices.

5877

It is good practice to apply the following steps for estimating emissions and removals from CM:

5878
5879

STEP 1: Define CM and apply the definition in a consistent manner over time, including in the base year.
Croplands such as vineyards and orchards that meet the definition of forest can be included under CM or FM,

156

Paragraph 1(g) in the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.5.

2.132

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

5880
5881

but not under both. It is important to apply the definitions consistently over time, even though data andinformation from the past may be of lower quality.

5882
5883

STEP 2: Identify the land under CM using the approaches described in Section 3.3, Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines and the appropriate sections in this supplement.

5884

STEP 3: Distinguish between the two subcategories of CM: mineral soils and organic soils.

5885
5886
5887
5888

STEP 4: Select the appropriate tier and methodology for estimating emissions and removals based on key
category analysis, including assessment of significant subcategories (Section 4.2, Chapter 4, Volume 1 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines and Figure 2.9.1 of this supplement), and available data. For mineral soils, this includes
methodologies for monitoring land management activities and change.

5889
5890

STEP 5: Stratify by climate. For mineral soils also stratify by other relevant biophysical characteristics of theland, such as soil type, and CM practices (see Section 2.9.3 of this supplement).

5891
5892
5893

STEP 6: For each stratum, estimate the CM emissions and removals for the base year and the commitment
period year using Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods (see Section 2.9.4 of this supplement). Total emissions are thesum of emissions and removals from mineral soils and organic soils.

5894

Methods to identify land under CM with adequate disaggregation may include:

5895
5896
5897
5898



National land use and management statistics: in most countries, the agricultural land base including
croplands is surveyed regularly, providing data on distribution of different land uses, crops, tillage practiceand other aspects of management, often at sub-national or regional level. These statistics may originate, inpart, from remote sensing methods.

5899
5900



Inventory data from a statistically based, plot-sampling system: land use and management activities aremonitored at specific permanent sample plots that are revisited on a regular basis.

5901

2.9.2

5902
5903
5904
5905
5906
5907
5908

Under Article 3.4 of the KP, emissions and removals resulting from CM are estimated using a net-net accounting
approach (as are all elective activities under Article 3.4). Net-net accounting requires that GHG emissions andremovals are estimated for the base year and each year of the commitment period157. This entails determining thetotal area under CM for the base year and for each year of the commitment period and estimating carbon
emissions and removals resulting from changes in land management for those areas. Guidance for estimating thecorresponding non-CO2 GHG emissions from Cropland for 1990 are covered in Chapters 10 and 11, Volume 4of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (see the text on non-CO2 gases in Section 2.9.4 of this supplement).

5909
5910
5911

For most Parties with commitments under the KP, the base year is 1990. Under the provisions of Article 4.6 of
the UNFCCC and Article 3.5 of the KP, however, Parties with economies in transition (EITs) are granted someflexibility on the level of historical emissions chosen as a reference.

5912
5913
5914
5915

If the area under CM changes between the base year and the commitment period, e.g., due to AR or land moving
into another elected activity under the KP, this may lead to estimates on the basis of moving land (that is,
subtraction of stock changes on a land base that changes in size over time), as illustrated in the example in Box
2.9.1.

Base year157

Net-net accounting refers to the provisions of paragraph 10 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.14.

Draft KP Supplement

2.133

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
5916
5917
5918

BOX 2.9.1
AN EXAMPLE OF CROPLAND MANAGEMENT AREAS IN BASE YEAR
AND IN THE COMMITMENT PERIOD (NET-NET ACCOUNTING)

5919
5920
5921
5922
5923
5924
5925

In this example the area under CM in the base year expands to a larger area in the reporting year
during the commitment period. Some of the area was under CM in both the base year and during
the reporting period (a). Some of the area under CM in the base year is no longer under CM in thereporting year (b). There are also areas under CM in the reporting year that were not under CM in
the base year (c). Area (D) is under CM, but was subject to Deforestation (D) which takes
precedence. Under the KP, the emissions and removals in areas (a) + (b) in the base year arecompared to emissions and removals in areas (a) + (c) – (D) in the reporting year.

5926
5927
5928
5929
5930
5931
5932
5933
5934
5935
5936

Historical data on land use and management practices in 1990 (or the appropriate year(s)) and in years prior to1990 are needed to establish the 1990 base year net emissions and removals of soil carbon from CM. The Tier 1
method described in Section 5.3.3, Chapter 5, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for mineral soils assumes
that a change in land-use or management has an impact on carbon emissions and removals for a duration of 20
years; hence, under this tier and if a change in management has taken place since 1970, it is good practice tocalculate the net carbon stock change in 1990 taking this change into account. If area and activity data are
available for 1970 to 1990, the net carbon stock change during the 1990 base year can be established using thedefault carbon emission and removal factors. For organic soils, the inventory time period is treated the same as
long-term cropped organic soils. Tier 1 emission factors are provided in Table 5.6, Chapter 5, Volume 4 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines and updated by the Wetlands Supplement (see Footnote 1, Section 2.1 of this supplement).

5937
5938
5939
5940

The duration of impact of management practices on soil organic carbon may differ from the 20 years used as adefault to reach a new equilibrium. If data on the duration of impact are available, it is good practice to use theappropriate time period, based on country-specific data and measurements (see Tier 2 and Tier 3 approaches in
Section 2.9.4 of this supplement).

5941
5942
5943
5944

If area and activity data are not available for 1970 to 1990, countries can establish the base year 1990 carbon
stock change using the most appropriate time series to estimate the 1990 value, in a manner consistent withguidance provided in Section 5.3, Chapter 5, Volume 1 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines. It is good practice to use atime period equivalent to 20 years that includes 1990 or as close to 1990 as possible.

5945
5946
5947
5948
5949
5950
5951

The results of accounting on a net-net basis depend not just on changes in land management practices, but also
partly on where the base year and commitment period years fall within the temporal dynamics of carbon
sequestration processes. As noted above, carbon stock changes resulting from land use and land managementchanges on mineral soil tend to persist for about 20 years, after which the carbon levels approach a new
equilibrium carbon stock. The rate of carbon sequestration in mineral soil following a change in management inwhich carbon additions increase or carbon losses decline tends to be high in the first decades and then declines
over time, as illustrated in Figure 2.9.2.

5952

2.134

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

5953

2.9.3

5954

Choice of methods for identifying lands subject toCropland Management activities

5955
5956
5957

General guidance on consistent representation of lands is provided in Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
with additional guidance about identification of lands subject to CM provided in Sections 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, and 2.2 ofthis supplement.

5958
5959
5960
5961
5962
5963
5964

According to Decision 2/CMP.8158, the geographical location of the boundaries of the area that encompass land
subject to CM needs to be reported annually, along with the total land areas subject to this activity. The
geographical location of boundaries may include a spatially-explicit specification of land subject to CM, butdoes not have to. Instead, the boundaries of larger areas encompassing smaller lands subject to CM may beprovided, along with estimates of the area subject to CM in each of the larger areas. In either case, the land
subject to CM and the management thereon need to be tracked through time because the continuity and durationof management practices and changes affects carbon emissions and removals.

5965
5966
5967
5968
5969

It is good practice to follow continuously the management of land subject to CM. This could be achieved bytracking land subject to CM from 1990 until the end of the commitment period (e.g. see Section 2.9.2 of this
supplement). Alternatively, countries could develop statistical sampling techniques, consistent with the advice inAnnex 3A.3, Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, which allow the transitions of management
practices on CM land to be determined (see also Section 2.4.1 of this supplement).

5970
5971
5972
5973
5974
5975

At the national level, it is good practice to identify criteria that could be used to set up a stratified sampling
scheme when developing a sampling strategy. Stratification criteria may include relatively static biophysicalcharacteristics, such as climate and soil type, typical crop rotation systems, as well as management practices that
tend to be more dynamic drivers of change in emissions and removals from carbon pools. Guidance on
stratifying land to match data needs for estimating emissions and removals is provided in Section 3.3.2, Chapter
3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

5976

Management factors that may be useful in establishing a national stratification scheme include:

5977



Degree of soil disturbance (e.g. tillage frequency and intensity)

5978



Level of input of crop biomass or organic amendment

5979



Crop rotation system

5980



Frequency of fallow practices

5981



Inclusion of woody biomass in the farming system (e.g. shelterbelts, orchards, other perennial plantations)

5982



Temporary use for livestock grazing

5983

At higher tiers further subdivision of the CM area may be necessary.

5984
5985
5986
5987

For all resulting subcategories under CM, the areas derived from the conversion of forests (i.e., D) since 1990
need to be tracked separately as these will be reported as lands subject to D under Article 3.3 of the KP.
Emissions and removals resulting from conversion of FM to CM due to the harvest and conversion of forest
plantations to non-forest land could be reported under CEFC according to Decision 2/CMP.8159.

5988

2.9.4

5989

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stockchanges and non-CO 2 GHG

5990

For CM, the 2006 IPCC Guidelines give methodological guidance for estimates of:

5991



Annual changes in carbon stocks of above- and below-ground biomass

5992



Annual changes of dead organic matter (DOM; dead wood and litter)

5993



Annual changes in organic carbon stocks in mineral soils and emissions and removals in organic soils

5994



Annual emissions of non-CO2 gases from woody biomass burning

5995
5996

Section 2.3.6 of this supplement gives guidance about the choice of methods and identifying whether CM is a
key category. If CM is a key category, the inventory compiler should determine which subcategories, such as
158

Paragraph 2(d) in Annex II to Decision 2/CMP.8 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1, p. 19.

159

Paragraph 5(g) in Annex II to Decision 2/CMP.8 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1, p. 21.

Draft KP Supplement

2.135

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
5997
5998
5999
6000

mineral soil, organic soil or above-ground biomass, are significant. Section 1.3.3, Chapter 1 in Volume 4 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines suggests ranking subcategories according to their contribution to the aggregate key
category. It is good practice to focus efforts towards methodological improvements of these significant
subcategories.

6001
6002
6003
6004
6005
6006
6007
6008

Decision 2/CMP.7160 specifies that a Party may choose not to account for a particular pool in a commitment
period if transparent and verifiable information is provided that demonstrates that the pool is not a source.
Requirements for reporting excluded pools and documenting that a pool is not a source can be found in Section
2.3.1 of this supplement. It is possible that Parties will use different tiers to prepare estimates for individual
subcategories (e.g., changes in organic carbon stocks in mineral soils and emissions and removals in organicsoils). Since different methods may yield different estimates with different levels of uncertainty, it is goodpractice to use the same tier and methodology for estimating carbon emissions and removals from eachsubcategory and pool for the full time series, for example, in the base year and during the commitment period.

6009
6010
6011

Methods for estimating Cropland CO2 emissions and removals or carbon stock changes for the base year and thecommitment period are provided in Chapters 2 and 5, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The following
sections of this supplement highlight aspects of these methods specific to the KP.

6012

2.9.4.1

6013
6014
6015

For perennial crops (e.g., trees, shelterbelts and orchards), carbon stock changes in biomass and DOM pools
should be estimated unless the Party to the KP chooses not to report on a certain pool and provides verifiable
information that carbon stocks are not decreasing.

6016
6017
6018
6019
6020
6021
6022
6023

For carbon stock changes in biomass resulting from changes in CM, it is good practice for Parties to use thedecision tree in Figure 2.9.1 to identify the appropriate tier to estimate carbon stock changes in biomass andDOM under the KP. Relevant methods for estimating carbon stock changes in above- and below-ground biomass,and DOM can be found in Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2, Chapter 5, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines,
respectively. Default coefficients for above-ground woody biomass and harvest cycles in cropping systems
containing perennial species are provided in Table 5.1; potential C storage for agroforestry systems in different
eco-regions of the world are provided in Table 5.2; default above-ground biomass for various types of perennial
croplands are given in Table 5.3 of Chapter 5, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

6024

Box 2.9.2 is an example of how estimating carbon stock changes for biomass for fruit orchards.

B IOMASS AND DEAD ORGANIC MATTER

6025
6026

BOX 2.9.2
EXAMPLE OF ESTIMATING BIOMASS CARBON CHANGES FOR FRUIT ORCHARDS

6027
6028
6029
6030
6031
6032
6033
6034
6035
6036
6037
6038
6039
6040

Canada chose to consistently include the orchards of fruit trees as a practice within CM. The
general Canadian orchard recommendations are to replace about 5% of the orchard each year.
Therefore it was assumed that the orchard consisted of an even representation of all age classes
from 0 to 20 years. With this constant tree removal and addition to the orchard area, the gain in
carbon from growing trees would equal the loss of carbon from removed trees. The loss of carbon
from removed trees was assumed instantaneous. Because of intense pruning, above- and belowground carbon stocks of fruit trees were considered to increase linearly with age. The averagecarbon stock of an orchard was therefore the equivalent of 10-year old fruit trees. Any conversionof orchards to other land uses was assumed to result from drivers other than old age class structure.
Consequently, the loss of orchard was the equivalent of losing an average orchard of carbon stocks
equivalent to an orchard of entirely 10-year old trees. New orchard areas were assumed toaccumulate carbon stock linearly for 10 years to the amount of a 10-year old tree. After new
orchard area had existed for 10 years, it was assumed that carbon stock removal equalled carbon
stock gain because of regular tree removal and pruning so there is no further gain or loss of carbon.

6041

2.9.4.2

S OIL CARBON

6042
6043
6044

In most croplands, the main carbon flux associated with changes in land use and management for CM activities
is from changes in organic carbon in soil. Chapter 5, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines identifies two
sources or sinks of CO2 from agricultural soils:

6045



Net changes in soil organic carbon associated with changes in land use and management on mineral soil;

160

Paragraph 26 in the Annex to the Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 16.

2.136

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

6046



6047
6048
6049
6050

Total annual emissions and removals of CO2 are calculated by summing emissions and removals from the two
subcategories (mineral and organic soils) using methods outlined in Chapter 5 and Equation 2.24, Chapter 2,
Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and updates in the Wetlands Supplement (see footnote 1, Section 2.1 ofthis supplement).

6051

MINERAL SOILS

6052
6053

Methods for estimating mineral soil carbon stock changes resulting from changes in CM fall under one of threemethodological tiers described in Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.3, Chapter 1, Volume 4 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

6054
6055
6056
6057
6058
6059
6060

Methods for estimating carbon stock changes in mineral soils
It is good practice to use the decision tree in Figure 2.9.1 to decide which tier to use for estimating carbon stockchanges associated with changes in CM practices under the KP. It is good practice to use Tier 2 or Tier 3
methods for reporting carbon stock changes from mineral soils if CM is a key category and mineral soils are asignificant subcategory under CM. It is good practice to follow continuously the CM practices from the baseyear through the commitment period as described in Section 2.9.3 of this supplement. For discussion of how toestimate the CM area, see Section 1.3 of this supplement.

6061
6062
6063
6064

The Tier 1 method for estimating carbon stock changes in mineral soils is described in Section 2.3.3.1, Chapter 2,
and Section 5.2.3, Chapter 5 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. This guidance assumes a new
equilibrium soil organic carbon stock is achieved after 20 years in a practice.

6065
6066
6067
6068
6069
6070

Section 5.2.3.4, Chapter 5 and Chapter 2 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines outline the steps for
estimating average annual rates of carbon stock change of cropland mineral soils using the default reference
carbon stocks (Table 2.3), carbon stock change factors (Table 5.5) and Equation 2.25. The Tier 1 method can beused to estimate carbon flux resulting from changes in management practices across a range of temperature andmoisture regimes and soil types. Box 2.9.3 (this supplement) provides an illustration of applying Tier 1 toestimate carbon stock changes for CM practices that are not continuous over time.

Emissions of CO2 from cultivated organic soils (updated by the Wetlands Supplement).

Tier 1

6071

Draft KP Supplement

2.137

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
6072
6073
6074

Figure 2.9.1

Decision tree for selecting the appropriate tier for estimating emissions andremovals in the carbon pools under CM for KP reporting (see also Figure
2.4, Chapter 2 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines)

6075

6076
6077
6078
6079

* a better estimate improves consistency, comparability, completeness, accuracy and transparency.

6080
6081
6082

2.138

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

6083
6084
6085
6086
6087
6088
6089

The Tier 2 method also uses the methodology described in Chapter 5, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines,
but now default relative carbon stock change factors are replaced with country- or region-specific values. It isgood practice to obtain region- or country-specific emissions factors from literature values, long-term
experiments or the local application of well-calibrated, well-documented soil carbon models. Region-specificdata for soil carbon content (such as that available from national soil inventories) can also be used.

6090
6091
6092
6093
6094
6095
6096

To ensure that regionally-specific carbon stock change factors are better than default relative carbon stockchange factors at representing actual emissions and removals in a given region, rigorous criteria should beapplied to demonstrate that the more specific factors do not lead to under- or overestimation of the soil carbon
stock change. Regional or country-specific factors should be based on verified soil carbon model estimates ormeasurements that are conducted frequently enough and over a long enough time period and with sufficientspatial density to reflect variability of the underlying biochemical processes, and documented in accessible
publications.

6097
6098

For Tier 2 approaches, it is good practice to replace the 20-year default with a value that reflects national orregional information about the duration of practices to reach a new equilibrium in soil carbon stocks.

6099
6100
6101
6102

An asymptotic model can also be fitted to data of soil carbon stock changes (Figure 2.9.2). Using this method,
the higher carbon factors applied immediately after a land-use or management change gradually diminish, so thatstock changes are not underestimated soon after a change (“a” in Figure 2.9.2), or overestimated as the soil
approaches the new equilibrium (“b” in Figure 2.9.2).

6103
6104

Figure 2.9.2

Tier 2

Schematic representation of a change in soil carbon stocks
after a carbon-sequestering management change

Soil C contentb.
a.
Time to new equilibrium

Broken stick
Asymptotic

Management
Change

Time

6105
6106
6107
6108
6109
6110
6111
6112
6113
6114

At Tier 2, default factors associated with a land-use or management change can be replaced by more detailed
relationships between the intensity of a practice (e.g., the amount of an organic amendment applied to the soil)
and an annualized change in the soil carbon emissions or removals. For example, in Europe, Smith et al., (2000)
developed such relationships [e.g., average annualized soil carbon stock change (tonnes C ha-1 yr-1) = 0.0145 x
amount of animal manure (tonnes d. m. ha-1 yr-1) added; recalculated from data in Smith et al. (1997); R2 =0.3658, n = 17, p < 0.01]. Similar relationships could be derived from long-term data for different soil types indifferent climatic regions. Alternatively, well-calibrated and well-evaluated models of soil carbon change e.g.,
CENTURY (Parton et al., 1987), RothC (Coleman and Jenkinson, 1996) could be used to generate either stockchange factors, or the intensity relationships described above, for different soils in different climatic regions.

6115
6116
6117
6118
6119
6120
6121

Rigorous criteria should be applied so that emissions and removals are neither under- nor overestimated. It isgood practice that stock change factors be based on experiments sampled according to the principles set out in
Section 2.3.3, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and to use the experimental values if they are
more appropriate than the default values for region and management practice. Factors based on models should
only be used after the model has been tested against experiments such as those described above and any model
should be widely evaluated, well-documented and archived. It is good practice to provide confidence limits or
uncertainty estimates associated with regional, country-specific or local stock change factors.

6122

Draft KP Supplement

2.139

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
6123
6124
6125
6126
6127
6128
6129
6130
6131
6132
6133
6134
6135

Tier 3Tier 3 methods generally encompass a range of methodologies that are more elaborate than Tier 2, usually basedon sophisticated modeling techniques, and often linked to geographical databases. Compared with the static
matrix used at Tiers 1 and 2, Tier 3 can represent the management history of a land that facilitates calculation ofsoil carbon changes resulting from multiple changes in management practices over time including rotationalchanges in land use. Tier 3 (like Tier 2) methods can also take into account a longer time period to reachequilibrium than 20 years. Current computing power makes it possible to link spatially-disaggregated (stratified)land data to management practice data. Using these analytical systems, carbon stock changes can be estimatedover time by linking equations describing the rate of change in soil carbon under specific management practices
with carbon content, initialised by existing data and cross-checked periodically. Tier 3 methods can also bebased on repeated statistical sampling consistent with the principles set out in Annex 3A.3, Chapter 3, Volume 4of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The sampling protocol should be of sufficient density to capture the soil types,
climatic regions and management practices.

2.140

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

6136
6137
6138

BOX 2.9.3
ILLUSTRATION OF ESTIMATING CARBON STOCK CHANGES FOR DISCONTINUOUS CROPLAND MANAGEMENT

6139
6140
6141
6142
6143
6144
6145
6146
6147
6148
6149

Many inventory compilers need to use Reporting Method 1 [non-spatially explicit aggregate
statistics of total areas of practices (see Section 2.2.4 of this supplement)] for representing areas of
CM practices because of a lack of availability of activity data. Using non-spatial data, it is notpossible to discern if practices are continuous over time. The effect of discontinuity of practices is
expected to affect soil carbon stock change. This is a particular concern for no-till (NT) practices
because it is not uncommon for there to be occasional tillage within NT cropping systems. The
amount of reduction of accumulated additional carbon from single tillage on land under long-term
NT ranges from 0-11% (VandenBygaart and Kay, 2004; Koch and Stockfisch, 2006; Conant et al.,2007; Quincke et al., 2007). However, in some situations, more than a 30% loss of accumulated
additional soil carbon occurs from single plowing of land that had been in long-term NT(VandenBygaart and Kay, 2004).

6150
6151
6152
6153
6154
6155
6156
6157
6158
6159
6160
6161
6162
6163
6164
6165
6166

Tier 1 estimation methods can be applied for discontinuous CM practices when using Reporting
Method 1. To illustrate, consider a parcel of land under NT with occasional full tillage (FT) andhaving consistent medium input. From Table 2.3 in Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines, the reference soil organic carbon stock is 34 Mg ha-1 and FLU=0.69. This land parcel
undergoes FT in years 5, 11, 14 and 18. As is necessary using Reporting Method 1, each decreaseof NT is assumed to occur on land that has been under NT for at least 20 years and each increaseon land that has been under FT for at least 20 years. The carbon stock change is also assumed tocontinue for 20 years after a change in tillage is identified as a change in net areas under FT and
NT. Following guidance in Chapters 2 and 5, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, the effect ofcarbon change is calculated using Formulation A (Box 2.1 in Chapter 2) of annual soil organiccarbon stock change (applying Equation 2.25 in Chapter 2 and Table 5.5 in Chapter 5). As shownin the figure below, the calculated cumulative ΔCmineral is lower with occasional FT than forcontinuous NT; discontinuous NT is 80% of carbon stock change of continuous NT at year 20 untilthat land has been under NT for 20 years continuously (i.e. year 38). This is consistent with
understanding of the effect of intermittent tillage on soil organic carbon on land otherwise under
NT. This example illustrates that Tier 1 methods can be applied for discontinuous practices
embedded within the data of net areas under different CM practices.

6167
6168
6169
6170
6171

If, for the example presented, spatially explicit data were available in order to apply Reporting
Method 2, the Tier 1 cumulative C stock change would be calculated using Formulation B (Box
2.1 in Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). This estimate is shown in the figure
below. As expected, in both cases of discontinuous NT, the estimated soil organic carbon changes
are lower than those for continuous NT during the period of discontinuous NT.

6172

If there are spatially explicit data on CM practices, it is good practice to use Reporting Method 2.

6173
6174

If there are available data on discontinuity of CM practices and on the effect of practicediscontinuity on soil organic carbon change, it is good practice to use higher tier methods.

PRACTICES

6175

Draft KP Supplement

2.141

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
6176
6177

The carbon emission and removal factors used at each tier are described briefly in the following sections.

6178
6179
6180
6181
6182
6183
6184
6185
6186

At Tier 1, average annualized carbon stock changes in mineral soils are calculated from default values bydividing the 20-year stock change by 20, as formulated in Equation 2.25 in Chapter 2, Volume 4 of 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. Default reference (under native vegetation) soil organic carbon stocks (SOCREF) for mineral soils andfull details of default relative stock change factors for land use (FLU), input (FI) and management (FMG) factors(over 20 years) can be found in Table 2.3 (for SOCREF), Chapter 2 and Table 5.5 (for FLU, FI and FMG), Chapter
5,Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, respectively. Management practice is assumed to influence stocks to adepth of 30 cm. For a summary of the steps, see Sections 2.3.3 and 5.2.3.4 of Chapters 2 and 5, Volume 4 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines.

6187
6188
6189
6190
6191
6192
6193
6194
6195

At Tier 2, some or all of the default values for carbon stock change (Tier 1) are replaced by values shown to be
more specific to account for national or regional soil carbon stock changes. These new values may be based onliterature values, measured changes in carbon stocks, carbon models, or a combination of these. (See ‘Choice ofmanagement data for mineral soils’ below for examples). It is good practice to derive relative stock change
factor values for a higher resolution classification of management, climate and soil types if there are significant
differences in the stock change factors among more disaggregated categories based on an empirical analysis.
Reference soil organic C stocks (SOCREF) can also be derived from country-specific data in a Tier 2 approach.
Additional guidance is provided in Section 2.3.3.1, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

6196
6197
6198
6199
6200
6201
6202
6203
6204

For mineral soils, Tier 3 approaches may use dynamic models and detailed soil C inventory measurements as thebasis for estimating annual stock changes. Tier 3 methods may involve the use of country-derived carbon stockchange factors which may be calculated using sophisticated models. The carbon models used for Tier 3 are
generally more complex than those in Tier 2, taking into account soil (e.g., clay content, chemical composition,
parent material), climate (e.g., precipitation, temperature, evapotranspiration), and management factors (e.g.,tillage, carbon inputs, fertility amendments, cropping system). Good practice requires that the models becalibrated using measurements at benchmark sites, and that model and assumptions used are describedtransparently.

6205
6206
6207
6208
6209
6210
6211

In all cases, rigorous criteria should be applied so that any change in carbon stocks is neither under- noroverestimated; models used to estimate carbon stock changes should be well-documented and should be
evaluated using reliable experimental data for conditions and practices to which the models are applied. It isgood practice to provide confidence limits or uncertainty estimates according to the descriptions in Sections
5.2.3.5 and 5.3.3.5 in Chapter 5, Volume 4 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Default carbon stock change factors may
also be replaced by values generated as part of national or regional carbon accounting systems (see Section 2.9.3
of this supplement).

6212
6213
6214

Area data on land use and practices can be available according to either Reporting Method 1 or 2 as described in
Section 2.2 of this supplement. Management data required for each of the three tiers are outlined briefly below.

6215
6216
6217
6218
6219
6220
6221
6222
6223
6224
6225
6226

Following Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, impacts of land management change are assumed, by default,
to have an impact for 20 years. If area and activity data are available for 20 years prior to the base year, net
carbon emissions and removals for the base year can be established using the default carbon stock change factors
described above. The changes in management practices at Tier 1 are the same as those given in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines: differing cultivation, tillage, and input levels. Within these specific management changes, activities
are defined semi-quantitatively, for example: low, medium or high inputs without manure; high inputs withmanure; full, reduced and no-till systems. Area data may be obtained from international data sets (e.g., FAO
World Census of Agriculture, FAOSTAT), though some of these sources lack the spatial explicitness needed forreporting and may only be helpful for cross-checking data. If area and activity data are available for 1970 and
1990, a 1990 baseline net carbon stock change can be established using the default carbon stock change factors
described above and the area and activity data for 1970 and 1990.

6227
6228
6229
6230

If area and activity data are not available for 1970 to 1990, countries can establish the 1990 carbon stock changeusing the most appropriate time series to estimate the 1990 value, in a manner consistent with guidance provided
in Section 5.3, Chapter 5, Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. It is good practice to use a time period
equivalent to 20 years that includes 1990 or as close to 1990 as possible.

Choice of carbon stock change factors for mineral soils
Tier 1

Tier 2Tier 3

Choice of management data for mineral soils

Tier 1

6231

2.142

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

6232
6233
6234
6235
6236
6237
6238
6239
6240

Tier 2 approaches are likely to involve a more detailed stratification of management systems than in Tier 1 if
sufficient data are available. This can include further subdivisions of annual cropping input categories (i.e., low,
medium, high, and high with amendment), rice cultivation, perennial cropping systems, and set-asides. It is goodpractice to further subdivide default classes based on empirical data that demonstrates significant differences insoil organic C storage among the proposed categories. In addition, Tier 2 approaches can involve a finer
stratification of climate regions and soil types. Tier 2 methods may require area descriptions of higher resolution
than those in Tier 1. In any case, rigorous criteria should be applied so that emissions in the base year andremovals in the inventory year are neither under- nor overestimated.

6241
6242
6243
6244
6245

Management data used in the more complex Tier 3 methodologies need to be consistent with the level of detailrequired by the model. It is good practice to use management data at a spatial resolution appropriate for themodel, and to have, or be able to estimate reliably, quantitative measures of the management factors required by
the model.

6246

ORGANIC SOILS

6247
6248
6249
6250

It is good practice to use the decision tree in Figure 2.9.1 to decide which tier to use for estimating emissions andremovals in organic soils associated with changes in CM under the KP. It is good practice to use Tier 2 or Tier 3
methods for reporting emissions and removals in organic soils if CM is a key category and organic soils are asignificant subcategory under CM.

6251
6252
6253
6254
6255
6256
6257
6258
6259
6260
6261

Methods for estimating CO 2 emissions and removals from organic soils
When organic soils are converted to or managed for agriculture, they are typically drained, tilled and fertilised,resulting in on-site CO2 emissions to the atmosphere as well as waterborne carbon losses that lead to off-site CO2
emissions. Countries may use methods of different tier levels for on-site and off-site CO2 emissions from organicsoils. The rate of CO2 release will depend on, inter alia, climate, the degree of drainage, nutrient status andpractices such as fertilisation and liming. Oxidation of organic material results in land subsidence and CO2
emissions will continue until the organic soil layer is depleted or until further lowering of the drainage base is nolonger feasible. Drained organic soils under CM can be rewetted while remaining under CM. Guidance on
rewetting and drainage of organic soils can be found in Section 2.12 of this supplement. The Wetlands
Supplement contains updated and new methodological guidance for estimating GHG emissions and removals
from organic soils (see Footnote 1, Section 2.1 of this supplement).

6262
6263
6264
6265
6266

The Tier 1 approach is described in Section 2.3.3 of Chapter 2 and Section 5.2.3.4 of Chapter 5, Volume 4 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines and updated by Chapters 2 and 4 of the Wetlands Supplement, which include guidance foron-site CO2 (including peat fires), off-site CO2 and CH4 from drained organic soils and drainage ditches (seeFootnote 1, Section 2.1 of this supplement).

6267
6268
6269
6270
6271
6272

If country- or region-specific data is available on CO2 emissions from organic soils, it is good practice to use
these instead of Tier 1 defaults. Any data used should be shown to be more reliable and representative for thenational conditions than defaults. It is good practice to use a finer classification for climate and management
practices, such as drainage classes, if there are significant differences in measured carbon loss rates among the
proposed classes.

6273
6274
6275
6276
6277

A Tier 3 approach may involve estimation of CO2 and non-CO2 GHG emissions in an integrated way. However,the non-CO2 emissions should be reported under Agriculture (see Section 2.4.4.2 of this supplement), anddouble-counting and omissions should be avoided. It is good practice to use models that are calibrated using
measurements at benchmark sites, and to describe models and assumptions used transparently.

6278

Choice of carbon emission and removal factors for organic soils

6279
6280
6281
6282
6283

The Tier 1 default emission and removal factors are provided in Table 5.6, Chapter 5, Volume 4 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines updated by Chapters 2 and 4 of the Wetlands Supplement for on-site CO2 (including peat fires),off-site CO2 and CH4 from drained organic soils and drainage ditches (see Footnote 1, Section 2.1 of this
supplement).

6284
6285
6286
6287

For organic soils, it is good practice to replace the default values with country- or region-specific factors. It isgood practice to use country- or region-specific emission and removal factors derived from measurements orexperiments within the region that are well-designed and with adequate sampling and coverage. It is good

Tier 2Tier 3Tier 1

Tier 2Tier 3Tier 1

Tier 2

Draft KP Supplement

2.143

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
6288
6289

practice to provide confidence limits or uncertainty estimates associated with any country- or region-specificemission and removal factors.

6290
6291
6292
6293
6294
6295

For organic soils, CO2 emissions and removals may be estimated using a model or measurement based approach.
Time-dependent emission and removal factors capture more accurately the effects of land-use and managementchanges. Dynamic models could capture the influence of (changes in) land use and management practices,
particularly the effect of variable drainage levels. Before such models are applied they should be thoroughly
tested and evaluated country- or region-specific field data.

Tier 3

6296
6297
6298

The same considerations apply as for management data for CM activities on mineral soils, as described in
Section 2.9.4.2 of this supplement.

6299
6300

Area data on land use and practices can be available according to either Reporting Method 1 or 2 as described in
Section 2.2 of this supplement. Management data required for each of the three tiers are outlined briefly below.

6301
6302
6303
6304
6305
6306

Drainage of organic soils results in immediate and ongoing emissions that are not restricted to a 20-year time
period, but are determined by subsidence rates, thickness of the peat and technical possibilities of deepening of
the drainage base in subsiding land. Net carbon emissions and removals from the soil in the base year can beestablished based on data from the base year only. The types of land-use changes and management practices that
occur at Tier 1 are in principle the same as those for mineral soils.

6307
6308
6309
6310
6311
6312
6313
6314
6315
6316

It is good practice to disaggregate data on management practices by drainage depth, nutrient status of the organicsoil, land-use intensity, and organic soil type if appropriate emissions factors for on-site and off-site CO2
emissions and removals are available. In many instances, standard drainage depths are used in management
practices and disaggregation may not be useful in improving accuracy of the emission and removal estimates.
Where significant variation in drainage depth exists for different management practices, and where appropriate
emission and removal factors exist, it is good practice to improve the accuracy of an inventory by, for example,
separating out drainage classes. Tier 2 methods may require area descriptions of higher resolution than those inTier 1. Rigorous criteria should be applied so that any change in emissions or removals is neither under- noroverestimated.

6317
6318
6319
6320

Management data used in the more sophisticated Tier 3 methodologies need to be consistent with the level ofdetail required by the model. It is good practice to use quantitative management data at a spatial resolution
appropriate for the model.

6321

2.9.4.3

Choice of management data for organic soils

Tier 1

Tier 2Tier 36322

N ON -CO 2 GHG EMISSIONS FROM IN - SITU ABOVE - GROUNDWOODY BIOMASS BURNING

6323
6324
6325
6326
6327

In-situ above-ground woody biomass burning is reported under CM. The decision tree in Figure 2.9.1 provides
general guidance on the choice of appropriate tier level to be applied. Equation 2.27 in Chapter 2 and Section
5.2.4 in Chapter 5, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines give guidance for estimating N2O and CH4 emissions
from in-situ above-ground woody biomass burning. If CM is a key category and in-situ above-ground woody
biomass burning is significant, it is good practice that Parties use either Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods.

6328

2.9.4.4

161, 162

6329

REPORTING
NON -CO 2 GHG EMISSIONS AND CO 2
EMISSIONS FROM LIMING AND UREA APPLICATION

6330
6331

The non-CO2 GHG emissions associated with soil management on land under CM as well as CO2 emissions
from liming and urea application are in most cases not reported under CM but under the Agriculture sector.
161

According to paragraph 1 of Annex II to decision 2/CMP.8 estimates of emissions from sources and removals by sinks
from for Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities are to be clearly distinguished from anthropogenic emissions from the sources listed
in Annex A to the KP (FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1, pg. 18).

162

The reporting categories for the emissions will be considered by SBSTA at its 39th session. Any change to the decisions
about reporting of these emissions should also be reflected in the reporting under the KP LULUCF activities.

2.144

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

6332
6333

When reporting these emissions, it is good practice to ensure consistency, completeness and no double-counting
under Agriculture or CM (see Section 2.4.4.2 of this supplement).

6334

2.9.4.5

6335

T HE TRADE - OFFS AND SYNERGIES OF CM ON SOIL CARBONSTOCKS AND NON -CO 2 GASES

6336
6337
6338
6339
6340
6341
6342

Some management practices adopted to increase soil carbon may also influence the emissions of non-CO2 gases.
Many of these effects are included in Chapters 5 and 11, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, but there may
be other effects on non-CO2 gases not considered. The effects on non-CO2 emissions of these and othermanagement practices may be included in higher tier methods for estimating CM emissions and removals.
Examples of how these effects could be estimated include: 1) direct measurement of the non-CO2 GHG atrepresentative sites and 2) estimation of emission rates based on literature values taking into accountmanagement, soil and climate. Box 2.9.4 gives examples of such potential trade-offs and synergies.

6343
6344

BOX 2.9.4
EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE INFLUENCES OF REDUCED TILLAGE ON N2O EMISSION

6345
6346
6347
6348
6349
6350
6351
6352
6353
6354
6355
6356

Adoption of reduced tillage or NT often increases soil carbon in croplands. However, at the sametime it may also alter N2O emissions, through effects on porosity (and the fraction of the porosity
occupied by water; (Ball et al., 2008), nitrogen and carbon cycling (Six et al., 2004; Drury et al.,2006; Ahmad et al., 2009) temperature (Singurindy et al., 2009), and other factors (Lee et al.,2009). The observations are inconclusive, with some studies showing higher N2O emission under
NT than under tilled systems (Six et al., 2004; Liu et al., 2006; Ball et al., 2008; Rochette et al.,2008; Ahmad et al., 2009; Suddick et al., 2011), and others showing little effect or lower N2Oemissions (Helgason et al., 2005; Venterea et al., 2005; Elder and Lal, 2008; Gregorich et al.,2008; Petersen et al., 2008; Bhatia et al., 2010; Chirinda et al., 2010). The available data suggestthat this variable response depends on interactive effects of soil and climate, and that wetter
environments with poorer aeration, in which N2O emissions generally tend to be highest, are also
associated with higher emissions under NT than under conventional tillage (Ball et al., 2008).

6357

2.10

GRAZING LAND MANAGEMENT

6358

2.10.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements

6359
6360
6361
6362

Grazing land Management (GM) is the system of practices on land used for livestock production aimed atmanipulating the amount and type of vegetation and livestock produced163. Lands under GM are predominantly
used for production of herbaceous perennial vegetation (introduced or indigenous) for harvest by grazing, cutting,or both.

6363
6364
6365
6366

Given the potential overlap with other activities, it is good practice for countries to specify what types of lands
are included under other activities under Article 3.3 and elected under Article 3.4. This will enhance thecomparability of reporting across countries and ensure there is no double-counting of GHG emissions andremovals.

6367
6368
6369

Parties should aim for consistency and completeness across activities. For example, all lands that were Forest
Land on 31 December 1989 and that are subject to GM in the reporting year need to be identified, tracked andreported as a separate category under D (see Section 2.6 of this supplement).

6370
6371
6372
6373
6374

Some lands included under GM may have trees or shrubs. In the first commitment period, some countries
included certain types of lands with woody biomass under GM, even if the cover met the thresholds for forest.
For consistency and to achieve transparency in reporting, it is good practice in the second commitment period for
those countries to ensure that double-counting with FM is avoided and to document how consistency is achieved
with KP activities reported previously. Further guidance is provided in Section 1.2 of this supplement.

6375
6376
6377
6378
6379

Permanent grasslands, pastures, rangelands or savannahs are normally included under GM if growing of forage
crops or grazing is the most important activity on the area (see Section 1.2 of this supplement). Protected lands,
such as those subject to permanent cover programmes, are also normally included under GM if they are also used
for livestock production. Treed areas on grassland or being grazed that were established after 1990 and meet thedefinition of a forest can qualify as AR, and if they do, are included under those categories (see Section 1.3 of
163

Paragraph 1(h) in the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p. 5.

Draft KP Supplement

2.145

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
6380
6381
6382

this supplement). Recognizing that the forest definition is threshold based, in order to achieve consistency withestablished practice during the first commitment period, countries can continue to report by taking account ofpredominant land use, as reviewed under the provisions of the KP (Section 1.2 of this supplement).

6383
6384
6385
6386
6387
6388
6389

Areas under CM that are only temporarily used for grazing, as part of a cropping rotation, would normally be
included under CM (see Section 2.9 of this supplement). If CM is not elected, such land can be included underGM, subject to national criteria that are consistently applied. If a country reports all cropland and grassland used
for livestock production under CM (or GM), then the Party does not need to differentiate between CM or GM
activities. If GM is elected with CM, it is good practice to include all cropland under CM and all grassland used
for livestock production under GM (see Chapter 1 of this supplement). The criteria used to distinguish between
land under CM and GM needs to be explicitly stated and applied consistently based on national definitions.

6390
6391
6392

If GM is elected with RV (see Section 2.11 of this supplement), the criteria used to distinguish between land
under RV and GM needs to be explicitly stated and applied consistently based on national definitions. It is goodpractice to include revegetated land that is used predominantly for production of livestock under GM.

6393
6394
6395
6396
6397
6398
6399
6400

The aim of reporting is to identify and report trends in the carbon stocks resulting from GM over time. The
methodology for estimating CO2 emissions and removals is based on the premise that changes in carbon stocks
over time occur following changes in management that influence the rates of either carbon additions to, or
carbon losses from, soil. If management practices have not changed over a long period, the carbon stocks are
assumed to be at equilibrium, and hence the change in carbon stocks is deemed zero. Parties are encouraged touse methods that show systematic changes in the carbon stocks rather than inter-annual variability and short-term
temporal dynamics. Another factor that may mask the carbon trend or signal is the occurrence of natural
disturbances on grassland. Box 2.10.1 provides an example of practical application of elected GM.

6401
6402
6403

BOX 2.10.1
GRAZING LAND MANAGEMENT – COUNTRY EXAMPLE

6404
6405
6406
6407
6408
6409
6410
6411
6412
6413
6414
6415

Denmark elected GM. The land included in GM is equal to the area of permanent grassland.
Grassland is defined as all land not meeting the definitions of Forest Land, Cropland, Wetlands, orSettlements and is identified using remote sensing. All grass in rotation with annual crops isincluded within Cropland. Grassland includes land identified as under permanent grazing plus anyother permanent grassland regardless of grazing. Denmark uses the same carbon stock change
estimation methods for Grassland for national inventory reporting as used for GM for reporting for
the KP. Grazing on Grassland is extensive and carbon stocks of mineral soils are estimated not tochange over time. Some carbon stock losses occur under grazing management as emissions fromorganic soils under Grassland remaining Grassland and residual C losses from Land converted to
Grassland in the past. The number of days of grazing within GM is also used in the estimates ofN2O emissions from nitrogen deposited from grazing animals. This ensures consistent reporting
between N2O emissions under Agriculture and CO2 emissions under GM for the KP.

6416
6417
6418
6419
6420
6421
6422
6423
6424

To use the proposed methodology for determining carbon stock change, the total GM area needs to be
subdivided into areas of mineral and organic soils. The lands under GM are also subdivided under various sets ofmanagement practices (which may overlap both in time and space) for the base year and each of the years in thecommitment period, such as those provided in Table 6.2, Chapter 6, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
GM practices that affect carbon stocks include animal stocking rate, fertility management, irrigation
management, species composition and fire management. The carbon stock change factors depend on both thecurrent and previous management. Some areas may be emitting CO2, others may be sequestering carbon, whileothers may be in equilibrium and this may change if management changes. Further detail can be found in
Chapter 6, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. See also Section 2.10.2 of this supplement.

6425

2.10.2

6426
6427
6428
6429
6430

Under Article 3.4 of the KP, emissions and removals resulting from GM are estimated using a net-net accounting
approach (as are all elective activities under Article 3.4). Net-net accounting requires that GHG emissions andremovals are estimated for the base year and each year of the commitment period164. This entails determining thetotal area under GM for the base year and for each year of the commitment period and calculating the carbon
stock change for those areas. Guidance for estimating the corresponding non-CO2 GHG emissions from GM are

Base year164

Net-net accounting refers to the provisions of paragraph 10 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/Add.1, p. 14.

2.146

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

6431
6432

covered in Chapters 10 and 11, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Guidance on reporting those non-CO2
GHG emissions under Agriculture is identical to that provided in Section 2.9.4.4 and 2.4.4.2 of this supplement.

6433
6434
6435

For most Parties with commitments under the KP, the base year is 1990. Under the provisions of Article 4.6 of
the UNFCCC and Article 3.5 of the KP, however, Parties with economies in transition (EITs) are granted someflexibility on the level of historical emissions chosen as a reference.

6436
6437
6438

If the area under GM changes significantly between the base year and the commitment period, this may lead toestimates on the basis of moving land (that is, subtraction of stock changes on a land base that changes in size
over time; see Box 2.10.2).

6439
6440
6441

BOX 2.10.2
AN EXAMPLE OF GRAZING LAND MANAGEMENT AREAS IN BASE YEAR
AND IN THE COMMITMENT PERIOD (NET-NET ACCOUNTING)

6442
6443
6444
6445
6446
6447
6448

In this example the area under GM in the base year expands to a larger area in the reporting year
during the commitment period. Some of the area was under GM in both the base year and during
the reporting period (a). Some of the area under GM in the base year is no longer under GM in thereporting year (b). There are also areas under GM in the reporting year that were not under GM in
the base year (c). Area (d) is under GM, but was subject to Deforestation (D) which takes
precedence. Under the KP, the emissions and removals in areas (a) + (b) in the base year arecompared to emissions and removals in areas (a) + (c) – (d) in the reporting year.

6449
6450
6451
6452
6453
6454
6455
6456
6457
6458
6459
6460

Historical data on land use and management practices in 1990 (or the appropriate year(s)) and in years prior to1990 are needed to establish the 1990 base year net emissions and removals of soil carbon from GM. The Tier 1
method described in Section 6.3.3, Chapter 6, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for mineral soils assumes
that a change in land-use/land management has an impact on carbon emissions and removals for a duration of 20
years; hence, in this approach and if a change in management has taken place since 1970, the net carbon stockchange in 1990 has to be calculated taking this change into account. If area and activity data are available for1970 to 1990, the net carbon stock change during the 1990 base year can be established using the default carbon
emission and removal factors. For organic soils, the inventory time period is treated the same as long-termdrained organic soils, with Tier 1 emission factors provided in Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement (seeFootnote 1, Section 2.1 of this supplement).

6461
6462
6463
6464

The duration of impact of management practice on soil organic carbon may be different from the default periodof 20 years used to reach a new equilibrium. If data on the duration of impact are available, it is good practice to
use the appropriate time period, based on country-specific data and measurements (see Tier 2 and Tier 3
approaches in Section 2.10.4 of this supplement).

6465
6466
6467
6468

If area and activity data are not available for 1970 to 1990, countries can establish the base-year 1990 carbon
stock change using the most appropriate time series to estimate the 1990 value, in a manner consistent withguidance provided in Section 5.3.1, Chapter 5, Volume 1, of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. It is good practice to
use a time period equivalent to 20 years that includes 1990 or as close to 1990 as possible.

Draft KP Supplement

2.147

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
6469
6470
6471
6472
6473
6474
6475
6476

The results of accounting on a net-net basis depend not just on changes in land management practices, but also
partly on where the base year and commitment period years fall within the temporal dynamics of carbon
sequestration processes. As noted above, carbon stock change resulting from land-use and management changes
on mineral soil tend to persist for about 20 years, after which the carbon levels of land under GM approaches a
new equilibrium carbon stock. The rate of carbon sequestration in land under GM following a change inmanagement in which carbon additions increase or carbon losses decline tends to be high in the first decades andthen declines over time, as illustrated in Figure 2.9.2 of this supplement. This will be reflected in net sinks andsources in the accounting.

6477

2.10.36478

Choice of methods for identifying lands subjected toGrazing land Management

6479
6480
6481

General guidance on consistent representation of lands is provided in Chapter 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
with additional guidance about identification of lands subject to GM provided in Sections 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, and 2.2 ofthis supplement.

6482
6483
6484
6485
6486
6487
6488

According to Decision 2/CMP.8165, the geographical location of the boundaries of the area that encompass land
subject to GM needs to be reported annually, along with the total land areas subject to this activity. The
geographical location of boundaries may include a spatially explicit specification of land subject to GM, but does
not have to. Instead, the boundaries of larger areas encompassing smaller lands subject to GM may be provided,
along with estimates of the area subject to GM in each of the larger areas. In either case, the land subject to GM
and the management thereon need to be tracked through time because the continuity and duration ofmanagement practices and changes affects carbon emissions and removals.

6489
6490
6491
6492
6493

It is good practice to follow continuously the management of land subject to GM. The tracking can be achievedby continuously tracking land subject to GM from 1990 until the end of the commitment period (see Section
2.10.1). Alternatively, countries could develop statistical sampling techniques, consistent with the advice inAnnex 3A.3, Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, which allow the transitions of management
practice on GM land to be determined (see also Section 2.4.1 of this supplement).

6494
6495
6496
6497

At the national level, it is good practice to identify criteria that could be used to set up a stratified sampling
scheme when developing a sampling strategy. Stratification criteria may include relatively static biophysicalcharacteristics, such as climate and soil type, as well as management practices and natural disturbances which
tend to be more dynamic drivers of change in emissions and removals from carbon pools.

6498
6499

Management factors and disturbance information which may be useful in establishing a national stratification
scheme include:

6500



Level of input of biomass or grassland productivity, manure, and other organic amendments

6501



Grazing intensity (stocking rate, frequency, seasonality)

6502



Prescribed fire

6503



Re-seeding

6504



Irrigation management

6505



Drainage6506

Inclusions of woody biomass (shrubland, shelterbelts, other perennial plantations on grazed lands)

6507
6508
6509
6510

For all resulting subcategories under GM, the area derived from conversion of forests (i.e., D) since 1990 need to
be tracked separately as these will be reported as units of lands subject to D (See Section 2.6 of this supplement).
Emissions and removals resulting from conversion of FM to GM due to the harvest and conversion of forest
plantations to non-forest land could be reported under CEFC according to Decision 2/CMP.8166.

6511
6512

At higher tiers, further subdivision of the area subject to GM may be necessary. Methods to identify lands
subject to GM with necessary disaggregation available in some Annex I countries include the following:

6513
6514
6515



National land use and management statistics: the agricultural land base including land subject to GM issurveyed in most countries on a regular basis. These may be derived, in part, from remote sensing ofpasture/rangeland and soil surface condition and changes in stocking rate.

165

Paragraph 2(d) in Annex II to Decision 2/CMP.8.contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1., p. 19.

166

Paragraph 5(g) in Annex II to Decision 2/CMP.8contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1, p. 21.

2.148

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

6516
6517



6518
6519
6520
6521

Information on these areas would have to be compiled either for all lands subject to GM or summarised as
estimates for all the strata (defined by the boundaries of the areas of GM) that a Party chooses to apply for thereporting of its land use statistics. Further good practice guidance on identifying land areas is given in Section
2.2 of this supplement.

6522

2.10.4Inventory data from a statistically based, plot-sampling system: land use and management activities aremonitored at specific permanent sample plots that are revisited on a regular basis.

6523

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stockchanges and non-CO 2 GHG emissions6524

It is good practice to report GM following the 2006 IPCC Guidelines methodologies for grassland estimates of:

6525



Annual changes in carbon stocks of above- and below-ground biomass;

6526



Annual changes of dead organic matter (dead wood and litter; DOM);

6527



Annual changes in organic carbon stocks in mineral soils and emissions and removals in organic soils;

6528



Annual emissions of non-CO2 gases from woody biomass burning.

6529
6530
6531
6532
6533
6534

Section 2.3.6 of this supplement gives guidance about the choice of methods and identifying whether GM is a
key category. If GM is a key category, the inventory compiler can determine if certain subcategories, such as
mineral soil or above-ground biomass, are significant. Section 1.3.3, Chapter 1, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines suggests ranking subcategories according to their contribution to the aggregate key category. It may
be appropriate to focus efforts towards methodological improvements of the significant subcategories (seeSection 2.3.6 of this supplement).

6535
6536
6537
6538
6539
6540
6541
6542

Decision 2/CMP.7167 specifies that a Party may choose not to account for a particular pool in a commitment
period, if transparent and verifiable information is provided that demonstrates that the pool is not a source.
Requirements for reporting excluded pools and documenting that a pool is not a source can be found in Section
2.3.1 of this supplement. It is possible that Parties will use different tiers to prepare estimates for individual
subcategories (e.g., changes in organic carbon stocks in mineral soils and emissions and removals in organicsoils). Since different methods may yield different estimates with different levels of uncertainty, it is goodpractice to use the same tier and methodology for estimating carbon emissions and removals from eachsubcategory and pool for the full time series, for example, in 1990 and during the commitment period.

6543
6544
6545

Methods for estimating GM carbon emissions and removals for the base year and the commitment period areprovided in Chapter 2 and Chapter 6, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The following sections of this
supplement highlight aspects of these methods specific to the KP.

6546

2.10.4.1 B IOMASS AND DEAD ORGANIC MATTER

6547
6548
6549
6550

Without changes in management practices, herbaceous grassland vegetation is assumed to cycle annually suchthat biomass gains equal biomass losses in a single year. For perennial woody biomass, carbon stock changes inbiomass and DOM pools should be estimated unless the Party to the KP chooses not to report on a certain pooland provides verifiable information that carbon stocks are not decreasing.

6551
6552
6553
6554
6555
6556
6557

For carbon stock changes in biomass resulting from changes in GM, it is good practice for Parties to use thedecision tree in Figure 2.10.1 to identify the appropriate tier to estimate carbon stock changes in biomass andDOM under the KP. Relevant methods for estimating carbon stock changes in above- and below-ground biomass,and DOM can be found in Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, Chapter 6, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines,
respectively. Default coefficients for above-ground woody biomass and harvest cycles in agroforestry or
silvopastoral systems containing perennial species are provided in Table 6.1, Chapter 6, Volume 4 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines.

6558

2.10.4.2 S OIL CARBON

6559
6560
6561

In most grasslands, the main carbon emissions and removals associated with changes in land use andmanagement for GM activities is from changes in organic carbon in soil. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines identifies
two sources or sinks of CO2 from agricultural soils:
167

Paragraph 26 in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p16.

Draft KP Supplement

2.149

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
6562
6563



Net changes in soil organic carbon associated with changes in land use and management on mineral soil
(Chapter 6);

6564
6565



Emissions of CO2 from drained organic soils (updated by Chapters 2 and 4 of the Wetlands Supplement; seefootnote 1, Section 2.1 of this supplement).

6566
6567
6568
6569

Total annual emissions and removals of CO2 are calculated by summing emissions and removals from the two
subcategories (mineral and organic soils) using methods outlined in Chapter 6 and Equation 2.24 of Chapter 2,
Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and updated in the Wetlands Supplement (see footnote 1, Section 2.1 ofthis supplement).

6570

MINERAL SOILS

6571
6572

Methods for estimating mineral soil carbon stock changes resulting from changes in GM fall under one of threemethodological tiers described in Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.3, Chapter 1, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

6573
6574
6575
6576
6577
6578

The decision tree in Figure 2.10.1 should be used to decide which tier to use for estimating carbon stock changes
associated with changes in GM practices under the KP. It is good practice to use Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods if
mineral soils are a significant subcategory under GM. It is good practice to follow continuously the GM
practices from the base year through the commitment period as described in Section 2.10.3 of this supplement.
For discussion of how to estimate the GM area, see Section 1.3 of this supplement.

6579
6580
6581
6582

The Tier 1 method for estimating carbon stock changes in mineral soils is described in Section 2.3.3.1, Chapter 2,
Volume 4 and Section 6.2.3, Chapter 6 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. This guidance assumes a new
equilibrium soil organic carbon stock is achieved after 20 years in a practice.

6583
6584
6585
6586
6587
6588
6589

Section 6.2.3.4, Chapter 6 and Chapter 2 in Volume 4 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines outlines the steps for estimating
average annualized rates of organic carbon stock change of grassland mineral soils using the default reference
carbon stocks (Table 2.3), carbon stock change factors (Table 6.2) and Equation 2.25. The Tier 1 method can beused to estimate carbon emissions and removals resulting from changes in management practices across a rangeof temperature and moisture regimes and soil types. Box 2.9.3 provides an illustration of applying Tier 1 toestimate carbon stock changes for CM practices that are not continuous over time, which is also applicable forGM.

Methods for estimating carbon stock changes in mineral soils

Tier 1

6590
6591

2.150

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

6592
6593
6594

Figure 2.10.1

Decision tree for selecting the appropriate tier for estimating emissions andremovals in carbon pools under GM for KP reporting (see also Figure 2.4,
Chapter 2 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines)

6595
6596
6597

* a better estimate improves consistency, comparability, completeness, accuracy and transparency.

6598

Draft KP Supplement

2.151

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
6599
6600
6601
6602
6603
6604

The Tier 2 method also uses the methodology described in Chapter 6, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines,
but now the default relative carbon stock change factors are replaced with country- or region-specific values. It isgood practice to obtain region- or country-specific emissions factors from literature values, long-term
experiments or the local application of well-calibrated, well-documented soil carbon models. Region-specificdata for soil carbon content (such as that available from national soil inventories) can also be used.

6605
6606
6607
6608
6609
6610

To ensure that regionally-specific carbon stock change factors are better than default relative carbon stockchange factors at representing actual carbon stock change in a given region, rigorous criteria should be applied todemonstrate that the more specific factors do not lead to under- or overestimation of the soil carbon change.
Regional or country-specific factors should be based on verified soil carbon model estimates or measurementsthat are conducted of sufficient frequency, time period and spatial density to reflect variability of the underlying
biochemical processes, and documented in accessible publications.

6611
6612

For Tier 2 approaches, it is good practice to replace the 20-year default with a value that reflects national orregional information about the duration of GM practices to reach a new equilibrium in soil carbon stocks.

6613
6614
6615
6616
6617
6618
6619

Rigorous criteria should be applied so that any carbon stock change is neither under- nor overestimated. It isgood practice that stock change factors be based on experiments sampled according to the principles set out in
Section 2.3.3, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines, and to use experimental values if they are more
appropriate than the default values for region and management practice. Factors based on models should only be
used after the model has been tested against experiments such as those described above and any model should be
widely evaluated, well-documented and archived. It is good practice to provide confidence limits or uncertainty
estimates associated with regional, country-specific or local stock change factors.

6620
6621
6622
6623
6624
6625
6626
6627
6628
6629
6630
6631
6632

Tier 3 methods generally encompass a range of methodologies more elaborate than Tier 2, are usually based on
sophisticated modeling techniques, and often linked to geographical databases. Compared with the static matrix
used at Tiers 1 and 2, Tier 3 can represent the management history of a land that facilitates calculation of soil
carbon changes resulting from multiple changes in management practices over time including rotational changes
in land use. Tier 3 (like Tier 2) methods can also take into account a longer time period sufficient to reachequilibrium (i.e. longer than 20 years). Current computing power makes it possible to link spatiallydisaggregated (stratified) land data to management practice data. The analytical system can estimate carbon
stock changes over time by linking equations describing the rate of change in soil carbon under specificmanagement practices with carbon contents, initialised by existing data and cross-checked periodically. Tier 3
methods can also be based on repeated statistical sampling consistent with the principles set out in Annex 3A.3,
Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The sampling protocol should be of sufficient density tocapture the soil types, climatic regions and management practices.

6633

Choice of carbon stock change factors for mineral soils

6634
6635
6636
6637
6638
6639
6640
6641
6642

At Tier 1, average annualized carbon stock changes in mineral soils are calculated from default values bydividing the 20-year stock change by 20, as set out in Equation 2.25, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. Default reference (under native vegetation) soil organic C stocks (SOCREF) for mineral soils and fulldetails of default relative stock change factors for land use (FLU), input (FI) and management (FMG) factors (over20 years) can be found in Table 2.3 (for SOCREF) and Table 6.2 (for FLU, FI and FMG) in Chapters 2 and 6,
respectively, of Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Management practice is assumed to influence stocks toa depth of 30 cm. For a summary of the steps, see Section 2.3.3, Chapter 2 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines.

6643
6644
6645
6646
6647
6648
6649
6650
6651

At Tier 2, some or all of the default values for carbon stock change (Tier 1) are replaced by values shown to be
more specific to account for national or regional soil carbon stock changes. These new values may be based onliterature values, measured changes in carbon stocks, carbon models, or a combination of these. (See ‘Choice ofmanagement data for mineral soils’ below for examples). It is good practice to derive relative stock change
factor values for a higher resolution classification of management, climate and soil types if there are significant
differences in the stock change factors among more disaggregated categories based on an empirical analysis.
Reference soil organic carbon stocks (SOCREF) can also be derived from country-specific data in a Tier 2
approach. Additional guidance is provided in Section 2.3.3.1, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

6652
6653
6654
6655

For mineral soils, Tier 3 approaches may use dynamic models and or detailed soil carbon inventory
measurements as the basis for estimating annual stock changes. Tier 3 methods may involve the use of countryderived carbon stock change factors which may be calculated using sophisticated models. The carbon models

Tier 2Tier 3Tier 1

Tier 2Tier 3

2.152

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

6656
6657
6658
6659
6660

used for Tier 3 are generally more complex than those in Tier 2, taking into account soil (e.g., clay content,chemical composition, parent material), climate (e.g., precipitation, temperature, evapotranspiration), andmanagement factors (e.g., species introduction or removal, carbon inputs, fertility amendments, vegetation
utilization by grazing livestock). Good practice requires that the models be calibrated using measurements atbenchmark sites, and that model and assumptions used are described transparently.

6661
6662
6663
6664
6665
6666
6667

In all cases, rigorous criteria should be applied so that any change in carbon stocks is neither under- noroverestimated; models used to estimate carbon stock changes should be well-documented and should be
evaluated using reliable experimental data for conditions and practices to which the models are applied. It isgood practice to provide confidence limits or uncertainty estimates according to the descriptions in Sections
6.2.3.5 and 6.3.3.5, Chapter 6, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Default carbon stock change factors may
also be replaced by values generated as part of national or regional carbon accounting systems (see Section
2.10.3 of this supplement).

6668
6669
6670

Choice of management data for mineral soils
Area data on land use and practices can be available according to either Reporting Method 1 or 2 as described in
Section 2.2 of this supplement. Management data required for each of the three tiers are outlined briefly below.

6671
6672
6673
6674
6675
6676
6677
6678
6679
6680
6681
6682

Following Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, impacts of land management change are assumed, by default,
to have an impact for 20 years. If area and activity data are available for 20 years prior to the base year, a net
carbon emissions and removals for the base year can be established using the default carbon stock change factors
described above. The changes in management practices at Tier 1 are the same as those given in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines: differing degradation states, improved vs. unimproved grassland, and differing input levels for
improved grassland. Within these specific management changes, activities are defined semi-quantitatively, e.g.,non-, moderately-, and severely-degraded. Areas may be obtained from international data sets (e.g., FAO, World
Census of Agriculture, FAOSTAT), though some of these sources lack the spatial explicitness needed forreporting and may only be helpful for cross-checking data. If area and activity data are available for 1970 and
1990, a 1990 baseline net carbon stock change can be established using the default carbon stock change factors
described above and the area and activity data for 1970 and 1990.

6683
6684
6685
6686

If area and activity data are not available for 1970 to 1990, countries can establish the 1990 carbon stock changeusing the most appropriate time series to estimate the 1990 value, in a manner consistent with guidance provided
in Section 5.3, Chapter 5, Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. It is good practice to use a time period
equivalent to 20 years that includes 1990 or as close to 1990 as possible.

6687
6688
6689
6690
6691
6692
6693
6694
6695
6696
6697
6698
6699
6700
6701

Tier 2 approaches are likely to involve a more detailed stratification of management systems than in Tier 1 if
sufficient data are available. These can include further subdivisions of GM categories (e.g., nature of degradation,
improved grassland subdivided by vegetation community). It is good practice to further subdivide default classes
based on empirical data that demonstrates significant differences in soil organic carbon storage among the
proposed categories. In addition, Tier 2 approaches can involve a finer stratification of climate regions and soil
types. Tier 2 methods may require area descriptions of higher resolution than those in Tier 1. An alternative tothe use of more detailed descriptor categories is the use of relationships relating the intensity of a practice (e.g.,
grazing level) with a change in the carbon emission or removal factor. Alternatively, well-calibrated and wellevaluated models of soil carbon change, e.g. RothC (Coleman and Jenkinson, 1996; Shirato et al., 2004) can beused to generate either default carbon stock change factors or to generate the intensity relationships for eachactivity for different soils in different climatic regions. These examples show how, at Tier 2, activities can bemade more country-specific, but other refinements are also possible. In any case, rigorous criteria should beapplied so that emissions in the base year and removals in the inventory year are neither under- noroverestimated.

6702
6703
6704
6705
6706
6707

Management data used in the more sophisticated Tier 3 approaches are likely to be subdivided as described forTier 2 above. For application of dynamic models e.g., CENTURY (Parton et al., 1987), RothC (Coleman andJenkinson, 1996; Shirato et al., 2004), measured/estimated activity data based on national statistics (e.g., herbage
yield, input level of organic amendment), and detailed data of the combination of climate, soil and management
are needed.

6708

ORGANIC SOILS

6709
6710

It is good practice to use the decision tree in Figure 2.10.1 to decide which tier to use for reporting carbon stockchanges in organic soils under the KP.

6711

Methods for estimating CO 2 emissions and removals from organic soils

Tier 1

Tier 2Tier 3

Draft KP Supplement

2.153

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
6712
6713
6714
6715
6716
6717
6718
6719
6720
6721

When organic soils are converted to or managed for agriculture, they are typically drained, tilled and fertilised,resulting in on-site CO2 emissions to the atmosphere as well as waterborne carbon losses that lead to off-site CO2
emissions. Countries may use methods of different tier levels for on-site and off-site CO2 emissions from organicsoils. The rate of CO2 release will depend on, inter alia, climate, the degree of drainage, nutrient status andpractices such as fertilisation and liming. Oxidation of organic material results in land subsidence and CO2
emissions will continue until the organic soil layer is depleted or until further lowering of the drainage base is nolonger feasible. Drained organic soils under GM can be rewetted while remaining under GM. Guidance on
rewetting and drainage of organic soils can be found in Section 2.12 of this supplement. The Wetlands
Supplement contains updated and new methodological guidance for estimating GHG emissions and removals
from drained and rewetted organic soils, (see Footnote 1, Section 2.1 of this supplement).

6722
6723
6724
6725
6726

The Tier 1 method for estimating emission and removals in organic soils is described in Sections 2.3.3 and6.2.3.2, Chapters 2 and 6, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, which include guidance for on-site CO2(including peat fires), off-site CO2 and CH4 from drained organic soils and drainage ditches (see Footnote 1,
Section 2.1 of this supplement).

6727
6728
6729
6730
6731
6732

If country- or region-specific data is available on CO2 emissions from organic soils, it is good practice to use
these instead of Tier 1 defaults if organic soils are a significant subcategory under GM. Any data used should beshown to be more reliable and representative for the national conditions than defaults. It is good practice to use afiner classification for climate and management practices, such as drainage classes, if there are significant
differences in measured carbon loss rates among the proposed classes.

6733
6734
6735
6736

A Tier 3 approach may involve estimation of CO2 and non-CO2 GHG emissions in an integrated way. However,double-counting and omissions in relation to reporting under Agriculture (see section 2.4.4.2 of this supplement)
need to be avoided.

6737

Choice of carbon emission and removal factors for organic soils

6738
6739
6740
6741

The Tier 1 default emission and removal factors are provided in Table 6.3, Volume 4 Chapter 6 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines updated for on-site CO2 (including peat fires), off-site CO2 and CH4 from drained organic soils
and drainage ditches (see Footnote 1, Section 2.1 of this supplement).

6742
6743
6744
6745
6746
6747

For organic soils, it is good practice to replace the default values with country- or region-specific factors. It isgood practice to use country- or region-specific emission and removal factors derived from measurements orexperiments within the region that are well-designed and with adequate sampling and coverage. It is goodpractice to provide confidence limits or uncertainty estimates associated with any country- or region-specificemission and removal factors.

6748
6749
6750
6751
6752
6753

For organic soils, CO2 emissions and removals may be estimated using a model or measurement based approach.
Time-dependent emission and removal factors capture more accurately the effects of land-use and managementchanges. Dynamic models could capture the influence of (changes in) land use and management practices,
particularly the effect of variable drainage levels. Before such models are applied they should be thoroughly
tested and evaluated country- or region-specific field data.

6754
6755
6756

The same considerations apply as for management data for GM activities on mineral soils, as described earlier in
Section 2.10.3 of this supplement.

6757
6758

Area data on land use and practices can be available according to either Reporting Method 1 or 2 as described in
Section 2.2 of this supplement. Management data required for each of the three tiers are outlined briefly below.

6759
6760
6761
6762
6763
6764

Drainage of organic soils results in immediate and ongoing emissions that are not restricted to a 20 year time
period, but are determined by subsidence rates, thickness of the peat and technical possibilities of deepening of
the drainage base in subsiding land. Net carbon emissions and removals from the soil in the base year can beestablished based on data from the base year only. The land-use changes and management practices at Tier 1 are
the same as those for mineral soils.

6765
6766

If rewetting of organic soils for GM occurs additional guidance for those lands is found in Chapter 3 of the
Wetlands Supplement (see Footnote 1, Section 2.1 of this supplement).

Tier 1

Tier 2Tier 3Tier 1

Tier 2Tier 3

Choice of management data for organic soils

Tier 1

2.154

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

6767
6768
6769
6770
6771
6772
6773
6774
6775
6776

It is good practice to disaggregate data on management practices by drainage depth, nutrient status of the organicsoil, land-use intensity, and organic soil type if appropriate factors for on-site and off-site CO2 emissions andremovals are available. In many instances standard drainage depths are used in management practices anddisaggregation is not useful in improving accuracy of the emission and removal estimates. Where significant
variation in drainage depth exists for different management practices, and where appropriate emission andremoval factors exist, it is good practice to improve the accuracy of an inventory by, for example, separating out
drainage classes. Tier 2 methods may require area descriptions of higher resolution than those in Tier 1.
Rigorous criteria should be applied so that any change in emissions or removals is neither under- noroverestimated.

6777
6778
6779
6780

Management data used in the more complex Tier 3 methodologies need to be consistent with the level of detailrequired by the model. It is good practice to use quantitative management data at a spatial resolution appropriate
for the model.

6781

2.10.4.3 N ON -CO 2 GHG EMISSIONS FROM IN - SITU ABOVE - GROUND

Tier 2Tier 36782

WOODY BIOMASS BURNING

6783
6784
6785
6786
6787

N2O and CH4 emissions related in-situ above-ground woody biomass burning is reported under GM. The
decision tree in Figure 2.10.1 provides general guidance on the choice of appropriate tier to be applied. Equation
2.27, Chapter 2 and Section 6.2.4, Chapter 6 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines are applied to estimate
N2O and CH4 emissions from in-situ above-ground woody biomass burning. If GM is a key category and in-situ
above-ground woody biomass burning is significant, it is good practice to use either a Tier 2 or a Tier 3 method.

6788

2.10.4.4 R EPORTING 168, 169 NON -CO 2 GHG EMISSIONS AND CO 2

6789

EMISSIONS FROM LIMING AND UREA APPLICATION

6790
6791
6792
6793

The non-CO2 GHG emissions associated with soil management on land under GM as well as CO2 emissions
from liming and urea application are in most cases not reported under GM but under the Agriculture sector.
When reporting these emissions, it is good practice to ensure consistency, completeness and no double-counting
under Agriculture or GM (see Section 2.4.4.2 of this supplement).

6794

2.11

REVEGETATION

6795

2.11.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements

6796
6797
6798

Revegetation (RV) is a direct human-induced activity to increase carbon stocks on sites through theestablishment of vegetation that covers a minimum area of 0.05 hectares and does not meet the definitions of
AR170 (see also Footnote 1, Chapter 1 of this supplement).

6799
6800
6801

Land should be classified as RV if it meets the RV definition and the activity takes place since 1 January 1990. RV
typically affects the above-ground carbon pool significantly and may also have a significant impact on belowground carbon pools through increases in soil carbon stocks.

6802
6803
6804
6805
6806
6807

RV implies that vegetation is established to replace the previous (sometimes minimal) ground cover that had
followed a land disturbance. For example, activities such as reclaiming or restoring herbaceous ecosystems on
degraded or carbon-depleted soils, establishment of vegetation cover on disturbed construction sites or minedlands, planting of trees, shrubs, grasses or other non-woody vegetation on various types of lands, including urban
areas, might qualify as RV (see Box 2.11.1). Any tree planting could be elected as a RV activity, if besides
meeting the area requirement for this activity it does not meet the requirements for a forest171, or satisfies the168

According to paragraph 1 of Annex II to Decision 2/CMP.8 estimates of emissions from sources and removals by sinks
from for Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities are to be clearly distinguished from anthropogenic emissions from the sources listed
in Annex A to the KP (FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1, page 18).

169

The reporting categories for the emissions will be considered by SBSTA at its 39th session. Any change to the decisions
about reporting of these emissions should also be reflected in the reporting under the KP LULUCF activities.

170

Paragraph 1(e) in the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 contained in the document FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p. 5.

171

Paragraph 1(a) in the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 contained in the document FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.5.

Draft KP Supplement

2.155

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
6808
6809
6810
6811

criteria a Party uses to specify the shape of forests and areas subject to AR, D, or conversion of a natural forest toa planted forest (see Section 2.2.6.1 of this supplement). RV does not necessarily entail a change in land use, incontrast to AR, for example. RV activities must be clearly separated from natural, non-human driven
revegetation processes.

6812
6813
6814

Set-aside lands such as cultivated lands subjected to RV may be included under CM, if they are only temporarily
set-aside (typically this is for 5 years or less, but any set-aside likely to return to Cropland under the national
conditions for set-aside should be counted as Cropland).

6815
6816

It is good practice for Parties electing RV to provide documentation (a) describing how the included areas meetthe definition of RV and (b) how they can be distinguished from other activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4.

6817
6818

The following general guidance is provided in order to ensure a reasonably transparent, consistent, complete andaccurate reporting of RV activities:

6819
6820



It is good practice to stratify lands subject to RV by either land-use category or land-use change type, by
type of RV activity, and final land use if different from the initial one.

6821
6822
6823
6824
6825



It is good practice to further disaggregate each land-use category to be revegetated into subcategories
characterised by available information on climate, soil etc., whatever is most relevant for stratifying land
according to the effects of the activity on carbon stocks and carbon stock changes. This characterisation
would aid selecting suitable RV options and activity tracking; i.e. species, planting design, and soil
preparation.

6826
6827



Lands subjected to RV and each of its subcategories (if any) must be clearly identified as to their individual
locations and areas (see Section 2.11.3 in this supplement).

6828

Further guidance is provided in Section 1.2 in this supplement.

6829

BOX 2.11.1
A6830

RV Activities

6831
6832
6833

Iceland: The conversion of eroded or desertified land from Other Land or unmanaged lessvegetated subcategories of grassland to managed Grasslands (as defined by a vascular vegetation
cover of 20% or larger).

6834
6835
6836

Japan: Urban green facilities like e.g. urban parks and many diverse green areas that are subjected
to RV activities since 1990 were grouped into the following RV activities: parks and green space,public green space and private green space guaranteed by administration.

6837
6838
6839

Romania: Plantation of trees on degraded croplands: outside forest lands under administrative
stewardship; roadsides; shelterbelts; around cities; and erosion-prone lands. All revegetated lands
are classified as Croplands remaining Croplands.

6840
6841
6842

A

As described in each Party’s NIR for 2011. See
http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_GHG_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/ite
ms/6598.php

6843

2.11.26844

See Section 2.9.2 of this supplement and apply it in analogous manner.

6845

2.11.3

6846
6847
6848
6849

Land areas subject to RV can be represented with data obtained with either Approach 2—provided there isadditional spatial information—or Approach 3 (see Section 3.3.1, Chapter 3 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines). It is good practice that the particular Approach chosen be consistent with the one used for
identifying and tracking the lands of other KP activities, be they mandatory (Article 3.3) or elected (Article 3.4).

6850
6851
6852

Generally, all lands subject to RV since 1 January 1990 should be tracked in agreement with the national criteriathat establish a hierarchy among Article 3.4 activities (if applicable) as explained in Section 1.2 of this
supplement.

6853
6854
6855

The geographical location of boundaries may include a spatially explicit specification of each land subject to RV,
but does not have to. Instead, the boundaries of larger areas encompassing smaller lands subject to RV may beprovided, along with estimates of the areas subject to RV in each of the larger areas. In either case, the lands

2.156

Base year
Choice of methods for identifying lands

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

6856
6857
6858
6859
6860
6861
6862

subject to RV and the management thereon need to be tracked continuously through time. Continuity inmonitoring and reporting of management of revegetated land could be achieved either by continuously tracking
each land subject to RV from 1990 until the end of the commitment period (see Section 2.9.2 for CM and
Section 2.10.2 for GM of this supplement or Section 3.3, Chapter 3 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
for land-use categories in general) or by developing statistical sampling techniques (see Annex 3A.3, Chapter 3
in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines) that allow the transition of different types of management on RV
land to be determined.

6863
6864
6865
6866
6867
6868
6869
6870
6871

Methods for monitoring RV lands depend on the kind of land use at the start and end of a RV activity. A
common criterion, the minimum area of 0.05 hectares, has to be detected and all carbon pools have to beconsidered unless they are demonstrated not to be a source. If RV were done with herbs or grasses, monitoringshould use methods appropriate for monitoring GM (see Section 2.10 of this supplement). If RV were done withtree species, monitoring methods should be the same as those used for monitoring AR activities (see Section 2.5of this supplement) or FM activities (see Section 2.7 of this supplement). For designing RV activities on
settlement lands, it is good practice to use tree inventories (if available), land surveys on parks and green spaces,brownfields and any other spatial information on areas amenable to revegetation. A clear definitional distinction
with respect to AR is required.

6872

2.11.46873

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stockchanges and non-CO 2 GHG emissions

6874
6875
6876
6877
6878

Methods for estimating changes in above-ground biomass, below-ground biomass, and DOM carbon pools in a
RV activity are described in Chapters 4 – 9, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The biomass carbon pool islikely to be the carbon pool most affected by RV. Parties are encouraged to use higher tier methods for reporting
carbon stock changes in biomass. It is good practice to use Tier 2 or Tier 3 for estimating carbon stock changes
from biomass if RV is a key category.

6879
6880
6881

For estimating carbon stock changess in mineral soils and carbon emissions and removals from organic soilson
RV lands, relevant methods and approaches can be found in Chapters 4 - 9 and 11, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. For urban soils, methods are described in Chapter 8, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

6882
6883
6884
6885
6886
6887
6888

In the case of a RV activity on Cropland or Grassland, guidance on choice of methods (Tier 1) for stock changes
in mineral soils can be found in Sections 2.9.4.2 and 2.10.4.2 of this supplement. It is good practice to use Tier 2
or Tier 3 for estimating carbon stock changes from mineral soils if RV is a key category. A decision tree forselecting the tier for estimating carbon stock changes in mineral soils under RV is analogous to that for CM (seeFigure 2.9.1 of this supplement). At higher tiers, carbon stock change factors can be obtained from relevant
literature (e.g., Akala and Lal, 2000), long-term experiments and models. Further guidance on the use of higher
tier models can be found in Section 2.3.3, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

6889
6890
6891
6892
6893

The decision tree for methods to estimate emissions from organic soils under RV is similar to the one drawn for
CM (see Figure 2.9.3 of this supplement) if the RV activity occurs on Cropland or Grassland. The methods
described under Tiers 1, 2 and 3 for either FM, CM or GM also apply to RV activities involving either treed
lands, croplands or grasslands (see Sections 2.7, 2.9 and 2.10, respectively, of this supplement) and Chapters 4 9 in Volume 4 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

6894

CO2 emissions from liming are reported under Agriculture.

6895

2.11.4.1 C HOICE OF CARBON STOCK CHANGE FACTORS

6896

TIER 1

6897
6898
6899
6900
6901
6902
6903
6904
6905

Estimation of RV is more dependent on national definitions than is the case for other Article 3.4 activities. Whenusing Tier 1 methodologies, it is good practice to provide national information substantiating that theyadequately represent a Party’s national circumstances (Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of this supplement and Chapters 4 –9, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines contain methodologies that may be relevant). It is good practice for a
Party electing RV to provide values for stock changes in each carbon pool. If RV is deemed a key category, thenit is good practice to use Tier 2 or 3 methods. Decision 2/CMP.7172 specifies that a Party may choose not toaccount for a particular pool in a commitment period, if transparent and verifiable information is provided that
demonstrates that the pool is not a source. Requirements for reporting excluded pools and documenting that apool is not a source can be found in Section 2.3.1 of this supplement.
172

Paragraph 26 in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p16.

Draft KP Supplement

2.157

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
6906

TIER 2

6907
6908
6909

At Tier 2, it is good practice to provide verifiable methods and documentation to show how the carbon stockchange has been estimated for each pool elected under a RV activity. For any carbon pool not reported, it is goodpractice to provide verifiable information to demonstrate that it is not a source of GHG anthropogenic emissions.

6910

TIER 3

6911
6912
6913
6914

At Tier 3, ecosystem carbon cycle models parameterised for the relevant plant functional types and soils
included in the selected RV area could be used to estimate annual carbon emissions and removals. These models
need to be calibrated and validated against field observations that represent the national circumstances, be fully
documented and archived.

6915

2.11.4.2 C HOICE OF MANAGEMENT DATA

6916
6917
6918
6919
6920

Activities such as reclaiming or restoring herbaceous ecosystems on carbon-depleted soils, environmental
plantings, planting of trees, shrubs, grasses or other non-woody vegetation on various types of lands, including
urban areas, which qualify as RV can be considered. Area data on land uses and practices need to be available inaccordance with Approach 2 or Approach 3, following guidance given in Section 2.2.4 of this supplement.
Management data on RV required for each of three tiers are outlined briefly here.

6921

TIER 1

6922
6923
6924
6925
6926

Following guidance in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, impacts of land-use change or land managementchange under a RV activity are assumed, by default, to fully develop at the end of 20 years. The choice of default
emission factors influenced by management factors depends on the particular land uses involved in a particular
RV activity. At a minimum, the six broad land-use categories and changes between these categories need to be
specified and different types of RV activities considered separately.

6927

TIER 2

6928
6929
6930

For Tier 2, some management practices for RV may be either subdivided or new ones may be added to makethem country-specific, depending on the land uses involved in a RV activity. It is good practice that thosesubdivisions reflect close relationships between management practices and changes in carbon pools.

6931

TIER 3

6932
6933
6934
6935

Management data used in the more complex Tier 3 methodologies need to be consistent with the level of detailrequired by the model or models used to describe a particular RV activity. It is good practice to use management
data at a spatial resolution appropriate for the model, and to have, or be able to estimate reliably, quantitative
measures of the management factors required by the model.

6936
6937

It is good practice to provide detailed documentation specifying the practices included under RV and the carbon
emission and removal factors associated with each practice for each pool elected.

6938

2.11.4.3 N ON -CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES

6939
6940
6941

The choice of methods for estimating N2O and CH4 emissions from a RV activity depend on the land-use
categories involved (e.g. Cropland, Grassland, etc.) and the particular management practices (e.g. biomassburning, nitrogen fertilisation, liming, etc.) on those lands.

6942
6943
6944
6945
6946
6947
6948
6949

Methodologies for estimating N2O and CH4 emissions from RV activities involving the management of trees(outside forests but not in settlements), croplands or grasslands can be found in Sections 2.7.3 (FM), 2.9.4 (CM)or 2.10.4 (GM), respectively, of this supplement. For RV activities leading to the establishment of wetlands,
appropriate methodologies can be found in the Wetlands Supplement (see Footnote 1, Section 2.1 of this
supplement. N2O and CH4 emissions from the RV on Settlements can be estimated with methods described in
Chapter 8, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. When reporting N2O and CH4 emissions from RV, it is goodpractice to ensure consistency, completeness and no double-counting under Agriculture or CM (see Section
2.4.4.2 of this supplement).

6950

2.158

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

6951

2.12

WETLAND DRAINAGE AND REWETTING

6952

2.12.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements

6953
6954
6955
6956
6957

According to Decision 2/CMP.7“Wetland Drainage and Rewetting” is a system of practices for draining andrewetting on land with organic soil that covers a minimum area of 1 hectare. The activity applies to all lands
that have been drained since 1990 and to all lands that have been rewetted since 1990 and that are notaccounted for under any other activity, where drainage is the direct human-induced lowering of the soil watertable and rewetting is the direct human-induced partial or total reversal of drainage173

6958
6959
6960
6961
6962
6963
6964

Wetland Drainage and Rewetting (WDR) can only be implemented on organic soils, but under any land-use
category. Organic soils are defined in Annex 3A.5, Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The
definition of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines largely follows the FAO (1998, 2006) definition of ‘Histosol’, but allows
for country-specific definitions (Chapter 1 of the Wetlands Supplement (see Footnote 1, Section 2.1 of this
supplement)). It is good practice that Parties clearly define organic soils and use this definition consistently overtime. All other soils are classified as mineral soils following Annex 3A.5, Chapter 3 in Volume 4 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines.

6965
6966
6967
6968
6969
6970
6971
6972
6973

Drainage and rewetting under WDR refer to all practices in and outside managed land on organic soil that
directly affects the hydrological system, leading to a change in the mean annual water table in the organic soil.
Drainage includes both new drainage of formerly undrained land and a change in an existing drainage regime,
whereas rewetting includes partial and total reversal of drainage (hereafter addressed as ‘partial’ and ‘total
rewetting’, respectively). In case of WDR, these practices and their results are only considered, as far as thepractices have taken place since 1990. Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement provides methodological guidancefor drained and partially rewetted organic soil. Chapter 3 of the Wetlands Supplement provides methodologicalguidance for organic soil totally rewetted to near-natural water table level. Chapter 4 of the Wetlands Supplement
provides methodological guidance for drainage and rewetting of organic soils in coastal areas.

6974
6975
6976
6977
6978
6979

Human-induced drainage includes e.g. the installation of (additional) ditches or drainage pipes. Also
groundwater extraction in and outside the organic soil area may result in drainage. Direct human-induced
rewetting includes e.g. blocking drainage ditches and pipes or disabling pumping facilities. Also abandoning themaintenance of ditches resulting in water table rise is considered to be direct human-induced rewetting.
Naturally rising or falling water tables, e.g. as a result of natural succession or river/coastal erosion are notconsidered to be direct human-induced rewetting or drainage.

6980
6981
6982

The WDR activity includes only lands that are not accounted for under any other activity. Emissions andremovals due to drainage or rewetting practices on organic soils will be reported under other KP activities (seeBox 2.12.1) as follows:

6983
6984



Emissions and removals from drainage and rewetting associated with a conversion from non-forest to forest
or from forest to non-forest land will be reported under A, R or D.

6985
6986



Emissions and removals from drainage and rewetting of land remaining under FM will be reported under
FM.

6987
6988



Emissions and removals from drainage and rewetting on lands that meet the criteria for classification under
CM, GM or RV, will be reported under these activities if elected.

6989
6990
6991

Flooded land (as defined in Section 7.3, Chapter 7, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines) is not included
under this activity. CO2 emissions from rice cultivation are by priority reported under the CM activity, but may
be included under WDR when organic soils are rewetted for rice cultivation, and CM is not elected.

6992
6993
6994
6995
6996

The guidance for estimating and reporting of emissions and removals resulting from drainage and rewetting
practices (i.e. emissions and removals from drained and rewetted land) is given in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines andthe Wetlands Supplement (see Footnote 1, Section 2.1 of this supplement). The Wetlands Supplement introduces
updated emission and removal factors and new sources of off-site CO2 emissions and CH4 emissions fromditches for drained organic soils.

6997
6998

The base year for WDR is the same as for CM, GM and RV. Practical guidance for identification of land areas
for WDR in the base year and during the commitment period is given in Section 2.12.3 of this supplement.

6999
7000

The practices of drainage and rewetting result in immediate changes of GHG emissions and removals so that
there may be less need to establish a land-use history prior to 1990 for Tier 1 methods.
173

Paragraph 1(b) in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in the document FCCC/KP/AWG/2011/10/Add.1, p.13.

Draft KP Supplement

2.159

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
7001
7002
7003

BOX 2.12.1
EXAMPLES FOR REPORTING OF EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS FROM DRAINED OR REWETTED ORGANIC SOILSUNDER THE VARIOUS KP LULUCF ACTIVITIES

7004
7005
7006
7007
7008
7009

Whereas the activity WDR – if elected - only applies to lands on organic soils that have been
drained or rewetted since 1990 and that are not subject to any other mandatory or elected activity,
the practices of drainage and rewetting of organic soils may occur under any other activity under
Articles 3.3. or 3.4 and would be reported under these mandatory or elected activities accordingly.
The resulting emissions and removals from drained or rewetted lands on organic soil would, forexample, be reported under:

7010

D when7011

 a forest with organic soil is drained and converted to e.g. cropland

7012
7013
7014

 forest harvesting affects hydrologic conditions to the extent that regeneration to forest is not
anymore possible (e.g. when reduced evapotranspiration and consequent higher water tables
after clear felling prevent re-establishment of forest)

7015
7016
7017

 rewetting practices change the hydrologic conditions to the extent that forest cannot persist or
is not allowed to regenerate (e.g. when forest with organic soils is rewetted and felled toenhance specific biodiversity)

7018

AR when7019
7020

 land other than forest is drained for forestry (e.g. when a naturally treeless or sparsely treedorganic soil is drained to stimulate forest growth)

7021
7022

 land other than forest is rewetted for forestry (e.g. when drained organic soil used for grassland
is rewetted and planted with wetland trees, e.g. alder/Alnus)

7023

FM when7024
7025

 a forest is drained and remains a forest (e.g. when unproductive forested organic soil is drained
to increase productivity)

7026
7027

 a forest is rewetted and remains a forest (e.g. when an ash/Fraxinus forest on organic soil isrewetted for alder/Alnus forestry)7028

CM (if elected1) when

7029
7030

 land other than forest is drained for agriculture (e.g. when a treeless peatland is converted tocropland)

7031
7032

 cropland is rewetted but remains cropland (e.g. when a potato field on organic soil is rewetted
for paludiculture)7033

GM (if elected 1) when7034

 land other than forest is drained to improve grazing

7035
7036

 grassland on organic soil is rewetted but remains grassland (e.g. when a drained grassland fordairy cow husbandry is converted to a wet grassland for water buffalo husbandry)7037

RV (if elected 1) when

7038
7039

 land other than forest is revegetated and rewetted (e.g. when an abandoned bare peat extraction
site is actively converted to a vegetated wetland)

7040

WDR when

7041
7042



7043

1 if a Party had already elected this activity in the first commitment period, the reporting under this activity will be mandatory during the second commitment period

land other than forest land is rewetted and is not subject to any other mandatory or elected
activity.

7044

2.160

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

7045

2.12.2

Choice of methods for identifying lands

7046

2.12.2.1 G ENERAL G UIDANCE FOR IDENTIFYING LANDS

7047
7048
7049

The activity WDR can only be applied to organic soils that are drained or rewetted since 1990 and that are notincluded under any other mandatory or elected KP activity (see Chapter 1 and Figure 2.12.1 of this supplement
for further guidance).

Draft KP Supplement

2.161

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
7050
7051

Figure 2.12.1

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

7052
7053

2.162

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

7054
7055
7056
7057
7058
7059

As drainage or rewetting of organic soils may also occur under other accounted land-use activities, the WDR
activity will always concern only a subset of the total area of organic soil in the country. When drained organic
soil oxidizes, the organic soil layer becomes shallower. Over time the organic soil layer may become so shallowthat an area no longer complies with the criteria of an organic soil. It is good practice to apply the activity to allland with an organic soil that has been drained or rewetted since 1990 even if the soil on these lands hasconverted to mineral soil before or in the commitment period. These issues are illustrated in Box 2.12.1.

7060
7061
7062
7063

BOX 2.12.2
WETLAND DRAINAGE AND REWETTING AREAS IN 1990 AND THE COMMITMENT PERIOD (NET-NET
ACCOUNTING)

7064
7065
7066
7067
7068
7069
7070
7071

Lands to be reported under WDR if elected. The area of organic soils in the base year (a+b) can belarger than the area in the commitment period (b) if part of the organic soils has changed intomineral soils due to e.g. oxidation, peat extraction or deep-ploughing (a). The activity applies only
to those lands that have been drained and rewetted since 1990 (c) and that are not included in any
other activity (d). The land that will be reported under WDR (if elected) is thus the hatched area.
Emissions and removals from the same land are to be reported both for the base year and for thecommitment period year.

7072
7073
7074
7075
7076
7077
7078

Drainage and rewetting practices on organic soils can lead to large changes in GHG emissions and removals per
hectare (Tuittila et al., 1999; Drösler 2005). Consequently, particular care must be taken to make accurate
estimates of GHG emissions and removals both in the base year and in the commitment period. Countries areencouraged to use stratification by land-use category or similar or further subcategories in a way that theguidance in the Wetlands Supplement (see Footnote 1, Section 2.1 of this supplement) on methodologies andemission factors best matches the national conditions.

7079
7080

It is good practice for Parties to describe the criteria used to identify areas where WDR applies and to apply
these criteria consistently (see Section 2.2 of this supplement).

7081
7082
7083
7084

With respect to the minimum area of 1 ha to which WDR applies criteria can be defined as to the minimum
width. Then the minimum length of the area follows from the combination of width and the prescribed minimum
area of 1 ha. For example, with a minimum width of 20 m, a rectangle of minimum width has to be at least 500
m long to meet the 1 ha size requirement.

Draft KP Supplement

2.163

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
7085

2.12.2.2 S PECIFIC G UIDANCE FOR IDENTIFYING LANDS

7086
7087
7088

The identification of lands to be included under the WDR should follow a similar approach as described in
Section 2.9.1 of this supplement (see also decision tree in Figure 2.2.2). It is good practice to identify the lands
drained since 1990 and the lands rewetted since 1990 separately.

7089

There are two ways of identifying lands subject to WDR:

7090

OPTION 1

7091
7092

All managed lands with organic soils in 1990 are compared with all managed lands with organic soils in thecommitment period, using the following steps:

7093
7094
7095
7096

STEP 1: Identify the area of managed land on organic soil separately for 1990 and for the commitment period.
Information can be taken from the UNFCCC inventory. WDR may occur on the lands identified for 1990 and forthe commitment period minus the land reported under any other Article 3.3 or 3.4 activity in the commitment
period.

7097
7098
7099
7100
7101
7102
7103

STEP 2: Define water table sub-categories (e.g. deeply-drained, shallowly-drained, wet, at a minimum coveringdrained and wet as defined by the Wetlands Supplement) and stratify the land defined in Step 1 according tothese sub-categories for both 1990 and the commitment period. Data and information from the past can be oflower quality than recent data, whereas data sets may also be incomplete or not available for all years. Section
5.4 in Volume 1of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines provides guidance for how to provide consistent time series inthese cases. Water table classes can be identified on the basis of proxies/indicators (e.g. groundwaterobservations, land use, management practice).

7104
7105
7106
7107
7108
7109

STEP 3: Identify areas of land where a change in water table sub-category occurred between 1990 and thecommitment period (wet-dry/dry-wet transition matrix), while complying with the minimum area and land
tracking requirements for WDR (see Section 2.2). When, for higher tiers, transitional emission factors areapplied for recently drained or rewetted land, it may be necessary to construct a transition matrix including moredisaggregated water table classes, time since drainage or rewetting and other characteristics relevant to emissions
and removals as described in Section 2.12.2.4 of this supplement.

7110

OPTION 2

7111
7112

The areas of managed lands with organic soil where direct human-induced drainage or (partial) rewetting hastaken place since 1990 are directly identified, using the following steps:

7113
7114
7115
7116

STEP 1: Identify the area of managed land on organic soil in 1990 and in the commitment period. Information
can be taken from the UNFCCC inventory. WDR may occur on the areas identified for 1990 and for thecommitment period minus the area reported under any other Article 3.3 or 3.4 activities in the commitment
period.

7117
7118
7119
7120
7121

STEP 2: Within the area identified in Step 1, identify the areas where a direct human-induced drainage andrewetting has occurred since 1990, while complying with the minimum area and land tracking requirements for
WDR (see Section 2.2 of this supplement). Identify lands where drainage and lands where rewetting has takenplace separately (wet-dry/dry-wet transition matrix). Approach 2 will result in a non-spatially explicit land use
matrix, while Approach 3 is spatially explicit.

7122
7123
7124

STEP 3: Identify for the lands identified in Step 1 the magnitude of changes in water table by drainage andrewetting. This can include changes in water table classes (e.g. deeply-drained, shallowly-drained, wet, at aminimum covering drained and wet).

7125
7126
7127
7128
7129
7130
7131
7132
7133
7134

For both options 1 and 2, all the lands thus identified fall under WDR both in the base year (i.e. when thepractice of rewetting or drainage may not yet have taken place) and in the reporting year of the commitment
period. The land under WDR in the base year must thus match the land under WDR in each reporting year of thecommitment period. Land that has been reported under CM or GM in the base year but not in any year of thecommitment periods is included in WDR only in the commitment period to avoid double-counting with CM or
GM in the base year. As the area of land under WDR may grow during the commitment period when newly
drained or newly rewetted lands are added, the area of land under WDR in the base year has to grow accordingly.
For QA/QC, identify the geographical boundaries and areas of managed lands on organic soils in the base year
and for the commitment period. It is good practice to provide information on changes in the reported area ofmanaged organic soils (see also Box 2.12.1 of this supplement).

2.164

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

7135

2.12.2.3 G EOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES

7136
7137
7138
7139

A country that elects WDR must identify geographical boundaries of all areas of land on organic soil that havebeen subject to the practices of directly human-induced drainage or rewetting (see Section 2.12.1 of this
supplement) since the base year that are one hectare or larger, and do not fall under any other activity that takes
precedence.

7140
7141
7142
7143
7144
7145
7146

Approach 2 with supplementary information, or Approach 3, as described in Section 3.3.1, Chapter 3, Volume 4of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines can be chosen for land area identification. For Approach 2, existing administrative
records, land-use databases and soil maps may have relevant information to identify the relevant combinations ofland-use categories and management practices with drained or rewetted status and their changes over time. It
may be necessary to obtain additional data through sampling or other methods to allow the creation of a detailed
non-spatially explicit land-use matrix for the WDR activity that tracks changes in land-use and drainage statusover time.

7147
7148

Information sources about drainage and rewetting practices since 1990 with adequate disaggregation may
include:

7149
7150



National land-use registries and statistics, land-use maps and soil maps, maps of water and nature
conservation zones with restrictions for water management and maps of wetlands.

7151
7152
7153
7154
7155



National water management statistics: in most countries, the agricultural land base including croplands issurveyed regularly, providing data on distribution of different land uses, crops, tillage practice and otheraspects of management, often at sub-national or regional level. These statistics may originate, in part, fromremote sensing methods, from which additional information about wetness or periods with flooding could be
extracted.

7156
7157
7158



Inventory data from a statistically-based, plot-sampling system of water table wells, ditches and surface
waters on organic soils that allow interpretation of data in terms of human-induced drainage and rewetting
rather than inter-annual variability.

7159
7160
7161



Water management plans and documentation from water management installations. Information on theeffects of groundwater extraction on neighbouring water levels is generally available in the licensing for
groundwater extraction.

7162



Drainage maps.

7163



Maps of rewetting projects including remote sensing.

7164

2.12.2.4 S TRATIFICATION

7165
7166
7167

Stratification needs to be consistently applied in the base year and the commitment period. The following criteria
may be useful in establishing a national stratification for drained and rewetted land, which result in different
levels of GHG emissions or removals:

7168



Land use and management practices, as relevant

7169
7170



Drainage regime (water level, seasonality), following the water table classes defined in the first steps of theoptions 1 and 2 (Section 2.12.3), respectively, e.g.

7171

(i)

undrained / near natural water regime (Chapter 3 of the Wetlands Supplement),

7172
7173

(ii)

drained comparable to the typical water table range of the Wetlands Supplement for drained organicsoils (Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement),

7174
7175

(iii)

drained deeper than water level range of Wetlands Supplement for part or all of the year if
applicable,

7176
7177

(iv)

drained more shallowly than the water table range of Wetlands Supplement for partially drained or
rewetted for part or all of the year if applicable,

7178
7179
7180

(v)

flooded land (maybe further stratified by seasonally flooded or flooded throughout the year), if
applicable, which does not fall under the definition of “flooded land” or “reservoir” (See Section
7.1, Chapter 7 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines).

7181
7182
7183

For all resulting subcategories where drainage and rewetting have taken place, the areas afforested, reforested ordeforested since 1990 need to be tracked separately as these areas will be reported as lands subject to theactivities AR and D. Similarly areas under FM or any elected activity need to be tracked and reported separately.

Draft KP Supplement

2.165

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
7184
7185

At higher tiers further subdivision of the area under WDR may be useful, e.g. by seasonality of drainage
management.

7186

2.12.37187

Choice of methods for estimating GHG emissions andremovals

7188
7189
7190
7191
7192
7193
7194
7195
7196

Guidance on methodologies for estimating carbon stock changes, CO2 emissions and removals and non-CO2
GHG emissions on land subject to WDR is given in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines supplemented by the Wetlands
Supplement. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines provide methodologies for the estimation of carbon stocks and carbon
stock changes in above- and below-ground biomass, dead wood and litter for inland organic soils, whereas
Chapter 4 of the Wetlands Supplement provides additional guidance for these pools for coastal organic soils. The
Wetlands Supplement provides methodologies and updated emission factors for estimating emissions andremovals from organic soils. Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement provides guidance for drained inland organicsoils, Chapter 3 of the Wetlands Supplement for rewetted and wet inland organic soils and Chapter 4 of the
Wetlands Supplement for coastal organic soils.

7197
7198

It is good practice to estimate and report GHG emissions from drained land (Chapter 2 of the Wetlands
Supplement) and from rewetted land (Chapter 3 of the Wetlands Supplement) under WDR separately.

7199
7200
7201
7202
7203

Generic guidance about the choice of methods is given in Section 2.3.6 of this supplement. For key category
analysis, the absolute values of emissions and removals from all land under WDR are summed. WDR is a key
category if (1) this sum is greater than the emissions from the key category with the smallest emissions as
identified in the UNFCCC inventory (including LULUCF) (= level analysis) or (2) the trend (change over time)of WDR is larger than that from the key category with the smallest changes (= trend analysis).

7204
7205
7206
7207
7208
7209

If WDR is a key category, it is good practice to determine whether one of the two subcategories rewetting or
drainage is particularly important. Following decision trees in Figures 1.2 and 1.3 in Chapter 1, Volume 4 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines, a subcategory is considered significant if it accounts for 25-30 percent of the overall
emissions or removals of the category (which applies to at least one of the two subcategories drainage orrewetting). It is good practice to report the significant subcategories with higher tier methods and to focus efforts
towards methodological improvements on these subcategories.

7210

Detailed guidance is found:

7211
7212
7213
7214



for above-ground and below-ground biomass, dead wood and litter on organic soils in Volume 4 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines in Chapter 2 (generic), Chapter 4 (Forest Land), Chapter 5 (Cropland), Chapter 6(Grassland), Chapter 7 (Wetlands) and Chapter 8 (Settlements), as well as Chapter 4 of the Wetlands
Supplement (coastal wetlands).

7215
7216



for non-CO2 GHG emissions from biomass burning by controlled burning and wildfires in the under therespective land-use categories in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

7217
7218



for GHG emissions from peat fires: Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement, including Tier 1 methods forCO2 and CH4 and higher tier methods for N2O.

7219



for on-site CO2 emissions and removals from organic soils:

7220
7221

(v)

for drained and partially rewetted inland organic soils: Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement,
including Tier 1 and higher tier methods,

7222
7223

(vi)

for fully rewetted and wet inland organic soils: Chapter 3 of the Wetlands Supplement, including
Tier 1 and higher tier methods,

7224
7225

(vii)

for coastal organic soils: Chapter 4 of the Wetlands Supplement, including Tier 1 and higher tiermethods.

7226
7227



for off-site CO2 emissions from dissolved organic carbon: Chapter 2 (from drained land) and Chapter 3(from rewetted land) of the Wetlands Supplement, Tier 1 and higher tier methods.

7228
7229
7230
7231



for off-site CO2 emissions from peat extraction for horticulture and soil amendment: Chapter 7, Volume 4 of2006 IPCC Guidelines for Tier 1. Countries using higher tier methods that deviate from the Tier 1
assumption that the peat is fully oxidized during the extraction year need to document that no doublecounting takes place and that CO2 emissions from peat in horticultural use are taken into account.

7232
7233
7234



for N2O emissions from drained organic soils: Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement for inland organic soils;
Chapter 4 of Wetlands Supplement for coastal organic soils, Tier 1 and higher tier methods, whilst avoiding
double-counting with N2O reported under Agriculture.

2.166

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

7235
7236



for CH4 emissions from drainage ditches on organic soils: Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement, Tier 1 andhigher tier methods.

7237
7238



for CH4 emissions from rewetted organic soils: Chapter 3 of the Wetlands Supplement, Tier 1 and higher tiermethods.

7239
7240
7241
7242

Decision 2/CMP.7174 specifies that a Party may choose not to account for a particular pool in a commitment
period, if transparent and verifiable information is provided that demonstrates that the pool is not a source.
Requirements for reporting excluded pools and documenting that a pool is not a source can be found in Section
2.3.1 of this supplement.

7243
7244

It is good practice to use consistent methodologies and emission factors across ARD, FM and elected Article 3.4
activities.

7245
7246

It is good practice to use the same methodologies for estimating emissions and removals in the base year and in
all years of the commitment period.

7247
7248
7249
7250

Some of the CH4 and N2O emissions on agricultural soils as well as CO2 emissions from liming and urea
application are in most cases not reported under WDR but under the Agriculture sector. When reporting theseemissions, it is good practice to ensure consistency, completeness and no double-counting under Agriculture or
WDR (see Section 2.4.4.2 of this supplement).

7251

174

Paragraph 26 in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p16.

Draft KP Supplement

2.167

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
7252

References

7253

COMMON TO THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT

7254
7255

IPCC (1997) Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Inventories - Vol 3 Chp 5 Land Use Change
and Forestry. IPCC/OECD/IEA, 76 p.

7256
7257
7258

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

7259
7260
7261

IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K.
(eds). Published: IGES, Japan.

7262
7263
7264

UNFCCC (2006) Decision 16/CMP.1: Land use, land-use change and forestry.FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3,
UnitedNations
Framework
Convention
on
ClimateChange,Bonn,Germany,
unfccc.int/resource/docs/2005/cmp1/eng/08a03.pdf

7265
7266
7267

UNFCCC (2011) Decision 2/CMP.6: The Cancun Agreements: Land use, land-use change and forestry.
FCCC/KP/CMP/2010/12/Add.1, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn,
Germany, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cmp6/eng/12a01.pdf#page=5

7268
7269
7270

UNFCCC (2012) Decision 2/CMP.7: Land use, land-use change and forestry. FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1,
UnitedNations
Framework
Convention
on
ClimateChange,Bonn,Germany,
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cmp7/eng/10a01.pdf#page=11

7271

SECTION 1.1 THROUGH SECTION 2.4 (EXCEPT SECTION 2.3.9)

7272
7273
7274

Batjes, N. H. (2011) Soil organic carbon stocks under native vegetation - Revised estimates for use with thesimple assessment option of the Carbon Benefits Project system. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
142(3-4): 9.

7275
7276
7277

Briffa, K. R., Shishov, V. V., Melvin, T. M., Vaganov, E. A., Grudd, H., Hantemirov, R. M., Eronen, M. &Naurzbaev, M. M. (2008) Trends in recent temperature and radial tree growth spanning 2000 years acrossnorthwest Eurasia. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 363(1501): 2269−2282.

7278
7279
7280
7281
7282
7283

Ciais, P., Reichstein, M., Viovy, N., Granier, A., Ogee, J., Allard, V., Aubinet, M., Buchmann, N., Bernhofer, C.,
Carrara, A., Chevallier, F., De Noblet, N., Friend, A. D., Friedlingstein, P., Grunwald, T., Heinesch, B.,
Keronen, P., Knohl, A., Krinner, G., Loustau, D., Manca, G., Matteucci, G., Miglietta, F., Ourcival, J. M.,
Papale, D., Pilegaard, K., Rambal, S., Seufert, G., Soussana, J. F., Sanz, M. J., Schulze, E. D., Vesala, T. &Valentini, R. (2005) Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003.
Nature 437: 529–533.

7284
7285

Congalton, R. G. & Green, K. (2009) Assessing the Accuracy of Remotely Sensed Data: Principles and Practices.
Boca Raton: CRC Press.

7286
7287
7288

Coppin, P., Jonckheere, I., Nackaerts, K., Muys, B. & Lambin, E. (2004) Review Article. Digital change
detection methods in ecosystem monitoring: a review. International Journal of Remote Sensing 25(9): 15651596.

7289
7290
7291

Dymond, J. R., Shepherd, J. D., Newsome, P. F., Gapare, N., Burgess, D. W. & Watt, P. (2012) Remote sensingof land-use change for Kyoto Protocol reporting: the New Zealand case. Environmental Science & Policy 16:
1-8.

7292
7293
7294

Gonzalez, P., Asner, G. P., Battles, J. J., Lefsky, M. A., Waring, K. M. & Palace, M. (2010) Forest carbon
densities and uncertainties from Lidar, QuickBird, and field measurements in California. Remote Sensing ofEnvironment 114(7): 1561-1575.

7295
7296
7297

Griffis, T. J., Black, T. A., Morgenstern, K., Barr, A. G., Nesic, Z., Drewitt, G. B., Gaumont-Guay, D. &McCaughey, J. H. (2003) Ecophysiological controls on the carbon balances of three southern boreal forests.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 117: 19.

7298
7299
7300

Hember, R. A., Kurz, W. A., Metsaranta, J., Black, T. A., Guy, R. D. & Coops, N. C. (2012) Accelerating
regrowth of intact temperate-maritime forests due to environmental change. Global Change Biology 18 (6):2026-2040. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02669.x.

7301
7302

Husch, B., Beers, T. W. & Kershaw, J. A. (2003) Forest Mensuration, 4th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 443
pp.

2.168

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

7303
7304
7305

IPCC. (2003) IPCC Meeting on current scientific understanding of the processes affecting terrestrial carbon
stocks and human influences upon them. Eds. D. Schimel & M. Manning, IPCC/NOAA.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/ipcc-meeting-2003-07.pdf

7306
7307
7308

IPCC. (2010a) Revisiting the Use of Managed Land as a Proxy for Estimating National Anthropogenic
Emissions and Removals. Eds. H. S. Eggleston, N. Srivastava, K. Tanabe & J. Baasansuren: IGES, Japan.
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/mtdocs/pdfiles/0905_MLP_Report.pdf

7309
7310
7311
7312

IPCC. (2010b) Datasets for use in the IPCC Guidelines, eds. H. S. Eggleston, N. Srivastava, K. Tanabe & J.
Baasansuren, Meeting Report of the IPCC – FAO – IFAD Expert Meeting on FAO Data for
LULUCF/AFOLU, Rome, Italy, 20-22 October, 2009: IGES, Hayama, Japan 2010. http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/mtdocs/pdfiles/0910_FAO-IFAD-IPCC-Meetingreport.pdf

7313
7314
7315
7316

IPCC. (2010c) Meeting Report of the Expert Meeting on Uncertainty and Validation of Emission Inventories,
eds. H. S. Eggleston, J. Baasansuren, K. Tanabe & N. Srivastava, Expert Meeting on Uncertainty andValidation of Emission Inventories, Utrecht, the Netherlands, 23-25 March, 2010: IGES, Japan.
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/mtdocs/pdfiles/1003_Uncertainty meeting_report.pdf

7317
7318
7319
7320

Kurz, W. A. (2010) Large inter-annual variations in carbon emissions and removals, Invited background paper,
pages 41-48. In: IPCC 2010, Revisiting the Use of Managed Land as a Proxy for Estimating National
Anthropogenic Emissions and Removals, eds: Eggleston H.S., Srivastava N., Tanabe K., Baasansuren J.
Meeting Report, 5 -7 May, 2009, INPE, São José dos Campos, Brazil: IGES, Japan

7321
7322
7323

Kurz, W. A., Dymond, C. C., White, T. M., Stinson, G., Shaw, C. H., Rampley, G. J., Smyth, C., Simpson, B. N.,
Neilson, E. T., Trofymow, J. A., Metsaranta, J. & Apps, M. J. (2009) CBM-CFS3: a model of carbondynamics in forestry and land-use change implementing IPCC standards. Ecological modelling 220: 25.

7324
7325

Li, W., Zhang, P., Ye, J., Li, L. & Baker, P. A. (2011) Impact of two different types of El Niño events on the
Amazon climate and ecosystem productivity. Journal of Plant Ecology 4(1-2): 9.

7326
7327

Lillesand, T. M., Kiefer, R. W. & Chipman, J. W. (2008) Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation. New York:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

7328
7329

Magnussen, S., Kurz, W., Leckie, D. G. & Paradine, D. (2005) Adaptive cluster sampling for estimation of
deforestation rates. European Journal of Forest Research 124(3): 207-220.

7330
7331
7332

McRoberts, R. E., Cohen, W. B., Nsset, E., Stehman, S. V. & Tomppo, E. O. (2010) Using remotely sensed datato construct and assess forest attribute maps and related spatial products. Scandinavian Journal of Forest
Research 25:4: 340-367.

7333
7334

McRoberts, R. E. & Walters, B. F. (2012) Statistical inference for remote sensing-based estimates of net
deforestation. Remote Sensing of Environment 124: 394–401.

7335
7336
7337

Olofsson, P., Foody, G. M., Stehman, S. V. & Woodcock, C. E. (2013) Making better use of accuracy data inland change studies: Estimating accuracy and area and quantifying uncertainty using stratified estimation.
Remote Sensing of Environment 129: 122-131.

7338
7339
7340
7341
7342

Richards, G. (2010) Background Paper to the IPCC Expert Meeting Revisiting the use of Managed Land as a
Proxy for Estimating Anthropogenic Emissions and Removals, pages 30-38. In: IPCC 2010, Revisiting theUse of Managed Land as a Proxy for Estimating National Anthropogenic Emissions and Removals, eds. H. S.
Eggleston, N. Srivastava, K. Tanabe & J. Baasansuren. Meeting Report, 5 -7 May, 2009, INPE, São José dos
Campos, Brazil: IGES, Japan.

7343
7344

Richards, G. P. & Brack, C. (2004) A continental biomass stock and stock change estimation approach forAustralia. Australian Forestry 67(4): 284-288.

7345
7346
7347
7348

Saby, N. P. A., Bellamy, P. H., Morvan, X., Arrouays, D., Jones, R. J. A., Verheijen, F. G. A., Kibblewhite, M.
G., Verdoodt, A. N. N., ÜVeges, J. B., Freudenschuß, A. & Simota, C. (2008) Will European soil-monitoring
networks be able to detect changes in topsoil organic carbon content? Global Change Biology 14(10): 24322442.

7349
7350
7351
7352
7353

Smith, P. (2010) Fingerprinting as a technique for attributing direct and indirect human induced effects(including changes in C stocks in crop & grasslands caused by climate change), Invited background paper,
pages 39-40. In: IPCC 2010, Revisiting the Use of Managed Land as a Proxy for Estimating National
Anthropogenic Emissions and Removals, eds. H. S. Eggleston, N. Srivastava, K. Tanabe & J. Baasansuren.
Meeting Report, 5 -7 May, 2009, INPE, São José dos Campos, Brazil: IGES, Japan.

7354
7355

Smith, P., Powlson, D. S., Glendining, M. J. & Smith, J. U. (1998) Preliminary estimates of the potential for
carbon mitigation in European soils through no-till farming. Global Change Biology 4: 679-685.

Draft KP Supplement

2.169

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
7356
7357
7358
7359

Stinson, G., Kurz, W. A., Smyth, C. E., Neilson, E. T., Dymond, C. C., Metsaranta, J. M., Boisvenue, C.,
Rampley, G. J., Li, Q., White, T. M. & Blain, D. (2011) An inventory-based analysis of Canada's managed
forest carbon dynamics, 1990 to 2008. Global Change Biology 17(6): 2227-2244. doi: 10.1111/j.13652486.2010.02369.x.

7360
7361
7362

Tate, K. R., Scott, N. A., Saggar, S., Giltrap, D. J., Baisden, W. T., Newsome, P. F., Trotter, C. M. & Wilde, R.
H. (2003) Land-use change alters New Zealand's terrestrial carbon budget: uncertainties associated withestimates of soil carbon change between 1990-2000. Tellus 55B: 364-377.

7363
7364
7365
7366

Townshend, J. R., Masek, J. G., Huang, C., Vermote, E. F., Gao, F., Channan, S., Sexton, J. O., Feng, M.,
Narasimhan, R., Kim, D., Song, K., Song, D., Song, X.-P., Noojipady, P., Tan, B., Hansen, M. C., Li, M. &Wolfe., a. R. E. (2012) Global characterization and monitoring of forest cover using Landsat data:
opportunities and challenges. 5 (5): 373-397.

7367
7368

Waterworth, R. M. & Richards, G. P. (2008) Implementing Australian forest management practices into a fullcarbon accounting model. Forest Ecology and Management 255(7): 2434-2443.

7369
7370
7371

Yasuda, Y., Saito, T., Hoshino, D., Ono, K., Ohtani, Y., Mizoguchi, Y. & Morisawa, T. (2012) Carbon balance
in a cool-temperate deciduous forest in northern Japan: seasonal and interannual variations, andenvironmental controls of its annual balance. Journal of Forest Research 17(3): 15.

7372

SECTION 2.3.9

7373
7374
7375
7376
7377

Allen, C.D., Macalady, A.K., Chenchouni, H., Bachelet, D., McDowell, N., Vennetier, M., Kitzberger, T.,
Rigling, A., Breshears, D.D., Hogg, E.H. (Ted), Gonzalez, P., Fensham, R., Zhang, Z., Castro, J., Demidova,
N., Lim, J.-H., Allard, G., Running, S.W., Semerci, A. and Cobb, N. (2010). A global overview of drought
and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. Forest Ecology andManagement 259(4): 660-684.

7378
7379

Bebi, P., Kulakowski, D. and Rixen, C. (2009). Snow avalanche disturbances in forest ecosystems-State ofresearch and implications for management. Forest Ecology and Management 257(9): 1883-1892.

7380
7381
7382

Bentz, B.J., Régnière, J., Fettig, C.J., Hansen, E.M., Hayes, J.L., Hicke, J.A., Kelsey, R.G., Negrón, J.F. andSeybold, S.J. (2010). Climate change and bark beetles of the western United States and Canada: direct andindirect effects. Bioscience 60(8): 602-613.

7383
7384

Canadian Council of Forest Minister (2012a). Forest pest monitoring in Canada [electronic resource]: current
situation, compatibilities, gaps and proposed enhanced monitoring program.

7385
7386

Canadian Council of Forest Minister (2012b). Forest pest knowledge collection and exchange [electronic
resource]: Pest Strategy Information System.

7387
7388

Canadian Council of Forest Minister (2012c). National forest insect and disease diagnostic and taxonomic
resources and tools [electronic resource]: current situation and future considerations.

7389
7390

Chambers, J. Q., Fisher, J.I., Zeng, H.C., Chapman, E.L., Baker, D.B. and Hurtt, G.C. (2007). "Hurricane
Katrina's carbon footprint on U. S. Gulf Coast forests." Science 318(5853): 1107-1107.

7391
7392
7393

Dymond, C.C., Neilson, E.T., Stinson, G., Porter, K., MacLean, D.A., Gray, D.R., Campagna, M. and Kurz,
W.A., (2010). Future spruce budworm outbreak may create a carbon source in Eastern Canadian forests,
Ecosystems 13: 917–931 DOI: 10.1007/s10021-010-9364-z.

7394
7395

Fujimori, T., Matsuda, M. and Kiyono, Y. (1987). "Stand Structure and Snow Damage in Relation to Stand Age- Sugi Plantations in Fukui Prefecture in the 1981 Heavy-Snowfall." J. Jpn. For. Soc. 69(3): 94 - 104.

7396
7397
7398

Fuller, R.M., Smith, G.M. and Devereux, B.J. (2003). "The characterisation and measurement of land coverchange through remote sensing: problems in operational applications?" International Journal of Applied
Earth Observation and Geoinformation 4(3): 243 - 253.

7399

Gill, A.M. (1975). Fire and the Australian flora: a review. Australian Forestry, v. 38, no. 1, p. 4-25.

7400
7401

Girardin, M.P., Ali, A.A. and Hély, C. (2010). Wildfires in boreal ecosystems: past, present and some emerging
trends. International Journal of Wildland Fire 19: 991–995.

7402
7403
7404

Hicke, J.A., Allen, C.D., Desai, A.R., Dietze, M.C., Hall, R.J., Hogg, E.H., Kashian, D.M., Moore, D., Raffa,
K.F., Sturrock, R.N. and Vogelmann, J. (2012). Effects of biotic disturbances on forest carbon cycling in the
United States and Canada. Global Change Biol. 18(1): 7−34.

7405
7406
7407

Hirsch, K.G. and Fuglem, P., Technical Coordinators (2006). Canadian Wildland Fire Strategy: backgroundsyntheses, analyses, and perspectives. Canadian Council Forest Ministers, Natural Resources Canada,
Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, AB.

2.170

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

7408
7409
7410

Kamijo, T. and Hashiba, K. (2003). Island ecosystem and vegetation dynamics before and after the 2000-Year
eruption on Miyake-jima island, Japan, with implications for conservation of the island's ecosystem. Global
Environmental Research, 7: 69-78.

7411
7412

Kato, A. (2008). Characteristics for Sugi (Cryptomeria japonica D. Don) Stands and Trees with High Snow
Accretion Damage Risk in Toyama Prefecture. FORMATH, 8, 45-61. (in Japanese with English abstract)

7413
7414
7415

King, K.J., de Ligt, R.M. and Cary, G.J. (2011). Fire and carbon dynamics under climate change in south-eastern
Australia: Insights from FullCAM and FIRESCAPE modelling. International Journal of Wildland Fire,
20(4): 563-577.

7416
7417
7418

Kramer, K., Vreugdenhil, S.J. and van der Werf, D.C. (2008). Effects of flooding on the recruitment, damage
and mortality of riparian tree species: A field and simulation study on the Rhine floodplain. Forest Ecology
and Management 255(11): 3893–3903.

7419
7420
7421
7422

Kurz, W.A., Dymond, C.C., White, T.M., Stinson, G., Shaw, C.H., Rampley, G.J., Smyth, C., Simpson, B.N.,
Neilson, E.T., Trofymow, J.A., Metsaranta, J. and Apps, M.J. (2009). CBM-CFS3: a model of carbondynamics in forestry and land-use change implementing IPCC standards, Ecological Modelling 220: 480-504,
doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.10.018.

7423
7424
7425

Kurz, W.A, Dymond, C.C., Stinson, G., Rampley, G.J., Neilson, E.T., Carroll, A.L., Ebata, T. and Safranyik, L..
(2008). Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change, Nature 452:987-990,
doi:10.1038/nature06777.

7426
7427
7428

Lindner, M., Maroschek, M., Netherer, S., Kremer, A., Barbati, A., Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Seidl, R., Delzon, S.,
Corona, P., Kolström, M., Lexer, M.J. and Marchetti, M. (2010). Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity,and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems, Forest Ecology and Management, 259(4): , 698-709.

7429
7430
7431
7432
7433
7434
7435
7436
7437
7438

Phillips, O.L., Aragão, L.E.O.C., Lewis, S.L., Fisher, J.B., Lloyd, J., López-González, G., Malhi, Y.,
Monteagudo, A., Peacock, J., Quesada, C.A., van der Heijden, G., Almeida, S., Amaral, I., Arroyo, L.,
Aymard, G., Baker, T.R., Bánki, O., Blanc, L., Bonal, D., Brando, P., Chave, J., Alves de Oliveira, Á.C.,
Dávila Cardozo, N., Czimczik, C.I., Feldpausch, T.R., Freitas, M.A., Gloor, E., Higuchi, N., Jiménez, E.,
Lloyd, G., Meir, P., Mendoza, C., Morel, A., Neill, D.A., Nepstad, D., Patiño, S., Peñuela, M.C., Prieto, A.,
Ramírez, F., Schwarz, M., Silva, J., Silveira, M., Sota Thomas, A., ter Steege, H., Stropp, J., Vásquez, R.,
Zelazowski, P., Alvarez Dávila, E., Andelman, S., Andrade, A., Chao, K., Erwin, T., Di Fiore, A., Honorio,
C., Keeling, E., Killeen, H., Laurance, T.J., Peña Cruz, W.F., Pitman, A., Núñez Vargas, N.C.A., RamírezAngulo, P., Rudas, H., Salamão, A., Silva, R., Terborgh, N. and Torres-Lezama, J.A. (2009). Drought
sensitivity of the Amazon rainforest. Science 323: 1344–1347.

7439
7440
7441

Raffa, K.F., Aukema, B.H., Bentz, B.J., Carroll, A.L., Hicke, J.A., Turner, M.G. and Romme, W.H. (2008).
Cross-scale drivers of natural disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: the dynamics of bark beetle
eruptions. Bioscience 58: 501–517.

7442
7443

Swetnam, T.W. and Anderson, R.S. (2008). Fire Climatology in the western United States: introduction to
special issue. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 17: 1–7.

7444
7445

Tomppo, E., Gschwantner, T., Lawrence, M. and McRoberts, R.E. (Eds.) (2010). National Forest Inventories –Pathways for Common Reporting, Springer: USA, p. 612, ISBN978-90-481r-r3232-4.

7446
7447
7448

Viña, A., Chen, X.D., McConnell, W.J., Liu, W., Xu, W.H., Ouyang, Z.Y., Zhang, H.M. and Liu, J.G. (2011).
"Effects of Natural Disasters on Conservation Policies: The Case of the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake, China."
Ambio 40(3): 274-284.

7449
7450

Williams, R. J. and Bradstock, R.A. (2008). Large fires and their ecological consequences: introduction to thespecial issue. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 17: 685–687.

7451
7452

Yamashita, A., Sano, J. and Yamamoto, S. (2002). Impact of a strong typhoon on the structure and dynamics ofan old-growth beech (Fagus crenata) forest, southwestern Japan. Folia Geobotanica, 37: 5-16.

7453
7454

SECTION 2.5 THROUGH SECTION 2.7

7455
7456

Davis, M. R. & Condron, L. M. (2002) Impact of grassland afforestation on soil carbon in New Zealand: areview of paired-site studies. Soil Research 40: 675-690.

7457
7458

Don, A., Schumacher, J. & Freibauer, A. (2011) Impact of tropical land-use change on soil organic carbon stocks– a meta-analysis. Global Change Biology 17(4): 1658-1670.

7459
7460

Guo, L. B. & Gifford, R. M. (2002) Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta-analysis. Global Change
Biology 8(4): 345-360.

Draft KP Supplement

2.171

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
7461
7462

IPCC. (2003) Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from Direct Human-induced
Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types. Japan: IGES.

7463
7464
7465

IPCC. (2010) Use of Models and Facility-Level Data in Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Report of IPCC Expert
Meeting on Use of Models and Measurements in Greenhouse Gas Inventories 9-11 August 2010, Sydney,
Australia). Japan: IGES.

7466
7467

Laganière, J., Angers, D. A. & Parè, D. (2010) Carbon accumulation in agricultural soils after afforestation: ameta-analysis. Global Change Biology 16(1): 439-453.

7468
7469
7470

Merino, A. N., Pérez-Batallón, P. & Macıá s, F. (2004) Responses of soil organic matter and greenhouse gas
fluxes to soil management and land use changes in a humid temperate region of southern Europe. Soil
Biology and Biochemistry 36(6): 917-925.

7471
7472
7473
7474

Paul, K. I., Polglase, P. J. & Richards, G. P. (2003) Predicted change in soil carbon following afforestation or
reforestation, and analysis of controlling factors by linking a C accounting model (CAMFor) to models offorest growth (3PG), litter decomposition (GENDEC) and soil C turnover (RothC). Forest Ecology andManagement 177(1–3): 485-501.

7475
7476

Post, W. M. & Kwon, K. C. Soil carbon sequestration and land-use change: processes and potential. Global
Change Biology 6: 317-327.

7477
7478

Schulp, C. J. E., Nabuurs, G.-J. & Verburg, P. H. (2008) Future carbon sequestration in Europe—Effects of land
use change. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 127(3–4): 251-264.

7479
7480
7481

Tate, K. R., Scott, N. A., Saggar, S., Giltrap, D. J., Baisden, W. T., Newsome, P. F., Trotter, C. M. & Wilde, R.
H. (2003) Land-use change alters New Zealand's terrestrial carbon budget: uncertainties associated withestimates of soil carbon change between 1990–2000. Tellus B 55(2): 364-377.

7482
7483

Vesterdal, L., Ritter, E. & Gundersen, P. (2002) Change in soil organic carbon following afforestation of former
arable land. Forest Ecology and Management 169(1–2): 137-147.

7484

SECTION 2.8

7485
7486
7487

Brown, S., Lim, B. and Schlamadinger, B. (1998). Evaluating approaches for estimating net emissions ofcarbon dioxide from forest harvesting and wood products. IPCC/OECD/IEA Programme on National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 20 p.

7488
7489

Cowie, A., Pingoud, K. and Schlamadinger, B. (2006). Stock changes or fluxes? Resolving terminologicalconfusion in the debate on land-use change and forestry. Climate Policy 6: 161-179.

7490
7491
7492
7493
7494

European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and Sustainability (2010).
International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - Specific guide for Life Cycle Inventory
data sets. First edition March 2010. EUR 24709 EN. Luxembourg. Publications Office of the European
Union; 142 p. http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pdf-directory/ILCD-Handbook-Specific-guide-for-LCI-online12March2010.pdf

7495
7496

FAO (2012). FAOSTAT-Forestry Database [online]. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United
Nations. http://www.fao.org/forestry/statistics/en/

7497
7498

Fengel, D. and Wegener, G. (1984). Wood – chemistry, ultrastructure, reactions. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter &Co., 613 p.

7499
7500
7501

Forest Products Laboratory (2010). Wood Handbook: Wood as an engineering material. United States
Department of Agriculture, General Technical Report, FPL-GTR-190, 509 p. http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/
documnts/fplgtr/fpl_gtr190.pdf

7502
7503

Gjesdal, S.F.T., Flugsrud, K., Mykkelbost, T.C., and Rypdal, K. (1996). A balance of use of wood products in
Norway. Norwegian Pollution Control Authority SFT, Report 96:04, 54 p.

7504
7505
7506

Grӧnfors, J. (2010). Use of fillers in paper and paperboard grades. Tampere University of Applied Sciences,
International Pulp and Paper Technology. Final Thesis, 36 p. http://publications.theseus.fi/bitstream/
handle/10024/16226/Gronfors_Jarkko.pdf?sequence=1

7507
7508

ISO (2006a). Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework. ISO 14040:200610.

7509
7510

ISO (2006b). Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines. ISO
14044:2006-10.

7511
7512

ISO (2008). Buildings and constructed assets – Service life planning – Part 8: Reference service life and service
life estimation. ISO 15686-8:2008(E).

2.172

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

7513
7514

ISO (2011). Buildings and constructed assets – Service life planning – Part 1: General Principles. ISO 156861:2011(E).

7515
7516
7517

Johannsen, V. K., Nord-Larsen, T. and Suadicani, K. (2011). Submission of information on forest management
reference levels by Denmark. Forest & Landscape Denmark, Forest & Landscape Working Papers No. 582011, 35 p. http://unfccc.int/files/home/application/pdf/awgkp_denmark_2011.pdf

7518
7519
7520
7521

Kangas, K. and Baudin, A. (2003). Modelling and projections of forest products demand, supply and trade inEurope. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)/Food and Acriculture Organization(FAO) of the United Nations, Timber Section, ECE/TIM/DP/30, 203 p. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/
DAM/timber/docs/efsos/03-sept/dp-30.pdf

7522
7523

Karjalainen, T., Kellomäki, S. and Pussinen, A. (1994). Role of wood-based products in absorbing atmosphericcarbon. Silva Fennica 28(2): 67–80.

7524
7525
7526
7527

Karjalainen, T., Asikainen, A., Ilavsky, J., Zamboni, R., Hotari, K.-E. and Röser, D. (2004). Estimation ofenergy wood potential in Europe. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Joensuu Research Centre, Working
Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 6, 43 p. http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/
2004/mwp006.pdf

7528
7529
7530
7531

Lawrence, M., McRoberts, R.E., Tomppo, E., Gschwantner, T. and Gabler, K. (2010). Comparisons of national
forest inventories. In: Erkki Tomppo, Thomas Gschwantner, Mark Lawrence, McRoberts R.E. (Eds).
National Forest Inventories. Pathways for Common Reporting. Springer, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London,
New York. pp 19-32. DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-3233-1_1

7532
7533

Marland, E., Stellar, K. and Marland, G. (2010). A distributed approach to accounting for carbon in wood
products. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 15(1): 71-91.

7534
7535

Paulopuro, H. (Ed.) (2000). Papermaking Science and Technology, Book 18: Paper and Board Grades. TAPPI
Press. Atlanta.

7536
7537

Pingoud, K., Perälä, A.L. and Pussinen, A. (2001). Carbon dynamics in wood products. Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 6(2): 91-111.

7538
7539
7540

Pingoud, K. and Wagner, F. (2006). Methane emissions from landfills and carbon dynamics of harvested wood
Products: The first-order decay revisited. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 11(5):961-978.

7541
7542
7543

Rüter, S. (2011). Projection of net-emissions from harvested wood products in European countries - For theperiod 2013-2020. Thünen-Institute of Wood Research, Report No: 2011/01, 63 p.
http://literatur.vti.bund.de/digbib_extern/dn048901.pdf

7544
7545

Rüter, S. and Diederichs, S. (2012). Ökobilanz-Basisdaten für Bauprodukte aus Holz. Thünen-Institute of Wood
Research, Report No: 2012/01, 316 p. http://literatur.vti.bund.de/digbib_extern/dn050490.pdf

7546
7547
7548

Skog, K. and Nicholson, G.A. (1998). Carbon cycling though wood products: the role of wood and paper
products
incarbonsequestration.
ForestProducts
Journal48(7/8):75-83.
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf1998/skog98a.pdf

7549
7550

Statistics Finland (2010). Greenhouse gas emissions in Finland 1990-2008: National Inventory Report under the
UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. 470 p. http://www.stat.fi/tup/khkinv/fin_nir_20100525.pdf

7551
7552
7553

Tsunetsugu, Y. and Tonosaki, M. (2010). Quantitative estimation of carbon removal effects due to wood
utilization up to 2050 in Japan: Effects from carbon storage and substitution of fossil fuels by harvested wood
products. Journal of Wood Science 56(4): 339-344.

7554
7555

UNFCCC Secretariat (2003). Estimation, reporting, and accounting of harvested wood products - Technicalpaper. FCCC/TP/2003/7 27 October 2003. Bonn, Germany. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/tp/tp0307.pdf

7556
7557
7558

Wilson, J.B. (2010). Life-cycle inventory of particleboard in terms of resources, emissions, energy and carbon.
Wood
and
Fiber
Science
42(CorrimSpecialIssue):
90-106.
http://www.corrim.org/pubs/reports/2010/swst_vol42/90.pdf

7559
7560
7561

Wilson, J.B. and Sakimoto, E.T. (2005). Gate-to-gate life-cycle inventory of softwood plywood production,
Wood and Fiber Science, 37 (Corrim Special Issue), 58 – 73. http://www.corrim.org/pubs/reports/2005/
swst/58.pdf

7562
7563

Winjum, J.K., Brown, S. and Schlamadinger, B. (1998). Forest harvests and wood products: Sources and sinks
of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Forest Science 44(2): 272-284.

7564

Draft KP Supplement

2.173

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
7565

SECTION 2.9 THROUGH SECTION 2.12

7566
7567

Akala, V. A. & Lal, R. (2000) Potential of mine land reclamation for soil organic carbon sequestration in Ohio.
Land Degradation and Development 11: 289-297.

7568
7569
7570

Ball, B. C., Crichton, I. & Horgan, G. W. (2008) Dynamics of upward and downward N2O and CO2 fluxes inploughed or no-tilled soils in relation to water-filled pore space, compaction and crop presence. Soil and
Tillage Research 101(1-2): 20-30.

7571
7572
7573

Bhatia, A., Sasmal, S., Jain, N., Pathak, H., Kumar, R. & Singh, S. (2010) Mitigating nitrous oxide emission
from soil under conventional and no-tillage in wheat using nitrification inhibitors. Agriculture, Ecosystems &Environment 136(3-4): 247-253.

7574
7575
7576

Chirinda, N., Carter, M. S., Albert, K. R., Ambus, P., Olesen, J. E., Porter, J. R. & Petersen, S. O. (2010)
Emissions of nitrous oxide from arable organic and conventional cropping systems on two soil types.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 136(3-4): 199-208.

7577
7578
7579

Coleman, K. & Jenkinson, D. S. (1996) RothC-26.3- A Model for the turnover of carbon in soil. In: In: Powlson
D.S., Smith P., and Smith J.U. (eds.) Evaluation of Soil Organic Matter Models Using Existing, Long-Term
Datasets, NATO ASI Series I, Vol.38, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. pp. 237-246. 234.

7580
7581

Conant, R. T., Easter, M., Paustian, K., Swan, A. & Williams, S. (2007) Impacts of periodic tillage on soil C
stocks: A synthesis. Soil and Tillage 95: 1-10.

7582
7583

Droesler, M. (2005) Trace gas exchange of bog ecosystems, Southern Germany. . In: Technische Universitat
Munchen: Technische Universitat Munchen, Freising.

7584
7585

Drury, C. F., Reynolds, W. D., Tan, C. S., Welacky, T. W., Calder, W. & McLaughlin, N. B. (2006) Emissionsof nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide. Soil Science Society of America Journal 70(2): 570-581.

7586
7587

Elder, J. W. & Lal, R. (2008) Tillage effects on gaseous emissions from an intensively farmed organic soil in
North Central Ohio. Soil and Tillage Research 98(1): 45-55.

7588
7589

FAO. (1998) World reference base for soil resources. In: p. 88. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United
Nations, Rome.

7590
7591

FAO. (2006) World reference base for soil resources: A framework for international classification, correlationand communication. In: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

7592
7593
7594

Gregorich, E. G., Rochette, P., St-Georges, P., McKim, U. F. & Chan, C. (2008) Tillage effects on N2Oemissions from soils under corn and soybeans in eastern Canada. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 88: 153–
161.

7595
7596
7597

Helgason, B., Janzen, H., Chantigny, M., Druru, C. F., Ellert, B. H., Gregorich, E. G., Lemke, R. L., Patty, E.,
Rochette, P. & Wagner-Riddle, C. (2005) Toward improved coefficients for predicting direct N2O emissions
from soil in Canadian agroecosystems. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 72: 87-99.

7598
7599

IPCC. (2000) Land-use, Land-use Change, and Forestry: A Special Report. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.

7600
7601

Koch, H. J. & Stockfisch, N. (2006) Loss of soil organic matter upon ploughing under a loess soil after several
years of conservation tillage. Soil and Tillage Research 86: 73-83.

7602
7603
7604

Lee, J., Hopmans, J. W., van Kessel, C., King, A. P., Evatt, K. J., Louie, D., Rolston, D. E. & Six, J. (2009)
Tillage and seasonal emissions of CO2, N2O and NO across a seed bed and at the field scale in a
Mediterranean climate. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 129(4): 378-390.

7605
7606

Liu, X., Mosier, A., Halvorson, A. & Zhang, F. (2006) The Impact of Nitrogen Placement and Tillage on NO,
N2O, CH4 and CO2 Fluxes from a Clay Loam Soil. Plant and soil 280(1): 177-188.

7607
7608

Parton, W. J., Schimel, D. S., Cole, C. V. & Ojima, D. S. (1987) Analysis of factors controlling soil organic
matter levels in Great Plains grasslands. Soil Science Society of America Journal 51(5): 1173-1179.

7609
7610
7611

Petersen, S. O., Schjønning, P., Thomsen, I. K. & Christensen, B. T. (2008) Nitrous oxide evolution fromstructurally intact soil as influenced by tillage and soil water content. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 40(4):967-977.

7612
7613
7614

Qunicke, J. A., Wortmann, C. S., Mamo, M., Franti, T. & Drijber, R. A. (2007) Occasional tillage of no-till
systems:carbon dioxide flux and changes in total and labile soil organic carbon. Agronomy Journal 99: 11581168.

2.174

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Final Draft

7615
7616
7617

Rochette, P., Angers, D. A., Chantigny, M. H. & Bertrand, N. (2008) Nitrous oxide emissions responddifferently to no-till in a loam and a heavy clay soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal 72(5): 13631369.

7618
7619
7620

Shirato, Y., Hakamata, T. & Taniyama, I. (2004) Modified Rothamsted carbon model for andosols and its
validation: Changing humus decomposition rate constant with pyrophosphate-extractable Al. Soil Scienceand Plant Nutrition 50: 149-158.

7621
7622
7623

Singurindy, O., Molodovskaya, M., Richards, B. K. & Steenhuis, T. S. (2009) Nitrous oxide emission at low
temperatures from manure-amended soils under corn (Zea mays L.). Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
132(1-2): 74-81.

7624
7625
7626

Six, J., Stephen, M. O., breidt, F. J., Rich, T. C., Arvin, R. M. & Keith, P. (2004) The potential to mitigate global
warming with no-tillage management is only realized when practised in the long term. Global Change
Biology 10(2): 155-160.

7627
7628
7629

Smith, P., Powlson, D., Glendining, M. & Smith, J. O. (1997) Potential for carbon sequestration in European
soils: Preliminary estimates for five scenarios using results from long‐term experiments. Global Change
Biology 3(1): 67-79.

7630
7631
7632

Smith, P., Powlson, D. S., Smith, J. U., Falloon, P. & Coleman, K. (2001) Meeting Europe's climate changecommitments: quantitative estimates of the potential for carbon mitigation by agriculture. Global Change
Biology 6(5): 525-539.

7633
7634
7635
7636

Suddick, E. C., Steenwerth, K., Garland, G. M., Smart, D. R. & Six, J. (2011) Chapter 12 Discerning
Agricultural Management Effects on Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Conventional and Alternative Cropping
Systems: A California Case Study. In: Understanding Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agricultural
Management; Guo, L., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.

7637
7638

Tuittila, E. S., Komulainen, V.-M., Vasander, H., Laine, J. (1999) Restored cut-away peatland as a sink foratmospheric CO2. Oecologia 120: 563-574.

7639
7640

VandenBygaart, A. J. & Kay, B. D. (2004) Persistence of soil organic carbon after plowing a long-term no-tillfield in southern Ontario, Canada. Soil Science Society of America Journal 68: 1394-1402.

7641
7642

Venterea, R. T., Burger, M. & Spokas, K. A. (2005) Nitrogen oxide and methane emissions under varying tillage
and fertilizer management. Journal of Environmental Quality 34(5): 1467-1477.

7643

Draft KP Supplement

2.175

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting tables
Final Draft

7644

7645
7646
7647

ANNEX 2A.1

REPORTING TABLES FOR KP LULUCF
ACTIVITIES UNDER THE KYOTO
PROTOCOL

Draft KP Supplement

2A.1

Annex 2A.1 Reporting tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
TABLE 2A.1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table

Content

Notes
Summary Table

Table 1A

Summary table of emissions andremovals from activities under Article
3.3, Forest Management and elected
activities under Article 3.4

Table 1B

Selected parameters for defining "Forest"
under the Kyoto Protocol (additional
information)

This table is intended to demonstrate completeness incarbon pools and GHG reporting and to report the
total net GHG emissions in the inventory year fromeach mandatory and elected activity.

Land Transition Matrix

Table 2A

Table 2B

Land Transition Matrix with areas andchanges in areas between the previous
and the current inventory year

Area of natural forests converted toplanted forests (additional information)

The value of the reported area subject to the various
activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 for the inventory
year should be that on 31 December of that year.
Total area reported in this table should match thetotal area of the country.
This table should be used to report land areas ofnatural forests converted to planted forests since thestart of the commitment period, if any. Associatedemissions and removals are implicitly reported under
Forest Management.

Key Category Analysis
Table 3

Summary of Key Categories for Land
Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry
activities under the Kyoto Protocol

List all KP-LULUCF Key Categories and describe
for each category why and how it has been identified
as key.

Article 3.3: Afforestation and Reforestation

Table 4A

Table 4B

Article 3.3 activities: Carbon stockchanges under Afforestation and
Reforestation

Background level of emissions
associated with natural disturbances in
AR lands and its margin, where a marginis needed (additional information)

Report in this table carbon stock changes in all lands,
encompassed by each geographical location, that are
subject to Afforestation and Reforestation under
Article 3.3.
All lands reported under Afforestation and
Reforestation that would otherwise be subject toForest Management.
Report information in this table only if the Partyelected to exclude emissions in forest associated withnatural disturbances that are beyond the control of,and not materially influenced by, the Party. (SeeTable 6.D for background levels in FM lands).
Report information in this table only if the Partyelected to exclude emissions in forest associated withnatural disturbances that are beyond the control of,and not materially influenced by, the Party.

Table 4C

2A.2

Emissions associated with natural
disturbances (additional information)

Information reported in this table is additional to thatreported in table 4A and 10, and therefore does not
replace the need to report in those tables all carbon
stock changes and all non-CO2 GHG emissions
associated with natural disturbances.
Report in this table information on changes in carbon
stocks and non-CO2 GHG emissions for the inventory
year for all geographical locations that encompass
lands subject to Afforestation and Reforestation
under Article 3.3 where natural disturbances haveoccurred, only if the total emissions associated withnatural disturbances have exceeded the backgroundlevel plus the margin, where the margin is needed.

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting tables
Final Draft
Report information in this table only if the Partyelected to exclude emissions in forest associated withnatural disturbances that are beyond the control of,and not materially influenced by, the Party.

Table 4D

Removals subsequent to natural
disturbances (additional information)

Information reported in this table is additional to thatreported in table 4A, and therefore does not replace
the need to report in that table all carbon stockchanges in AR lands.
Report here all removals in the inventory year, for all
geographical locations that encompass lands subject
to Afforestation and Reforestation where natural
disturbances have occurred in any previous year of
the commitment period and for which associatedemissions have exceeded the background level plus
the margin, where the margin is needed.

Article 3.3: Deforestation
Report in this table carbon stock changes in all lands,
encompassed by each geographical location, that are
subject to Deforestation under Article 3.3.
Table 5A

Article 3.3 activities: Carbon stockchanges under Deforestation

Lands that have been deforested and subsequently
reforested need to be reported as a subcategory of
deforested land in order to transparently reportemissions and removals on these lands which, despite
being reported under D, match the forest definition.
Report information in this table only if the Partyelected to exclude emissions in forest associated withnatural disturbances that are beyond the control of,and not materially influenced by, the Party.

Table 5B

Deforested land previously subject tonatural disturbances (additional
information)

Information reported in this table is additional to thatreported in tables 4A and 10, and therefore does not
replace the need to report in those tables all carbon
stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions
associated with natural disturbances.
Report in this table information on forested land thathas been converted to non-forested land use after
having been subject to natural disturbances in a yearof the commitment period where emissions
associated with natural disturbances have exceeded
the background level plus the margin, where a marginis needed.

Article 3.4: Forest Management
Table 6A

Article 3.4 activities: Carbon stockchanges under Forest Management

Report in this table carbon stock changes in all lands,
encompassed by each geographical location, that are
subject to Forest Management under Article 3.4.

Table 6B

Forest Management reference level(additional information)

Report here the numerical values of the FMRL (withHWP pool and without), and any further TechnicalCorrection, and information on the methodologicalapproach applied to calculate it.

Table 6C

Carbon Equivalent Forests (CEF)(additional information)

Information reported in this table is additional to thatreported in table 6A, and therefore does not replace
the need to report in that table all carbon stockchanges associated with clearing and establishing offorests reported as Carbon Equivalent Forests under
Forest Management. This table is aimed at checking
whether the equivalent forest that has been planted isachieving the expected carbon stock.
Report in this table information on carbon stock thatwas in the cleared forest plantation (CEF-hc), at timeof harvesting, and of current carbon stock in theequivalent forested area (CEF-ne), for all lands
subject to the CEFC provisions, within Forest

Draft KP Supplement

2A.3

Annex 2A.1 Reporting tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
Management under Article 3.4 (see paragraphs 37-39
of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7) for which the"carbon equivalence" has not been achieved yet. Thismeans that lands should be reported here until theyear, and including the year, in which the carbon
equivalence is achieved.

Table 6D

Background level of emissions
associated with natural disturbances in
FM lands and its margin, where a marginis needed (additional information)

Report information in this table only if the Partyelected to exclude emissions in forest associated withnatural disturbances that are beyond the control of,and not materially influenced by, the Party.
Report information in this table only if the Partyelected to exclude emissions in forest associated withnatural disturbances that are beyond the control of,and not materially influenced by, the Party.

Table 6E

Emissions associated with natural
disturbances (additional information)

Information reported in this table is additional to thatreported in tables 4A and 10, and therefore does not
replace the need to report in those tables all carbon
stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions
associated with natural disturbances.
Report in this table information on changes in carbon
stocks and non-CO2 GHG emissions for the inventory
year for all geographical locations that encompass
lands subject to Forest Management under Article 3.4
where natural disturbances have occurred, only if thetotal emissions associated with natural disturbances
have exceeded the background level plus the margin,
where the margin is needed.
Report information in this table only if the Partyelected to exclude emissions in forest associated withnatural disturbances that are beyond the control of,and not materially influenced by, the Party.
Information reported in this table is additional to thatreported in table 6A, and therefore does not replace
the need to report in that table all carbon stockchanges in FM lands.

Table 6F

Removals subsequent to natural
disturbances (additional information)

Report in this table all incremental removals in theinventory year, for all geographical locations thatencompass lands subject to Forest Management
where natural disturbances have occurred in any
previous year of the commitment period and forwhich associated emissions have exceeded thebackground level plus the margin, where the marginis needed. Incremental removals are those additional
to the removals from the lands that have been
embedded in the FMRL construction.

Article 3.4: Cropland Management – Grazing Land Management – Revegetation – Wetland Drainage andRewetting

Table 7

Carbon stock changes under elected
Article 3.4 activities

Report in this table carbon stock changes in all lands,
encompassed by each geographical location, that are
subject to the elected activities under Article 3.4.
For each elected activity, this table and all relevant
tables should also be reported for the base year.

Non-CO2 GHG emissions

Table 8A

2A.4

Direct and Indirect N2O emissions fromN inputs to managed soils

Report in this table direct and indirect N2O emissions
from N fertilization in all lands, encompassed byeach geographical location, which are subject toactivities under Article 3.3 and 3.4, and whose
emissions have not been reported in the Agriculture
Sector.

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting tables
Final Draft
N2O emissions from N inputs to areas, subject to
Article 3.3 or 3.4, which are activities included under
Cropland and Grassland in the Convention reporting
should be reported in the Agriculture Sector. If a
Party is not able to separate fertilizer applied todifferent land-use categories, it may report all N2O
emissions from fertilization in the Agriculture Sector
and this table should not be filled

Table 8B

Table 9A

N2O emissions from mineralised N
resulting from loss of soil organic C
stocks in mineral soils through land-use
change or management practices

CH4 and N2O emissions from Drainage
of organic soils

Report in this table N2O emissions from mineralised
N resulting from loss of soil organic C stocks inmineral soils through land-use change ormanagement practices in all lands, encompassed byeach geographical location, which are subject toactivities under Article 3.3 and 3.4, and whose
emissions have not been reported in the Agriculture
Sector.
N2O emissions from mineralised N resulting fromloss of soil organic C stocks in mineral soils throughland-use change or management practices in areas,
subject to Article 3.3 or 3.4 activities, which areincluded under Cropland and Grassland in theConvention reporting should be reported in the
Agriculture Sector.
Report in this table CH4 and N2O emissions from
Drainage of organic soils in all lands, encompassed
by each geographical location, which are subject toactivities under Article 3.3 and 3.4, and whose
emissions have not been reported in the Agriculture
Sector.
CH4 and N2O emissions from drainage of organicsoils in areas, subject to Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities,
which are included under Cropland and Grassland in
the Convention reporting should be reported in the
Agriculture Sector.

Table 9B

CH4 and N2O emissions from Rewettingof organic soils

Report in this table CH4 and N2O emissions fromRewetting of organic soils in all lands, encompassed
by each geographical location, which are subject toactivities under Article 3.3 and 3.4, and whose
emissions have not been reported in the Agriculture
Sector.
CH4 and N2O emissions from rewetting of organicsoils, in areas subject to Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities,
which are included under Cropland and Grassland in
the Convention reporting should be reported in the
Agriculture Sector.
Report in this table GHG emissions from burning oforganic matter in all lands, encompassed by eachgeographical location, which are subject to activities
under Article 3.3 and 3.4, and whose emissions havenot been reported in the Agriculture Sector.

Table 10

GHG emissions from burning of organic
matterCO2 emissions from burning of organic matter thatare reported as C stock changes in the relevant
activity table (i.e. tables 4A, 5A, 6A, 7) should not bereported here.
Non-CO2 emissions associated with burning of living
biomass and DOM of savannas and of agriculturalresidues should be reported in the Agriculture Sector.

Harvested Wood Products
Table 11A

Carbon stock changes in the Harvested
Wood Products pool

Draft KP Supplement

2A.5

Annex 2A.1 Reporting tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
HWP originated in the first commitment period fromlands subject to AR activities should not be reported
here.

Table 11B

Harvested Wood Products activity data

When FM was elected in the first commitment
period, HWP originated in the first commitment
period from lands subject to FM activities should not
be reported here.
When for FM the Party chose not to include historical
HWP in its reporting, HWP originated before 1
January 2013 from lands subject to FM activities
have should not be reported here.

GENERAL NOTES:
1. Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass lands subject to the activity (or subject tothe particular provision).
2. Activity data may be further subdivided according to climate zone, management system, soil type, vegetation type,
tree species, ecological zone, national land classification or other criteria. One row should be completed for eachsubdivision.
3. The value reported for net change in SOC of organic soils could be an emission and not a carbon stock change.

2A.6

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables
Final Draft

TABLE 1A
SUMMARY TABLE
Emissions and removals from activities under Article 3.3, Forest Management and elected activities under Article 3.4
Inventory year:
Changes in carbon pool and sources of greenhouse gases reported
Soil organic matter
Activity

Abovegroundbiomass

Belowgroundbiomass

Litter

Dead
wood

SOC
(Gg C)

Article 3.3
activities

HWP

Mineral soils
N2O emissions fromN mineralized during
soil organic matter
losses in mineral soils(Gg C)(Gg N2O)

Organic soils
Drainage
SOC(Gg C)

Rewettingnon-CO2 GHG
emissions(Gg CH4)(Gg N2O)SOC(Gg C)

non-CO2 GHG
emissions(Gg CH4)(Gg N2O)ARDFM
CM (if elected)

Article 3.4
activities

GM (if elected)
RV (if elected)
WDR (if elected)
Changes in carbon pool and sources of greenhouse gases reported
Activity

Fertilization inforest land
(Gg N2O)

Article 3.3
activities

Burning of organic matter(Gg CO2)(Gg CH4)

Total emissions/removals reported
Net CO2(Gg N2O)CH4N2ONet CO2equivalent

(Gg)

AR
D
FM
CM (if elected)

Article 3.4
activities

GM (if elected)
RV (if elected)
WDR (if elected)

7648

Draft KP Supplement

2A.7

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

Table 1B
Additional information: Selected parameters for defining "Forest" under the Kyoto Protocol
Inventory year
Parameter

Selected value

Minimum land area
Minimum tree crown cover
Minimum height
Minimum width

7649
7650

2.8

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables
Final Draft

TABLE 2A
LAND TRANSITION MATRIXAreas and changes in areas of activities between the previous and the current inventory year
Inventory YearTo current inventory year
Article 3.3 activities
Afforestation
andReforestation

Deforestation

Article 3.4 activities

ForestManagement

CroplandManagement(if elected)

Grazing
Land
Management(if elected)

Revegetation(if elected)

Wetland
Drainage
andRewetting(if elected)

Other(i.e. All
remainingarea inthecountry)

Total areaat thebeginningof thecurrent
inventory
year

Afforestation and
Reforestation
Deforestation
Forest Management

Article 3.4 activities

From previous inventory year

Article 3.3
activities(kha)

Cropland Management(if elected)
Grazing Land Management(if elected)
Revegetation(if elected)
Wetland Drainage andRewetting(if elected)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

Other
(i.e. All remaining area in the
country)
Total area at the end of the current
inventory year
(1) Only in case of Carbon Equivalent Forests

7651

Draft KP Supplement

2A.9

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

TABLE 2B
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: AREA OF NATURAL FORESTS CONVERTED TO PLANTED FORESTS
Inventory year
GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION
Identification code

Area of natural forests converted to planted forests
Subdivision

Year of conversion

Area subject to conversion

Area of organic soils
(kha)

Total

7652
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF KEY CATEGORIES FOR LAND USE, LAND-USE CHANGE AND FORESTRY ACTIVITIES UNDER THE KYOTO PROTOCOL
Inventory year
KEY CATEGORIESSpecify key categories according to thenational level of disaggregation used

CRITERIA USED FOR KEY CATEGORY IDENTIFICATION
Gas

Associated category in
UNFCCC inventory is key(indicate the category)Is the category contribution greaterthan the smallest category considered
key in the UNFCCC inventory(including LULUCF)? (Y/N)

Other

COMMENTS (1)(1) Describe if category has been identified as Key Category for trend and/or level assessment, with Approach1 and/or Approach2

7653

2.10

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables
Final Draft

TABLE 4A
ARTICLE 3.3 ACTIVITIES: CARBON STOCK CHANGES UNDER AFFORESTATION AND REFORESTATION
Inventory year
GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION

Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA

Subdivision

Year ofconversion

CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK
Area oforganic soils

Area subject tothe activity
DrainedRewetted

Other

Carbon stock change in aboveground biomass

Carbon stock change in belowground biomass

Gains

Gains

LossesNet change(kha)LossesNet change(Gg C)TOTAL FOR ACTIVITY AR

Lands subject to natural disturbances which associated emissions have been excluded from accounting
TOTAL

GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION

CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK
Net carbon stock change in soils

Identification code

Net carbon stockchange in litter

Net carbon stockchange in dead wood

Net carbon stockchange in HWP (1)Net CO2

Organic soils
Mineral soils
DrainedRewetted(Gg C)Other(Gg CO2)TOTAL FOR ACTIVITY AR

Lands subject to natural disturbances which associated emissions have been excluded from accounting
TOTAL(1) Data to be reported in this table come from the "Net Change" column of table 11A. A single value for the total net change in the HWP at national level could be reported here. Further, if
HWP reporting is based on instantaneous oxidation, then report IO.

Draft KP Supplement

2A.11

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

7654
TABLE 4B
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: BACKGROUND LEVEL OF EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL DISTURBANCES IN AR LANDS AND ITS MARGIN, WHERE A MARGIN IS NEEDEDInventory year
Background level
Methodology applied(default/country-specific)

Margin (where needed)

per unit of area

Adjusted to the area subject to
AR in the CP year

per unit of area

Adjusted to the area subject to
AR in the CP year

(Mg CO2-eq ha-1)(Gg CO2-eq)(Mg CO2-eq ha-1)(Gg CO2-eq)

7655
TABLE 4C
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL DISTURBANCES
Inventory year
GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION

Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA

Subdivision

Type of natural
disturbances (1)Year of occurrenceof natural
disturbances

EMISSIONS
Area
(kha)

CO2 (2)

CH4

N2O

Total CO2equivalent(Gg)

Total AR land subject to natural disturbances(1) More than a single natural disturbance may have occurred in the same year in the same land
(2) Whether a stock-difference method is used for estimating carbon stock losses in the area subject to natural disturbances, it should be demonstrated that CO2-C emissions associated withharvesting (including salvage logging), in the inventory year, have not been reported here.

7656
7657

2.12

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables
Final Draft

TABLE 4D
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: REMOVALS SUBSEQUENT TO NATURAL DISTURBANCES
Inventory year
GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONACTIVITY DATA

Identification code

Year of occurrence of
natural disturbances

REMOVALS
Subdivision

Area
(kha)

(Gg CO2)

Total AR land subject to natural disturbances

7658
7659

Draft KP Supplement

2A.13

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

Table 5A
Article 3.3 activities: Carbon stock changes under Deforestation
Inventory year
GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION

Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA

Subdivision

Year ofconversion

Article 3.4 activity
to which the land
would otherwise be
subject (1)Areasubject
to theactivity

CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK
Area oforganic soils
DrainedRewetted

Carbon stock change inabove-ground biomass
Other

Gains

LossesCarbon stock change inbelow-ground biomass

Net change

(kha)

Gains

LossesNet change(Gg C)

Total for activity D

Total for areas
subsequently
reforested

GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION

CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK
Net carbon stock change in soils

Identification code

Net carbon stock change
in litter

Net carbon stock change
in dead wood

Net CO2

Organic soils
Mineral soils
Drained(Gg C)

Rewetted

Other(Gg CO2)

Total for activity D

Total for areas
subsequently
reforested(1) Whether the land would be otherwise subject to FM or to any elected activity, the identification acronym of FM or of the elected activity -i.e. CM, GM, RV, WDR- should be reported here
(see paragraph 2 (b) (ii) of Annex II to Decision 2/CMP.8)

2.14

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables
Final Draft

7660
TABLE 5B
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: DEFORESTED LAND PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISTURBANCES
Inventory year
GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION

Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA

Subdivision

Year ofoccurrence of
naturaldisturbancesType of natural
disturbances (1)EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL DISTURBANCES
Area
(kha)

CO2

CH4

N2O

Total CO2equivalent(Gg)

Total land where
deforestation followed
natural disturbances(1) More than a single natural disturbance may have occurred in the same year in the same land

7661
7662

Draft KP Supplement

2A.15

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

Table 6A
Article 3.4 activities: Carbon stock changes under Forest Management
Inventory year
GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION

Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA

Subdivision

Year (1)

CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK
Area oforganic soils

Area subject tothe activity
DrainedRewetted

Other

Carbon stock change in aboveground biomass

Carbon stock change in belowground biomass

Gains

Gains

LossesNet change(kha)LossesNetchange(Gg C)TOTAL FOR ACTIVITY FM

forested land for CEFC (CEF-ne)
TOTAL
cleared land within CEFC (CEF-hc)
TOTAL
lands subject to natural disturbances which associated emissions have been excluded from accounting
TOTAL

7663

2.16

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables
Final Draft

Table 6A (continued)
Article 3.4 activities: Carbon stock changes under Forest Management
Inventory year
GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION

CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK
Net carbon stock change in soils

Identification code

Net carbon stockchange in litter

Net carbon stockchange in dead wood

Net carbon stockchange in HWP (2)Net CO2

Organic soils
Mineral soils
DrainedRewetted(Gg C)Other(Gg CO2)TOTAL FOR ACTIVITY FM

forested land for CEFC (CEF-ne)
TOTAL
cleared land within CEFC (CEF-hc)
TOTAL
lands subject to natural disturbances which associated emissions have been excluded from accounting
TOTAL
For lands reported as Carbon Equivalent Forest, report here the year in which the land has been either forested or cleared. While for lands subject to natural disturbances for which associatedemissions have been excluded from accounting, report here the year in which the natural disturbances occurred.
(2) Data to be reported in this table come from the "Net Change" column of table 11A. A single value for the total net change in the HWP at national level could be reported here. Further, if
HWP reporting is based on instantaneous oxidation, report here IO
(1)

7664

Draft KP Supplement

2A.17

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

TABLE 6B
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: FOREST MANAGEMENT REFERENCE LEVEL
Inventory year
Value inscribed in Appendix to Decision
2/CMP.7 (1)Approach applied

Technical correction as calculated in the reporting
year: (2)

HWP
Methodology (3)

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

Inclusion of Natural
Disturbance(Yes/No)

Methodology(4)

Inclusion of thehistorical stock(5)(Yes/No)

with instantaneousoxidation for HWP

with first order decayfunction for HWP

2015

---

Gg CO2-eq yr-1

The value inscribed in Appendix to Decision 2/CMP.7 is here reported in Gg CO2-eq yr-1
Add a column for each reporting year in which a technical correction has been calculated
Business-as-usual, Base year
Instantaneous oxidation, First Order Decay function, Country-specificThis is reflected in cell “Initial stock” in Table 11A

7665
TABLE 6C
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: CARBON EQUIVALENT FORESTS (CEF)
Inventory year
CLEARED AREA (CEF-hc)
GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION

Area

Carbon stockat harvesting

EQUIVALENT FORESTED AREA (CEF-ne)
CURRENT DATA

NormalHarvesting cycle

GEOGRAPHICALLOCATIONArea

Age ofplantation

Carbon stock

(kha)

Years

(Gg C)

Subdivision
Identification code
Total

(kha)

(Gg C)

Years

Identification code
Total

7666
7667

2.18

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables
Final Draft

TABLE 6D
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: BACKGROUND LEVEL OF EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL DISTURBANCES IN FM LANDS AND ITS MARGIN, WHERE A MARGIN IS NEEDEDInventory year
Background level
Methodology applied(default/country-specific)

Margin (where needed)

per unit of area

Adjusted to the area subject to
FM in the CP year

per unit of area

Adjusted to the area subject to
FM in the CP year

(Mg CO2-eq ha-1)(Gg CO2-eq)(Mg CO2-eq ha-1)(Gg CO2-eq)

7668
TABLE 6E
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL DISTURBANCES
Inventory year
GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION

Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA

Subdivision

Type of natural
disturbances (1)Year ofoccurrence of
naturaldisturbance

EMISSIONS
Area
(kha)

CO2 (2)

CH4

N2O

Total CO2equivalent(Gg)

Total for activity FM(1) More than a single natural disturbance may have occurred in the same year in the same land.
(2) When a stock-difference method is used for estimating carbon stock losses in the area subject to natural disturbances, it should be demonstrated that CO2-C emissions associated withharvesting (including salvage logging), in the inventory year, have not been reported here.

7669
7670

Draft KP Supplement

2A.19

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

TABLE 6F
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: REMOVALS SUBSEQUENT TO NATURAL DISTURBANCES
Inventory year
GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION
Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA
Subdivision

Year of occurrence of
natural disturbances

Area

INCREMENTALREMOVALS(kha)(Gg CO2)

Total FM land subject to natural disturbances

7671
7672

2.20

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables
Final Draft

Table 7
Carbon stock changes under elected Article 3.4 activities
Inventory year
GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION

ACTIVITY DATA

Activity (1)Identification code

SubdivisionArea
subject tothe activity

CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK
Area oforganic soils

DrainedRewetted

Other

Carbon stock change in aboveground biomass

Carbon stock change in belowground biomass

Gains

Gains

LossesNet change(kha)Total for elected activity

Net change(Gg C)(2)

GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION

CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK
Net carbon stock change in soils
Net carbon stock change
in litter

Identification code

Net carbon stock change indead wood

Net CO2

Organic soils
Mineral soils
DrainedRewetted(Gg C)
Total for elected activity

LossesOther(Gg CO2)(2)

Report the identification acronym of the elected activity i.e. CM, GM, RV, WDR(2) For each elected activity, complete a set of rows with lands subject to the elected activity and add one row with the total for the elected activity
(1)

7673

Draft KP Supplement

2A.21

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

TABLE 8A
DIRECT AND INDIRECT N2O EMISSIONS FROM N INPUTS TO MANAGED SOILS
Inventory year
GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION
Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA
Activity (1)EMISSIONS

Total amount of N inputs applied

N2O(kt N/year)(Gg)

Subdivision

Total
Total activity AR

Total activity D

Total activity FM

Total elected activity (2)(1) Report the identification acronym of the elected activity i.e. CM, GM, RV, WDR.
(2) For each elected activity, complete a set of rows with lands subject to the activity and add one row with the total for the elected activity.

7674
7675

2.22

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables
Final Draft

TABLE 8B
N2O EMISSIONS FROM MINERALISED N RESULTING FROM LOSS OF SOIL ORGANIC C STOCKS IN MINERAL SOILS THROUGH LAND-USE CHANGE OR MANAGEMENT PRACTICESInventory year
GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION
Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA
Activity (1)EMISSIONSLand area converted

N2O

(kha)

(Gg)

Subdivision

Total
Total activity AR

Total activity D

Total activity FM

Total elected activity (2)(1) Report the identification acronym of the elected activity i.e. CM, GM, RV.
(2) For each elected activity, complete a set of rows with lands subject to the activity and add one row with the total for the elected activity.

7676
7677

Draft KP Supplement

2A.23

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

TABLE 9A
CH4 AND N2O EMISSIONS FROM DRAINAGE OF ORGANIC SOILS
Inventory year
GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION
Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA
Activity (1)EMISSIONS
Area

Subdivision
(kha)

N2O

CH4
(Gg)

Total
Total activity AR

Total activity D

Total activity FM

Total elected activity (2)(1) Report the identification acronym of the elected activity i.e. CM, GM, RV, WDR.
(2) For each elected activity, complete a set of rows with lands subject to the activity and add one row with the total for the elected activity

7678
7679

2.24

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables
Final Draft

TABLE 9B
CH4 AND N2O EMISSIONS FROM REWETTING OF ORGANIC SOILS
Inventory year
GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION
Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA
Activity (1)EMISSIONS
Area

Subdivision
(kha)

N2O

(2)

CH4
(Gg)

Total
Total activity AR

Total activity D

Total activity FM

Total elected activity (3)(1) Report the identification acronym of the elected activity i.e. CM, GM, RV, WDR.
(2) Under Tier 1 this is assumed to be negligible(3) For each elected activity, complete a set of rows with lands subject to the activity and add one row with the total for the elected activity

7680

Draft KP Supplement

2A.25

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

TABLE 10GHG EMISSIONS FROM BURNING OF ORGANIC MATTER
Inventory year
GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION

ACTIVITY DATAEMISSIONSCARBON POOLS
Living biomass (LB)

Identification code

Activity(1)

Subdivision

Description (2)Area burned (kha)
LB burned (kt dm)

Dead Organic Matter (DOM)
Description (2)Value

Area burned (kha)
DOM burned (kt dm)

Soil Organic Matter (SOM) (3)Description (2)Value

Area burned (kha)SOM burned (kt dm)

CO2 (4)

CH4

N2O

Value
(Gg)

Total
Total activity AR
Total for controlled burning

Total for wildfires

Total activity D
Total for controlled burning

Total for wildfires

7681
7682

2.26

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables
Final Draft

TABLE 10 (CONTINUED)
GHG EMISSIONS FROM BURNING OF ORGANIC MATTER
Inventory year
GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION

ACTIVITY DATAEMISSIONSCARBON POOLS
Living biomass (LB)

Identification code

Activity(1)

Subdivision

Description (2)Area burned (kha)
LB burned (kt dm)

Dead Organic Matter (DOM)
Description (2)Value

Area burned (kha)
DOM burned (kt dm)

Soil Organic Matter(SOM) (3)Description (2)Value

Area burned (kha)SOM burned (kt dm)

CO2 (4)

CH4

N2O

Value
(Gg)

Total activity FM
Total for controlled burning

Total for wildfires

Total elected activity (5)Total for controlled burning

Total for wildfires

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

Report the identification acronym of the elected activity i.e. CM, GM, RV, WDR.
For each activity, activity data should be selected between area burned (kha) or organic matter burned (kt dm).
Report this pool only in case of peatland burning.
If CO2 emissions from biomass burning are not already included in the carbon-stock change table of the relevant activity, they should be reported here. This also includes the carbon
component of CH4.
(5) For each elected activity, complete a set of rows with lands subject to the activity and add rows with the totals (total wildfire, total prescribed burning, total for the activity) of the elected
activity

7683

Draft KP Supplement

2A.27

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

TABLE 11A
CARBON STOCK CHANGES IN THE HARVESTED WOOD PRODUCTS POOL
Inventory year
ORIGIN OF WOODPRODUCT TYPE
Harvest(1)

HWP categories

Subcategories(Gg C)PARAMETERS

CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK

Halflife(2)Gains(4)(yrs)

Initialstock(3)Losses(4)(Gg C)

Net
changeNet CO2
(Gg)

Total
Total

Total for HWPAR
Total for category
Domestically consumed
Exported
Domestically consumed
Exported

Article 3.3 activity

Total for category
Domestically consumed
Exported

From Afforestation
and Reforestation

Domestically consumed
Exported
Total for category
Domestically consumed
Exported
Domestically consumed
Exported

From Deforestation

7684
7685

2.28

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables
Final Draft

TABLE 11A (CONTINUED)CARBON STOCK CHANGES IN THE HARVESTED WOOD PRODUCTS POOL
Inventory Year
ORIGIN OF WOODPRODUCT TYPE
Harvest(1)

HWP categories

Subcategories(Gg C)PARAMETERS

CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK

Halflife(2)Gains(4)(yrs)

Initialstock(3)Losses(4)(Gg C)

Net
changeNet CO2(Gg)

Total for HWPFM
Total for category
Domestically consumed
Exported
Domestically consumed
Article 3.4 activity

Exported
Total for category
Domestically consumed

From Forest
Management

Exported
Domestically consumed
Exported
Total for category
Domestically consumed
Exported
Domestically consumed
Exported

From all remaining lands
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

Includes sawnwood, wood-based panels, paper and paperboard.
Half-lives are needed when applying flux data method (i.e. Tier 2 method)
Initial stock is the HWP stock of the specific product type at 1 January of the inventory year.
Gains refer to annual carbon inflow to HWP pool, losses refer to annual carbon outflow from HWP pool.

Draft KP Supplement

2A.29

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

7686
TABLE 11B
HARVESTED WOOD PRODUCTS ACTIVITY DATA (1)Inventory year
HWP category (2)Reported unit (3)Year
C conversion factor (4)Production

ImportExportProduction

ImportExportProduction

ImportExport(1) The information in Table 11B should be compiled based on mass weighted averages (see Table 2.8.1 of Section 2.8)(2) Includes sawnwood, wood-based panels, paper and paperboard. In cases where country-specific subcategories are used, it is good practice for countries to transparently document this in
their inventory reports.
(3) e.g. m³ or t(4) Applied to convert from HWP category units to carbon

7687

2.30

Draft KP Supplement

List of Contributors

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

7688

7689
7690
7691
7692

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORSAUTHORS, REVIEW EDITORSAND REVIEWERS AUTHORS AND
REVIEW EDITORSDO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Authors and Review Editors

Final Draft
7693

Authors and Review Editors

7694

Overview

7695
7696
7697
7698
7699
7700
7701
7702
7703
7704
7705
7706
7707
7708
7709
7710
7711
7712
7713
7714
7715
7716

Lead Authors
Rizaldi Boer

7717

Chapter 1: Introduction

7718
7719
7720

Coordinating Lead Authors
Werner A. Kurz
Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service
Chengyi Zhang
National Climate Center

Canada
China

7721
7722
7723
7724
7725
7726
7727
7728
7729
7730
7731
7732
7733
7734
7735

Lead Authors
Bofeng Cai
Hilton Thadeu Zarate do Couto
Hongmin Dong

Chinese Academy for Environmental Planning
University of São Paulo
Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development inAgriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences
Sandro Federici
Republic of San Marino
Savitri Garivait
The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment,
King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi
Rehab Hassan
Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources
Rodel Lasco
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) / The OML Center
Phillip O’Brien
Environmental Protection Agency
Caroline Roelandt
University of Bergen
María José Sanz Sánchez Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Fabian Wagner
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Jianhua Zhu
Chinese Academy of Forestry

China
BrazilChina

Sudan
Philippines
Ireland
Belgium
Spain
Germany
China

7736
7737
7738
7739

Review Editors
Robert William Matthews Forest Research
Emmanuel Jonathan Mpeta Tanzania Meteorological Agency

UK
Tanzania

7740
7741

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

7742

Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3.1-2.3.8, 2.4 & Annex 2A.1

7743
7744
7745
7746
7747

Coordinating Lead Authors
Werner A. Kurz
Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service
Chengyi Zhang
National Climate Center

Sergio Gonzalez
Taka Hiraishi
Thelma Krug
Jim Penman
Nalin Srivastava

Robert Sturgiss
Kiyoto Tanabe

Washington Zhakata

Review Editors
William Irving
Lingxi Zhou

Centre for Climate Risk and Opportunity Managementin Southeast Asia and Pacific (CCROM SEAP)-IPB

Indonesia

Chile
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
Japan
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE)
BrazilEnvironment Institute, University College, London
UK
Technical Support Unit
IPCC TFIIPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories(IPCC TFI TSU)
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
Australia
Technical Support Unit
IPCC TFIIPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories(IPCC TFI TSU)
Climate Change Office
Zimbabwe
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Management,
Zimbabwe
US Environmental Protection Agency
Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences
China Meteorological Administration

China Meteorological Administration

USA
China

Italy
ThailandCanadaChina

List of Contributors

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
7748
7749
7750
7751
7752
7753
7754
7755
7756
7757
7758
7759
7760
7761
7762
7763

Lead Authors
Bofeng Cai
Hilton Thadeu Zarate do Couto
Hongmin Dong

7764
7765
7766
7767

Review Editors
Robert William Matthews Forest Research
Emmanuel Jonathan Mpeta Tanzania Meteorological Agency

7768

Section 2.3.9

7769
7770

Coordinating Lead Author
Marcelo Theoto Rocha
Fabrica Ethica Brasil

Brazil

7771
7772
7773
7774
7775
7776
7777
7778
7779
7780
7781
7782
7783

Lead Authors
Rasmus Astrup
Robert de Ligt

NorwayAustralia

Xiaoquan Zhang

Norwegian Forest and Landscepe Institute
Australian Government
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
Federal Research and Training Centre for Forests,
Natural Hazards and Landscape (BFW)
Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing Kenya
Forestry and Forest Products Research InstituteThünen Institute of Forest Ecosystems
Hungarian Forest Research Institute
Forestry Carbon Sequestration Accounting
and Monitoring Center, SFA
The Nature Conservancy China Program

7784
7785
7786
7787

Contributing Authors
Thelma Krug
Jim Penman

Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE)
Environment Institute, University College London

Brazil
UK

7788
7789
7790
7791

Review Editors
Jennifer Jenkins
Junsheng Li

US Environmental Protection Agency
Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences

USA
China

7792

Sections 2.5, 2.6 & 2.7

7793
7794
7795
7796

Coordinating Lead Authors
Giacomo Grassi
Joint Research Centre - European Commission
Italy
N.H. RavindranathCentre for Sustainable Technologies (CST) & Associate Faculty India
Centre for Ecological Sciences (CES), Indian Institute of Science

7797
7798
7799
7800
7801
7802
7803

Lead Authors
Hannes Böttcher
International institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Nagmeldin Goutbi Elhassan Higher Council for Environment
and Natural Resources (HCENR)
Elnour Abdalla Elsiddig Faculty of Forestry, University of Khartoum, Sudan
Joanna Isobel House
Bristol University
Mitsuo Matsumoto
Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute (FFPRI)

Chinese Academy for Environmental Planning
China
University of São Paulo
BrazilInstitute of Environment and Sustainable Development in
China
Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences
Sandro Federici
Republic of San Marino
Italy
Savitri Garivait
The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment,
ThailandKing Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi
Rehab Hassan
Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources
Sudan
Rodel Lasco
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) / The OML Center
Philippines
Phillip O’Brien
Environmental Protection Agency
Ireland
Caroline Roelandt
University of Bergen
Belgium
María José Sanz Sánchez Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Spain
Fabian Wagner
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Germany
Jianhua Zhu
Chinese Academy of Forestry
China

Thomas Gschwantner
Mwangi James Kinyanjui
Tetsuya Matsui
Joachim RockZoltán Somogyi
Guobin Zhang

UK
Tanzania

Austria
Kenya
Japan
Germany
Hungary
China
China

Germany
Sudan
Sudan
UK
Japan

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Authors and Review Editors

Final Draft
7804
7805
7806
7807
7808
7809
7810
7811
7812
7813

Jean Pierre Ometto
Instituto National de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE)
Carlos Roberto Sanquetta Federal University of Parana, Faculty of Forestry
Matthew J. Searson
Department of Industry, Innovation,
Climate Change, Science, Research andTertiary Education Australia
Francesco Nicola Tubiello Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO)
Tarja Tuomainen
Finnish Forest Research InstituteMarina Vitullo
Institute for Environmental Protection and Research
Stephen John Wakelin
Scion
Guangsheng Zhou
Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences

USA / Italy
FinlandItaly
New Zealand/Australia
China

7814
7815
7816
7817
7818
7819

Contributing Authors
Viorel Blujdea
Mattias LundbladPeter Weiss

Joint Research Centre - European Commission
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Federal Environmental Agency,
Department of Pollutants and Health, Austria

Romania
SwedenAustria

7820
7821
7822
7823
7824
7825

Review Editors
Kevin BlackFERS Ltd and Department of Agriculture
and the Marine (DAFM)
Centre for Climate Risk and Opportunity Managementin Southeast Asia and Pacific (CCROM SEAP)-IPB

Ireland7826

Section 2.8

7827
7828
7829

Coordinating Lead Author
Sebastian Rüter
Thünen Institute of Wood Research

Germany

7830
7831
7832
7833
7834
7835

Lead Authors
Gry Alfredsen
Fabiano de Aquino Ximenes
G. H. Sabin Guendehou
Kim Pingoud
Yuko Tsunetsugu

NorwayAustralia
Benin
Finland
Japan

7836
7837
7838

Contributing Author
Paul Alexander McCusker United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) UNECE

7839
7840
7841
7842

Review Editors
Jennifer Jenkins
Junsheng Li

7843

Section 2.9, 2.10, 2.11 & 2.12

7844
7845
7846
7847

Coordinating Lead Authors
Annette Freibauer
Thünen Institute of Climate-Smart Agriculture
Jian Guo Wu
Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences

Germany
China

7848
7849
7850
7851
7852
7853
7854
7855
7856
7857
7858
7859

Lead Authors
Marie Boehm
John Couwenberg

Germany

Rizaldi Boer

Hector Ginzo
Hans Joosten
Yue Li
Brian McConkey
Akinori Mori
Xuebiao Pan

Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute
NSW Department of Primary Industries
Benin Centre for Scientific and Technical Research
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute (FFPRI)US Environmental Protection Agency
Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences

Agriculture and Agri-Food
CanadaInstitute of Botany and Landscape Ecology,
University of Greifswald
Instituto del Clima, Academia
Argentina de Ciencias del Ambiente
Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology,
University of Greifswald
Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS)
Agriculture and Agri-Food
National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences
China Agricultural University

BrazilBrazilAustralia

Indonesia

USA
China

Argentina
Belarus
China
CanadaJapan
China

List of Contributors

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
7860
7861

Riitta Kristiina Pipatti

Statistics Finland

7862
7863
7864
7865

Review Editors
Yasuhito Shirato
National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences
Lingxi Zhou
Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences (CAMS),
China Meteorological Administration (CMA)

Finland

Japan
China

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Authors and Review Editors

Final Draft
7866

Reviewers

7867
7868
7869
7870
7871
7872
7873
7874
7875
7876
7877
7878
7879
7880
7881
7882
7883
7884
7885
7886
7887
7888
7889
7890
7891
7892
7893
7894
7895
7896
7897
7898
7899
7900
7901
7902
7903
7904
7905
7906
7907
7908
7909
7910
7911
7912
7913
7914
7915
7916
7917
7918
7919
7920
7921
7922
7923
7924
7925
7926

Australia
Robert M de Ligt
Matt Searson
Robert Sturgiss

Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Australian Government
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Australian Government
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Australian Government

Austria
Klaus RadunskyPeter Weiss

Umweltbundesamt
Environment Agency Austria

Belgium
Jesse Lambrecht

Ghent University

BrazilIrineu Bianchini Junior
Philip Fearnside
Yosio Edemir Shimabukuro
Elizabeth Sikar

Federal University of São Carlos
National Institute for Research in Amazonia (INPA)
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais
Construmaq São Carlos

CanadaDominique Blain
Nicole J.Fenton
Werner Kurz
Guy Larocque
Tony Lemprière
Sylvie Tremblay Gouv.

Natural Resources Canada
Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscaminge
Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada
Natural Resources Canada
Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada
Québec, Ministère des Ressources naturelles, Direction de la Recherche forestière

Chile
Carlos Bahamondez

Instituto Investigación Forestal (INFOR)

China
Minpeng Chen
Qingxian Gao
Xubin Pan
Changke Wang
Chunfeng Wang
Chaozong Xia
Guobin Zhang

Institute of Environmental and Sustainable Development in Agriculture
Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences (CRAES)
Chinese Academy of Inspection and Quarantine
National Climate Center, CMA
State Forestry Administration
Senior Engineer
Carbon Sequestion Accounting and Monitoring Center

Denmark
Steen Gyldenkaerne
Ole-Kenneth Nielsen

Department of Environmental Sciences, Aarhus University
Aarhus University

Finland
Aleksi Lehtonen
Kim Pingoud
Paula Puolakka
Tarja Tuomainen

Finnish Forest Research Institute (that is governmental institution)
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
Researcher/Finnish Forest Research Institute/Greenhouse gases estimation andreportingFinnish Forest Research InstituteFranceValentin Bellassen
Martial Bernoux

CDC Climat Research
IRD

Germany
Andreas Gensior
Yvonne Hargita
Anke Herold
Alexa Lutzenberger
Christoph Mueller
Eike Poddey

Thünen Institute of Climate-Smart Agriculture
Federal Environment Agency
Oeko-Institut
Leuphana University of Lüneburg
University Giessen
Thünen Institute of Climate-Smart AgricultureList of Contributors

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
7927
7928
7929
7930
7931
7932
7933
7934
7935
7936
7937
7938
7939
7940
7941
7942
7943
7944
7945
7946
7947
7948
7949
7950
7951
7952
7953
7954
7955
7956
7957
7958
7959
7960
7961
7962
7963
7964
7965
7966
7967
7968
7969
7970
7971
7972
7973
7974
7975
7976
7977
7978
7979
7980
7981
7982
7983
7984

Thomas Riedel
Joachim RockClaus Rösemann
Reimund Schwarze
Silke Troemel
Daniel Ziche

Thünen Institute of Forest Ecosystems
Thünen Institute of Forest Ecosystems
Thünen Institute of Climate-Smart Agriculture
Helmholtz-Center for Environmental ResearchHans-Ertel Centre for Weather Research, Atmospheric Dynamics and Predictability
Branch, University BonnThünen Institute of Forest Ecosystems

Ghana
Amos Tiereyangn Kabo-bah Green WaterHut
Hungary
Zoltan Somogyi

Hungarian Forest Institute

Iceland
Jón Gudmundsson

Agricultural University of Iceland

India
Vinay Singh

External CDM Validator/Verifier in DOE (Designated Operational Entity)

Italy
Sandro Federici
Lucia Perugini

Republic of San Marino
University of Tuscia

Japan
Makoto Araki
Yoko Asada
Nobuo Fujiwara
Yukio Haruyama
Junko Kato
Tetsuya Matsui
Mitsuo Matsumoto
Akane Nagahisa
Atsushi Sato
Tamotsu Sato
Tsutomu Takano
Mario Tonosaki
Toshiro Iehara

Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute (FFPRI)
Mitsubishi UFJ Research & Consulting Co., Ltd.
Osaka Prefecture University
RESTEC
Freelance researcher and consultant
Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute (FFPRI)
Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute (FFPRI)
Forestry Agency of Japan
Mitsubishi UFJ Research and Consulting
Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute (FFPRI)
Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute (FFPRI)
Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute (FFPRI)
Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute (FFPRI)

Mauritius
Anand Sookun

Statistics Mauritius

MexicoTomas Hernandez-Tejeda

INIFAP-SAGARPANew ZealandPeter Beets
Andrea Brandon
Deborah Burgess
Craig Elvidge
Norbert Nziramasanga
Rosa Rivas Palma
Luitgard Schwendenmann

New Zealand Forest Research Institute
New Zealand Ministry for the Environment
New Zealand Ministry for the Environment
Ministry of Primary Industries
Energy Consultant
Consultant
The University of Auckland

NorwayGry AlfredsenØyvind Christophersen

Norwegian Forest and Landscape InstituteClimate and Pollution Agency

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Authors and Review Editors

Final Draft
7985
7986
7987
7988
7989
7990
7991
7992
7993
7994
7995
7996
7997
7998
7999
8000
8001
8002
8003
8004
8005
8006
8007
8008
8009
8010
8011
8012
8013
8014
8015
8016
8017
8018
8019
8020
8021
8022
8023
8024
8025
8026
8027
8028
8029
8030
8031
8032
8033
8034
8035
8036
8037
8038
8039
8040
8041
8042
8043
8044

Pakistan
Muhammad Arif Goheer Global Change Impact Studies Centre (GCISC)
Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal
IQBAL Global Change Impact Studies Centre, National Centre for Physics Complex,
Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad
Portugal
Paulo CanaveiraAgência Portuguesa do Ambiente
Republic of Korea
Raehyun Kim
Soojeong Myeong

Korea Forest Research Institute
Korea Environment Institute

Spain
Leire Iriarte
José Vicente Chordá Sancho
Cristina Garcia-Diaz
Dionisio RodríguezRaul Abad Viñas

International Institute for Sustainability Analysis and Strategy
Fundacion CEAM
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment
Xunta de Galicia Regional Government
Joint Research Centre - JRC - European Commission (External contract)

SwedenÅsa Kasimir Klemedtsson
Mattias Lundblad
Hans Petersson
Per-Erik Wikberg

University of Gothenburg
Swedish University for Agricultural Sciences
Swedish Land University (SLU)
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Switzerland
Sonja Paul
Nele Rogiers

University of Basel
Federal Office for the Environment, Forest Division

ThailandAmnat Chidthaisong

The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment (JGSEE)The Netherlands
Brice Mora
Tinus Pulles
Arina Schrier-Uijl
Harry Vreuls

GOFC-GOLD Land Cover Project Office
TNO
Wetlands International
NL Agency

Togo
Olade Baloa Aakpo

Climate Analytics

UK
Alan Feest
Sekai Ngarize
Keith Smith
Michael Wiseman
Michael Woodfield

University of Bristol
Department of Energy and Climate Change
University of Edinburgh
University of the Third Age (U3A)
Ricardo-AEA

USA
Archis Ambulkar
Marlen D Eve
Keith Forbes
Patrick Gonzalez
Coeli Hoover
Erik Lilleskov
H. Gyde Lund
Peter Schlesinger
Margaret Sheppard
Ken Skog
Mark Sperow

Brinjac Engineering Inc.
US. Department of Agriculture
DAI
US National Park Service
USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station
USDA Forest Service
Forest Information Services Consulting
PS Forestry
US Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division
USDA Forest Service
West Virginia University

List of Contributors

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
8045
8046
8047
8048
8049
8050
8051
8052
8053
8054
8055
8056
8057
8058
8059
8060
8061
8062

ZambiaJack MunthaliInternational Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) & Impact Assessment
Association of Zambia (IAAZ)

IGO
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO)
Rocio Danica Condor Golec
Inge Jonckheere
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
Peter Aarup Iversen
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)
Elina Warsta
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
Wojtek Galinski
Panna Siyag