Introduction

4.1

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the supplementary methods and good practice guidance specifically linked to the land use,land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) activities in the Kyoto Protocol and gives full consideration to therequirements and methodologies for measuring, estimating and reporting of activities under Article 3.3, andunder Article 3.4 (if elected by a Party). The supplementary methods and good practice guidance of this chapter
apply generally to those Parties listed in Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol that have ratified the Protocol. This
chapter also provides good practice guidance for LULUCF projects hosted by Parties listed in Annex B (Article
6 projects) and afforestation / reforestation projects hosted by Parties not listed in Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol(Article 12, Clean Development Mechanism or CDM projects), see Section 4.3.1
Under the Kyoto Protocol, Parties are to report emissions by sources and removals by sinks of CO2 and othergreenhouse gases resulting from LULUCF activities under Article 3.3, namely afforestation (A), reforestation (R)and deforestation (D) that occurred since 1990. They are also to report any elected human-induced activities
under Article 3.4, which can be: forest management, revegetation, cropland management and grazing land
management. 2 In the commitment period Parties have to report annually, along with their annual reports ofgreenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks, supplementary information related to LULUCF
under the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol and the Marrakesh Accords to ensure compliance with theiremission-limitation and reduction commitments.3 The annual reporting requirement does not imply a need forannual measurements; however, Parties are expected to develop systems that combine measurements, models
and other tools that enable them to report on an annual basis.

1

It is assumed that the reader is familiar with Articles 3.3, 3.4, 3.7, 6 and 12 of the Kyoto Protocol(http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf).

2

LULUCF related requirements are outlined in paragraph 1 of the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use
change and forestry) contained in document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p.58:“Afforestation” is the direct human-induced conversion of land that has not been forested for a period of at least 50 years toforested land through planting, seeding and/or the human-induced promotion of natural seed sources.
“Reforestation” is the direct human-induced conversion of non-forested land to forested land through planting, seeding
and/or the human-induced promotion of natural seed sources, on land that was forested but that has been converted to nonforested land. For the first commitment period, reforestation activities will be limited to reforestation occurring on thoselands that did not contain forest 31 December 1989.
“Deforestation” is the direct human-induced conversion of forested land to non-forested land.
“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.
“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.

3

Paragraph 5 of the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Article 7) contained in document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3, p.22:
Each Party included in Annex I shall include in its annual greenhouse gas inventory information on anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks from land use, land-use change and forestry activities under
Article 3, paragraph 3 and, if any, elected activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, in accordance with Article 5, paragraph2, as elaborated by any good practice guidance in accordance with relevant decisions of the COP/MOP on land use, landuse change and forestry. 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. In reporting the information requested above, eachParty included in Annex I shall include the reporting requirements specified in the paragraphs 6 to 9 below, taking into
consideration the selected values in accordance with paragraph 16 of the annex to decision -/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use
change and forestry). The footnote to the word “annual” in the first sentence says: It is recognised in the IPCC 1996
Revised Guidelines that the current practice on land use, land-use change and forestry does not in every situation request
annual data collection for the purpose of preparing annual inventories based on sound scientific basis.
Article 7, paragraph 3 of the Kyoto Protocol: Each Party included in Annex I shall submit the information required underparagraph 1 above annually, beginning with the first inventory due under the Convention for the first year of thecommitment period after this Protocol has entered into force for that Party[…].

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

4.9

Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol

Relationship between UNFCCC and Kyoto reporting:
The information to be reported under the Kyoto Protocol is supplementary to the information reported under theConvention. Countries do not have to submit two separate inventories but should provide information under the
Kyoto Protocol as supplementary, within the inventory report.4
In practice, national circumstances, and specifically the technical details of the carbon accounting systems put
into place by each country, will determine the sequence in which the reporting information is compiled. For
example, it is possible to start with the UNFCCC inventory (with the additional spatial information required for
Kyoto Protocol reporting) and expand it to the Kyoto Protocol inventory, or it is possible to use a system thatgenerates the information for both UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol reporting.
Example: when a Party that has elected cropland management under Article 3.4 prepares its UNFCCC inventory
for croplands according to Section 3.3 of this report, it is efficient to use the stratification into geographicalboundaries (Section 4.2.2) in doing so. Then, in preparing the supplementary information to be reported under
the Kyoto Protocol, the Party would delineate those UNFCCC cropland areas that were forests before (Section
3.3.2, Land converted to cropland), report these under deforestation according to Article 3.3, and report theremaining croplands under Article 3.4.
This chapter covers supplementary estimation and inventory reporting requirements needed for accounting under
the Kyoto Protocol. However, it does not address the implementation of accounting rules as agreed in the Kyoto
Protocol and Marrakesh Accords (such as caps, net-net accounting 5 and other specific provisions related toaccounting). This is because accounting is a policy matter and is not covered in the request to the IPCC.
Estimation refers to the way in which inventory estimates are calculated, reporting in the tables or other standard
formats used to transmit inventory information. Accounting refers to the way the information is used to assess
compliance with commitments under the Protocol.
The Marrakesh Accords refer to land in two ways, and these terms are adopted here:•

Units of land refers to those areas subject to the activities defined under Article 3.3, namely afforestation,
reforestation and deforestation, and•Land refers to those areas subject to the activities defined under Article 3.4, namely forest management,
cropland management, grazing land management, and revegetation.

4.1.1

Overview of steps to estimating and reporting
supplementary information for activities under
Articles 3.3, 3.4, 6 and 12

This section gives an overview of the steps required to estimate, measure, monitor and report changes in carbon
stocks and emissions and removals of non-CO2 greenhouse gases for Articles 3.3, 3.4, 6 and 12 under the Kyoto
Protocol. Detailed methods and good practice guidance for each individual activity are provided in Sections 4.2
and 4.3.
STEP 1: Define “forest”, apply definitions to national circumstances, establishing precedence conditions
and/or a hierarchy among selected Article 3.4 activities.
STEP 1.1: Select the numerical values in the definition of “forest”.6

4

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

5Net-net accounting refers to the provisions of paragraph 9 of the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use
change and forestry) contained in document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p.59-60.

6According to the Marrakesh Accords, “forest” is a minimum area of land of 0.05 – 1.0 hectares with tree crown cover (orequivalent stocking level) of more than 10 – 30 per cent with trees with the potential 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 andundergrowth cover a high proportion of the ground, or open forest. Young natural 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 normallyforming part of the forest area which are temporarily unstocked as a result of human intervention such as harvesting or

4.10

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Introduction

Parties must, by the end of 2006, decide on their choice of parameters to define forest, i.e., they must choose aminimum area (0.05 – 1 ha), the minimum crown closure at maturity (10 – 30%), and the minimum tree height atmaturity (2 – 5 m). Areas that meet these minimum criteria are considered forest, as are recently disturbed forests oryoung forests that are expected to reach these parameter thresholds. The numerical values of those parameters
cannot be changed for the commitment period. Each Party has to justify in its reporting that such values are
consistent with the information that has historically been reported to the Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations or other international bodies, and if they differ, explain why and how differing values were chosen.
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 units of land subject to ARD activities, as explained in Section 4.2.2.5.1.
STEP 1.2: Apply definitions to national circumstances.
Parties must, by the end of 2006, decide and report which, if any, activities under Article 3.4 they elect (forest
management, cropland management, grazing land management and/or revegetation). It is good practice that
Parties document, for each elected activity, how the definitions will be applied to national circumstances and thatthey list the criteria that determine under which activity a land would be assigned. These criteria should bechosen in such a way as to minimize or avoid overlap and should be consistent with the guidance provided in thedecision tree in Figure 4.1.1 in Section 4.1.2.
STEP 1.3: Establish precedence conditions and/or a hierarchy among selected Article 3.4 activities.
For cases where overlaps may occur, it is good practice that the country specifies its precedence conditions
and/or a hierarchy among Article 3.4 activities prior to the commitment period, rather than on a case-by-casebasis. For example, if land could fall into both cropland management and forest management (such as inagroforestry systems), then it is good practice to consistently apply the specified scheme of precedence
conditions and/or hierarchy7 in determining under which activity the land is to be reported.
STEP 2: Identify lands subject to activities under Article 3.3 and any elected activities under Article 3.4.
The second step of the inventory assessment is to determine the areas on which the activities have taken placesince 1990 (and for which emissions and removals must be calculated). This step builds on the approaches
described in Chapter 2.
STEP 2.1: Compile land-use and land-cover information in 1990 for the relevant activities.
Using the selected definition of forest, develop means for determining forest and non-forest areas in 1990. Thiscan be accomplished with a map that identifies all areas considered forest on 1 January 1990. All forest-related
land-use change activities since 1990 can then be determined with reference to this base map (see Section 4.2.2.2
Reporting methods for lands subject to Article 3.3 and Article 3.4 activities).
STEP 2.2: Stratify the country into areas of land for which the geographic boundaries will be reported, as wellas the area of the units of land subject to Article 3.3 and/or the areas of lands subject to Article 3.4 within thesegeographic boundaries (see Section 4.2.2.4). This step can be omitted if Reporting Method 2 (see Section 4.2.2.2)
is used.
STEP 2.3: Identify units of land that, since 1990, are subject to activities defined in Article 3.3, and estimate thetotal area of these units of land within each geographic boundary. Under Reporting Method 2 (Section 4.2.2.2)
the estimation of the area of the units of land will be carried out individually for each unit of land.
Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol requires that net carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions
during the commitment period on land areas subject to afforestation (see Footnote 1 above), reforestation (R) anddeforestation (D) since 1990 are used to meet the commitments under Article 3. The Marrakesh Accords requireParties to estimate the area of the units of lands that have been subject to afforestation, reforestation and/or
deforestation within the boundaries mentioned in STEP 2.2 above (for details see Sections 4.2.2.2, 4.2.5 and 4.2.6).
STEP 2.4: Identify land areas subject to elected activities under Article 3.4, and estimate the total size of theseland areas within each geographic boundary. Under Reporting Method 2 (Section 4.2.2.2) the estimation of land
will be carried out individually for each land area subject to elected Article 3.4 activities.
For forest management (FM), if elected, each Party must identify the land area subject to forest management ineach inventory year of the commitment period. A Party could interpret the definition of forest management interms of specified forest management practices, such as fire suppression, harvesting or thinning, undertaken
since 1990. Alternatively, a country could interpret the definition of forest management in terms of a broad
natural causes but which are expected to revert to forest. See paragraph 1(a) in the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Landuse, land-use change and forestry), contained in document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p.58.
7

Such as, e.g., “precedence is given to the dominant activity”, or “precedence is given to cropland management”.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

4.11

Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol

classification of land subject to a system of forest management practices, without the requirement that a specified
forest management practice has occurred on each land. (For details see Sections 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.7).8
For cropland management (CM), grazing land management (GM), or revegetation (RV), the area subject to eachof these activities in any inventory year during the commitment period needs to be determined. As is discussed
in more depth in Sections 4.2.8 – 4.2.10, the area under the same activity in 1990 (or the applicable base year)
will also have to be determined, because carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions on thisarea in 1990 have to be known in order to implement net-net accounting rules of the Marrakesh Accords (seeSection 4.2.8.1.1).
STEP 2.5: Identify the areas subject to projects under Article 6.
Some units of land subject to Article 3.3 or lands subject to Article 3.4 can also be projects under Article 6 of the
Kyoto Protocol. These have to be reported under Article 3.3 or Article 3.4 (if the relevant activity was elected).
In addition, these units of land or lands need to be delineated and the carbon stock changes and non-CO2
greenhouse gas emissions reported separately as part of the project reporting (see Section 4.3). The relationshipbetween estimation and reporting of activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4, and projects under Article 6, isdiscussed in Section 4.1.3.
STEP 3: Estimate carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions on the lands identified
under Step 2 above.
This step builds on the methodologies provided by Chapter 3 of this report (LUCF sector good practice guidance)and shows supplementary methodologies relevant to reporting of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhousegas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.
STEP 3.1: Estimate carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions for each year of thecommitment period, on all areas subject to afforestation, reforestation or deforestation (as identified in STEP 2.3)
and all areas subject to elected activities covered under Article 3.4 (as identified in STEP 2.4), while ensuringthat there are no gaps and no double counting.
The estimation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions for an activity begins with theonset of the activity or the beginning of the commitment period, whichever comes later. For further details
regarding the beginning of an activity see Section 4.2.3.2 (Years for which to estimate stock changes and nonCO2 greenhouse gas emissions).
STEP 3.2: Estimate carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions in projects under Article 6 (seeSection 4.3.3 Measuring, monitoring, and estimating changes in carbon stocks and non-CO2 greenhouse gas
emissions).
For Article 12 Projects:
STEP 1: Identify areas. (Details can be found in Section 4.3.2 Project boundaries)
STEP 2: Estimate carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions. (Details can be found in
Section 4.3.3 Measuring, monitoring, and estimating changes in carbon stocks and non-CO2 greenhouse gas
emissions).
Table 4.1.1 provides an overview of the LULUCF activities in the Kyoto Protocol, and the accounting rules thatare prescribed by the Marrakesh Accords. This information is summarized here because it has implications forthe supplementary estimation and inventory reporting requirements under the Kyoto Protocol.

8

Possible issues related to unbalanced accounting resulting from selective inclusion of forest management and revegetation
are addressed in the IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory and Report Emissions from
Direct Human-Induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types.

4.12

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Introduction

TABLE 4.1.1
SUMMARY OF THE LULUCF ACTIVITIES UNDER THE KYOTO PROTOCOL AND THE ASSOCIATED ACCOUNTING RULES
Net-net accounting9

Baseline scenario

Cap on Credits10

Article 3.3 (Afforestation, Reforestation,
Deforestation)

No

No

No

Article 3.4 (Forest Management)

No

No

Yes

Article 3.4 (all other)

Yes

No

No

Article 6No

Yes

Yes for Forest
Management

Article 12(Clean Development Mechanism)

No

Yes

Yes

Activities

4.1.2

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

Chapter 2 (Basis for consistent representation of land areas) describes approaches to classifying and representing
land areas associated with LULUCF activities. This is the basis for the good practice guidance in Chapter 4 for
identifying all relevant lands, for Kyoto reporting and for avoiding double counting of lands. It is good practice
to follow the decision tree in Figure 4.1.1 for each year of the commitment period in order to•Distinguish between afforestation and reforestation, deforestation, forest management, cropland
management, grazing land management and revegetation activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4, as well as toremove potential overlaps and gaps between them; and to•

Assign lands to a single activity at any given point in time (i.e., for each year of the commitment period
2008-2012). This is required because of the possible land-use changes which can lead to double counting ofunits of lands / lands subject to Articles 3.3 and/or 3.4. Additional guidance on how to deal with shifts inland use over time is given in the examples of Box 4.1.1 at the end of this section.

The decision tree in Figure 4.1.1 is based on Marrakesh Accords (MA) definitions and it identifies a single
activity for a given year X of the commitment period under which the land should be reported. The decision tree
recognises that a given piece of land could be reported under different activities over time, subject to certain
conditions explained below. The decision tree is to be applied annually during the commitment period 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.
There are two main branches in the decision tree in Figure 4.1.1. If a unit of land was subject to an afforestation,
reforestation or deforestation activity since 1990, then in addition, if a Party has elected one or more Article 3.4
activities, then the questions in the right branch should be answered to determine whether the land was also
subject to an elected Article 3.4 activity (secondary classification). This is needed to fulfil the reporting needs ofthe Marrakesh Accords 11 and to demonstrate that there is no double counting (which could occur if fullenumeration was not applied). More detailed decision trees to determine whether or not land or a unit of land issubject to specific activities are presented in Sections 4.2.5 through 4.2.10.

9Net-net accounting refers to the provisions of paragraph 9 of the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use
change and forestry) contained in document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p.59-60.

10See paragraphs 10 to 12 and 14 of the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) containedin document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p.60-61.

11

Paragraph 6 (b), bullet (ii) in the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Article 7), contained in document
FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3, p.22:
6. General information to be reported for activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, and any elected activities under Article 3,
paragraph 4, shall include:[…](b) The geographical boundaries of the areas that encompass:(i) Units of land subject to activities under Article 3, paragraph 3;(ii) Units of land subject to activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, which would otherwise be included in land subject
to elected activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, under the provisions of paragraph 8 of the annex to decision /CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry); and(iii) Land subject to elected activities under Article 3, paragraph 4.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

4.13

Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol

Figure 4.1.1

No

Decision tree for classifying a unit of land under Article 3.3 (ARD) or land
under Article 3.4 (FM, CM, GM and RV) as of year X of the commitment
period (2008, 2009, …, 2012)

Has
forest ever beenpresent on this land or unit of landsince 31 Dec 1989?
Yes
Has theunit of land been subject to a
D activity since 31 Dec 1989?
(Note 1)

Yes

Classify as unit ofland subject to D
Yes

No
Has the unitof land been subject to an AR
activity since 31 Dec 1989?

Has theunit of land been
non-forested for at least 50 years
before the start of theconversion?
(Note 2)Yes

No

Did yourcountry elect FM, CM, GM
or RV?

Has theunit of land inany year of the commitment
period been subject to
FM, CM, GM or RV?
(Note 3)

No

Yes

No

Is
the landsubject to FM, CM,
GM or RV in
year X?

Keep classification of
the previous year in
the commitment
periodClassify as unit ofland subject to R

No

Yes

No reporting of theland in year X under
Art. 3.3 or 3.4

Has
the land inany year of the commitment
period been subject to
FM, CM, GM or RV?
(Note 3)No

Did yourcountry elect FM, CM, GM
or RV?

No

YesClassify as unit ofland subject to A

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Classify as land
subject to FM,
CM, GM or RV
activity for
year XClassify as unit of land
subject to AR or D withsecondary classification
under the FM, CM, GM or
RV activity for year X

Is theunit of land
subject to FM, CM,
GM or RV in
year X?
No
Keep classification of theprevious year in thecommitment period,
including the secondaryclassification

Classify asunit of land
subject to
AR or D

Note 1: No matter whether it had been subject to an AR activity before.
Note 2: The distinction between A and R is often irrelevant, in particular if the same methodologies apply. But sometimes
they might differ in the rate and direction of soil and litter C stock change.
Note 3: Apply this test only to those activities that your country has elected.

Abbreviations used in the Figure:
AR Afforestation / Reforestation
CM Cropland Management

4.14

D
GM

Deforestation
Grazing Land Management

FM
RV

Forest Management
Revegetation

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Introduction

The left branch is for lands that are reported under Article 3.4, and needs to be checked by Parties that haveelected one or more Article 3.4 activities. This is necessary to know whether a land was subject to an Article 3.4
activity, and also to determine which Article 3.4 activity (if elected) applied on the land most recently. If a landis subject to more than one Article 3.4 activity over the course of time, it is good practice to classify that land
under only one Article 3.4 category. Therefore, it is good practice for countries to set up a hierarchy among theactivities forest management, cropland management, grazing land management and revegetation, and – within
the scope of the definitions in the Marrakesh Accords – to set up criteria by which lands will be assigned to asingle category (see Section 4.1.1, Overview, STEP 1.3). For example, where agriculture and forestry arepracticed on the same land, the land may qualify under forest management and under cropland management or
grazing land management. It is good practice to assign land according to specific, pre-determined rules, rather
than on a case-by-case basis. The definitions in the Marrakesh Accords imply that•••

Forest management can only take place on lands that meet the definition of a forest;
Revegetation can only take place when the land is forest neither before nor after the transition (otherwise it
would be afforestation, reforestation or forest management); andGrazing land and cropland management can take place on either forest or non-forest lands, but will be
predominantly on non-forest lands in practice. Any forest land under grazing land or cropland management
can be subject to a deforestation activity.

Regarding the relationship between forest management on the one hand, and cropland/grazing land managementon the other hand, countries have two options: 1) It is good practice to interpret the definition of forest
management such that all managed forests are included, including those where also cropland and grazing land
management takes place. With this, all lands subject to grazing or cropland management would necessarily haveto be non-forest. 2) Alternatively, it is also good practice to use pre-defined criteria other than "forest / nonforest" to determine whether a land area is subject to forest management or grazing land management / cropland
management. In that case it is possible that some forest lands are included under cropland or grazing land
management.
Special attention should be given to avoid overlap or gaps between lands subject to revegetation (if elected) that
could qualify under cropland management, grazing land management or potentially forest management (if elected).
In addition note that:•

The decision tree in Fig. 4.1.1 is not sufficient to identify all lands that fall under each activity. For thereporting of these lands, it is good practice to follow the methodological guidance provided under“Identification of lands” in the generic Section 4.2.2, and in the activity-specific sections on land
identification (Sections 4.2.5.1 / 4.2.6.1 / 4.2.7.1 / 4.2.8.1 / 4.2.9.1 and 4.2.10.1).

•

For the first commitment period, Article 3.3 applies to land that is subject to an afforestation, reforestation
or deforestation activity at any time between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 2012.

•

For reporting during the commitment period Article 3.4 applies to land that is subject to an elected forest
management, cropland management, and grazing land management activity during the commitment
period12,13 . Article 3.4 also applies to land subject to revegetation resulting from direct human-induced
activities since 1 January 1990.14•

Once a land is reported under Article 3.3 or Article 3.4, all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions bysources and removals by sinks on this land must be reported during the first and throughout subsequent and12

Conversely, for base year reporting, Article 3.4 applies to land that was subject to an elected cropland management, grazing
land management or revegetation activity in the base year.

13

The reason is that if a land was subject to an Article 3.4 activity between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 2007, but is nolonger in the years 2008-2012, it could not be accounted for under the Kyoto Protocol. Carbon reporting of this land during
the commitment period would be highly complicated because the land would be under a different land use. Land that left
the FM category as a result of deforestation would, of course, be reported under Article 3.3.

14

As stated in STEP 1.2 above, it is good practice to apply the definitions of Article 3.4 activities to national circumstances.
In doing so, there may be Article 3.4 activities where an individual practice triggers the land to be reported (“narrowly
defined activities”). This is likely to apply to revegetation, also possibly to forest management, and requires to report alllands that are subject to the activity since 1990 (as for AR and D). On the other hand, there will be Article 3.4 activities
where the mere classification of the land, without a concrete practice, will suffice for the land to be reported (“broadly
defined activities”). This is most likely for cropland and grazing land management – also because there the practices aremost likely to occur on an annual basis anyway. Here it is sufficient to report the lands subject to the activity in thereporting year of the commitment period.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

4.15

Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol

contiguous commitment periods15, except the Party chooses not to report a pool that has been shown not to
be a source as explained in Section 4.2.3.1. That is, the total land area included in the reporting of Article
3.3 and 3.4 activities can never decrease.
•

If certain activities occur during the commitment period, it is possible that a unit of land or land can bereported under different activities in Article 3.3 and/or Article 3.4 over time during the commitment period.
However, for each year it can only be reported under a single activity.

•

In order to avoid the reporting of lands or units of land in more than one activity in any year during thecommitment period, the following should be applied:(i)

Units of land subject to activities under Article 3.3 which would otherwise be included in land subject
to an Article 3.4 activity (see item (ii) in footnote 11) must be reported separately as lands that are bothsubject to Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities (referred to as AR or D land with a secondary classification in
the decision tree). The decision tree implies that afforestation, reforestation and deforestation haveprecedence over the other activities for land classification and reporting purposes not only in a given
year, but for the entire period between 1990 and 2012.16(ii)

For lands that are subject to several activities under Article 3.4 it is good practice to apply the national
criteria that establish the hierarchy among Article 3.4 activities (in the Marrakesh Accords noprecedence is implied among Article 3.4 activities, see STEP 1.3 above).

•

A land subject to land-use changes (LUCs) can move between categories in the following cases:− Afforestation/reforestation land that is subsequently deforested is reclassified as deforestation land
(Section 4.2.4.3.2 describes specific provisions for units of land subject to afforestation and reforestation
activities since 1990).
− Land under one elected Article 3.4 activity is converted into land under another elected Article 3.4
activity and must be reclassified accordingly.
− Land under an elected Article 3.4 activity becomes subject to an Article 3.3 activity and must
subsequently be reported under the latter.

•On the other hand, the following transitions are not possible. Note that these restrictions apply to reporting
under the Kyoto Protocol (but do of course not affect the actual management that a country applies to its
lands):− Land cannot shift from an elected Article 3.4 activity to another Article 3.4 activity that was not elected.
− Land cannot leave the Article 3.3 reporting.
− Deforestation land cannot become afforestation/reforestation land in the first commitment period. That is,
if a forest is established on land deforested since 1990, the carbon removals cannot be reported as areforestation activity during the first commitment period because of the time limits in the definition forreforestation agreed in the Marrakesh Accords, designed not to credit reforestation on lands that were
forest land in 1990.17 However, because there is the need for continuous full reporting of lands subject to
Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities, any carbon stock increases later in the commitment period on deforestation
lands will be reported under the deforestation category.

•

Boundaries between forest management and cropland or grazing land systems can be difficult to define
where these activities are practiced on the same land area. The decision tree in Figure 4.1.1 suggests thatplanting of shelterbelt trees or orchards after 1990 that meet the criteria for a forest would be reported under
the afforestation and reforestation category, even if they occur on lands whose use is mainly agricultural.
For shelterbelts and orchards which already existed in 1990, however, the decision tree implies that thecountry can prioritise the Article 3.4 reporting category as either cropland management or grazing land
management, or as forest management – provided that the land meets the definition of the category chosen,
and the prioritisation is consistent with the hierarchy of Article 3.4 activities set up at the beginning. For
example, if shelterbelts or farm woodlots do not appear to be part of forest management as such, and are

15

Paragraph 19 of the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in document
FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p.61.

16This is implied in the text of the Marrakesh Accords cited in footnote 11 above, item b (ii).

17Paragraph 1(c) of the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in document
FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p 58.

4.16

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Introduction

clearly associated with cropping or grazing land systems, the hierarchical system set up by a country might
determine this to be reported under cropland management or grazing land management.
In summary, this means that the area under Article 3.3 (afforestation, reforestation and deforestation lands) willgrow from 0 hectares on 1 January 1990 up to a certain value in 2012. At any given point in time, theafforestation, reforestation and deforestation categories should contain all areas of land that have been afforested,reforested or deforested since 1990. The area under Article 3.3 (deforestation) will stay constant or increase insize during the commitment period. The land area in the afforestation and reforestation category will typicallyincrease, but can also decrease if afforestation and reforestation lands are subject to deforestation activities.
The amount of lands in the forest management, cropland management, grazing land management, andrevegetation categories 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:••••

Afforestation and reforestation, and deforestation land areas are allowed to grow;Grazing lands can become croplands and vice versa;
Revegetated lands can become croplands or grazing lands or vice versa; andForest management land areas can increase, for example, as countries expand the road infrastructure toareas previously unmanaged.

Box 4.1.1 provides several examples that summarise the Marrakesh Accords and the considerations that apply
for lands subject to activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol. The preceding sections of Chapter
4 have provided merely an overview of the Marrekech Accords. For more detailed explanations of the rationale
behind the examples in Box 4.1.1, the reader is referred to the detailed explanations in the remaining sections of
Chapter 4.
BOX 4.1.1
EXAMPLES FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF UNITS OF LAND TO ARTICLE 3.3 ACTIVITIESAND LANDS TO ARTICLE 3.4 ACTIVITIES OVER TIME

The following examples are intended to show, conceptually, how different land-use transitions
would be categorised in different inventory years under the Kyoto Protocol. This does notnecessarily imply that the land-use transition can be directly measured on an annual basis. Notethat for croplands and grazing lands only carbon stock changes are discussed in the examples
below. Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions for such lands are reported under the Agriculture
Sector of the IPCC Guidelines (Section 4.5.2 in the Reference Manual), independently of which
Article 3.4 activities were elected by the Party.
Example 1: A land under forest management is deforested in 1995 and turned into a cropland.
2008-2012: Carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions on this land are reported
under deforestation. The methodology for croplands that were previously forest (Section 3.3.2) is
to be used.
Carbon stock changes on this land will not be reported under cropland management, even if
cropland management was elected, because deforestation takes precedence over cropland
management. The decision tree in Figure 4.1.1 therefore assigns this land to deforestation, withcropland management as a secondary classification.
Should trees be re-established on this land again, for example in 2011, the land remains in the
deforestation category, because reforestation is not admissible on lands that were forest in 1990. The
methodology to be used to estimate for carbon stock changes, however, is the one for reforestation.
Example 2: A land under forest management is deforested on 1 January 2010 and turned
into a cropland.
2008-2009: Carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions on this land for theyears 2008 and 2009 are reported under forest management (if forest management is elected,
otherwise they are not reported at all under the Kyoto Protocol, only as part of the regular annual
LUCF inventory under the UNFCCC).
2010-2012: Carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions on this land in the years
2010-2012 are reported under deforestation. The methodology for croplands that were previously
forest (Section 3.3.2) should be used. Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions directly resulting fromthe deforestation should be reported under the Deforestation category. Non-CO2 greenhouse gas
emissions resulting from the agricultural practices should be reported in the Agriculture sector of
the national inventory as per the IPCC Guidelines. Double counting should be avoided.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

4.17

Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol

BOX 4.1.1 EXAMPLES (CONTINUED)

Carbon stock changes on this land will not be reported under cropland management, even if
cropland management has been elected, because deforestation takes precedence over cropland
management. The decision tree in Figure 4.1.1 therefore assigns this land to deforestation withcropland as a secondary classification.
Example 3: A cropland is turned into a grazing land in 2010.
2008-2009: Carbon stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions on this land are reported undercropland management (if elected, otherwise not reported at all under the Kyoto Protocol, only as
part of the annual LUCF inventory).
2010-2012: If grazing land management is elected, carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhousegas emissions from this land are reported under grazing land management (Sections 3.4.2 and4.2.9). If grazing land management is not elected, carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhousegas emissions on this land will still have to be reported under cropland management for those years(if cropland management is elected), because of the requirement to continue to report on future
stock changes once land has entered the Kyoto reporting system.
Example 4: A grazing land is turned into a settlement in 2005.
2008-2012: Carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from this land are notreported under the Kyoto Protocol, since it was not subject to an elected activity during thecommitment period.
Example 5: A grazing land is turned into a settlement land in 2010.
The land needs to be reported as being subject to grazing land management (if elected) in all five
years of the commitment period (because it was under grazing land management at least in one
year during the commitment period). Pre-2010, the grazing land methods need to be used whereas,
starting in 2010, the methodologies for conversion to settlements need to be used.
Example 6: Forest management land is turned into a settlement in 2010.
2008-2009: Carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from this land arereported under forest management (if elected, otherwise not reported at all under the Kyoto
Protocol, only under the managed forest of the regular LUCF inventory).
2010-2012: Land reported as “deforested”, using the methodologies of Chapter 3, Section 3.6, forlands converted to settlements.
Example 6 shows that land which is converted from an elected land use during the commitment
period should continue to be reported. This does not apply to Example 4 because no removal units
will have been generated.
Example 7: Forest management land is turned into a settlement18 in 1995.
2008-2012 carbon stock changes are reported under Article 3.3, deforestation.
Example 8: Other land is turned into grazing land (and reported as revegetation) in 2005.
In each year of the commitment period the carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas
emissions from this land are reported under revegetation (if elected).

18

which, by definition, is non-forest, see Chapter 2.

4.18

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Introduction

4.1.3

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

Emissions or removals resulting from Article 6 projects will be part of the host country’s annual inventory under
the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol reporting. The methods for estimating, measuring, monitoring and reporting
greenhouse gas emissions and removals resulting from LULUCF project activities are addressed in Section 4.3(LULUCF Projects).
When estimating the greenhouse gas emissions and removals of Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities, it is possible to use
the information that is reported for, or is meeting the standards of, Article 6 LULUCF projects on these lands(but not vice versa). Two options exist for Article 3.3 and Article 3.4 estimation, both of which are consideredgood practice:
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 according to Section 4.3). This assumes that a properly
designed national system will also automatically include the effects of Article 6 projects. This approach is also
taken in the other emission sectors. For example, an Article 6 project that reduces emissions from fossil fuels is
not individually considered in the national emissions inventory, but will implicitly be included due to theproject’s impacts in the national statistics for fossil fuels.
Option 2: Consider all changes of carbon stocks as well as greenhouse gas emissions and removals at the projectlevel as a primary data source for Article 3.3 and/or Article 3.4 estimation and reporting, for example byconsidering projects as a separate stratum. Any Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities that are not projects need to bemonitored separately. In this case, the design of the monitoring must ensure that projects are explicitly excluded
from the remaining lands under Articles 3.3 and 3.4, to avoid double counting.
One important difference between project and national (Articles 3.3 and 3.4) accounting is that projects have abaseline scenario (i.e., only additional carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions due to theproject are accounted), while afforestation, reforestation, deforestation, forest management, cropland
management, grazing land management and revegetation do not have a baseline scenario. Therefore, when using
project-level information for reporting under Articles 3.3 and 3.4, one must take account of the overall carbon
stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions associated with the projects, and not just the change
relative to the baseline scenario.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

4.19

Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol

4.2

METHODS FOR ESTIMATION,
MEASUREMENT, MONITORING ANDREPORTING OF LULUCF ACTIVITIES UNDERARTICLES 3.3 AND 3.4

Section 4.2 provides a discussion of generic methodological issues that concern all possible land use, land-use
change and forestry (LULUCF) activities under Kyoto Protocol Articles 3.3 and 3.4 (Section 4.2.1 on therelationship between land-use categories in reporting under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, 4.2.2 on land
areas, Section 4.2.3 on estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions, and Section
4.2.4 on other generic methodological issues). This is followed by specific methodologies for monitoring
afforestation and reforestation (treated together), deforestation, forest management, cropland management,
grazing land management and revegetation (Sections 4.2.5 – 4.2.10), and projects (Section 4.3). Readers shouldrefer to both the generic and the specific issues for any one of the activities.

4.2.1

Relationship between UNFCCC land-use categories
and Kyoto Protocol (Articles 3.3 and 3.4) land-use
categories

This subsection provides an overview of how the activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 relate to the land-use
categories introduced in Chapter 2 and elaborated/utilized for the purposes of reporting on national greenhousegas emissions and removals under the UNFCCC in Chapter 3 (LUCF sector good practice guidance).
Land-use systems are classified in Chapters 2 and 3 into:(i)

Forest land (managed and unmanaged) (Section 3.2)

(ii)

Cropland (Section 3.3)

(iii)

Grassland (managed and unmanaged) (Section 3.4)

(iv)

Wetlands (Section 3.5 and Appendix 3a.3)(v)

Settlements (Section 3.6 and Appendix 3a.4)(vi)

Other land (Section 3.7)

Relationships exist between the basic land-use categories (i) to (vi) described in Section 2.2 and the activities of
the Kyoto Protocol and Marrakesh Accords (Table 4.2.1). Land subject to Kyoto Protocol activities should be
identified as a subcategory of one of these six main types.
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 LUCF
greenhouse gas inventories under the Convention. For example: Forest Land could be partitioned into: a) Forest
Land under Article 3.3; b) Forest Land under Article 3.4, c) Other managed Forest Land (this would be the caseif 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 4.2.7, Figure 4.2.7.
Many of the methods described in subsequent sections of Chapter 4 build on methodologies that appear in
Chapters 2 and 3 of this report or in the IPCC Guidelines. For continuity and clarity, cross-references back tothese preceding descriptions appear periodically in Boxes, as they become pertinent. Direct references to theresults in Chapter 3 reporting tables is not possible because for Kyoto Protocol reporting additional spatial
stratification is required that cannot be inferred from Chapter 3 Reporting Tables.

4.20

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Methods for estimation, measurement, monitoring and reporting of LULUCF activities under Articles 3.3 & 3.4

TABLE 4.2.1
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACTIVITIES UNDER ARTICLES 3.3 AND 3.4 OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOLAND THE BASIC LAND-USE CATEGORIES OF SECTION 2.2
Read this table as follows: For example, if a land is initially cropland and then managed forest, then this event must
constitute either afforestation or reforestation. Such mandatory Article 3.3-related classifications are highlighted in bold.
On the other hand, if a land is first cropland and then managed grassland, then this may constitute GM or RV. The latterchoice depends on the election of Article 3.4 activities by a country and on how national circumstances are applied to thedefinitions related to Article 3.4. Such Article 3.4-related, election-dependent classifications are printed in normal font.
Final
InitialManaged Unmanaged
Cropland
Forest land Forest landManaged Unmanaged
WetlandGrassland Grassland

Settlements Other landManagedForest land

FM or GM
or CM

D*

D*

D*

D*

D*

Unmanaged
Forest land

FM

D*

D*

D*

D*

D*

CroplandA/R*

CM, RV

GM or RVRVRVManagedGrassland

A/R*

CM

GM or RVRV

RV

Unmanaged
Grassland

A/R*

CM

GM

Wetland

A/R*

CM

GM

RV

RV

Settlements

A/R*

CM

GM or RVRV

RVOther land

A/R*

CM, RV

GM or RV

RV

RV

RV

* Transitions involving Article 3.3 activities have to be the result of direct human-induced activities.
Notes
1.

“Initial” and “Final” refer to the categories before and after a land-use change. A – Afforestation (land has not been forested for atleast 50 years), R – Reforestation (land has not been forested at the end of the year 1989), D – Deforestation, FM – Forest
management, CM – Cropland management, GM – Grazing land management, RV – Revegetation (activities other than A or R that
increase carbon stocks by establishment of vegetation).

2.

If the “initial” categorization was done for a year of the commitment period, then the land must be classified under the same activity
for all subsequent years, even if the land use changes once more.

3.

All units of land subject to direct human-induced A/R activities are considered to be managed forests, and therefore unmanaged forest
land cannot result from an A/R event in the table. Similarly, it is assumed that all units of land subject to direct human-induced D
activities are managed lands. This includes natural D followed by a change to a managed land use.

Figures 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 graphically show 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 Kyoto Protocol in any single
reporting year. The outer rectangle represents the boundaries of a hypothetical country. The top diagram shows
the reporting categories for the UNFCCC national inventory according to Chapter 3, and the bottom diagram
includes an additional layer with the Article 3.3 and Article 3.4 categories under the Kyoto Protocol.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

4.21

Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol

Figure 4.2.1

Land classification in the national inventories under the UNFCCC of ahypothetical country in year X of the commitment period 19
Wetland, Settlements, Other Lands
Managed forest

Managed grassland

Unmanaged
grassland

Unmanaged
forestCropland/arable/tillage

Figure 4.2.2

Land classification for Kyoto Protocol reporting for a hypothetical country
in year X of the commitment period. This classification corresponds to the“final” status in Table 4.2.1.
##

##

RV

Wetland, Settlements, Other Lands

D

Managed forest

Managed grassland
* ##

FM

AR

CM

GM

RV# ##

D** ##GM

Unmanaged
forest

# ##

RV

Note

*

** ##

D

Unmanaged
grassland
Cropland/arable/tillageCM

A/R takes precedence over FM, and therefore the land is subject to FM, but not reported in the FM category.

**

D takes precedence over cropland/grassland categories.

#

Land can only count either in RV or in cropland/grassland management (choice according to hierarchy by country)##

For A/R, D and RV the units of land are shown after the land-use transition has occurred. Therefore, A/R is in forest land, andRV and D are in non-forest lands in the Figure.

A/R : Afforestation / Reforestation, D : Deforestation, FM : Forest Management, CM : Cropland Management
GM : Grazing Land Management, RV : Revegetation

Some further observations relating to Figure 4.2.2:•

19

The areas surrounded by dashed lines are areas subject to the additional activities under Article 3.4, i.e.,
forest management, cropland management and grazing land management activities.

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

4.22

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Methods for estimation, measurement, monitoring and reporting of LULUCF activities under Articles 3.3 & 3.4•

Forest, as defined by the Marrakesh Accords, relates to the physical characteristics of forests. An area
subject to forest management is subsequently determined as an area upon which particular management
practices are undertaken, consistent with Article 3.4 and the Marrakesh Accords. Forest management lands
can include all managed forests according to the IPCC Guidelines. However, this situation may not always
apply, because (i) countries could use different thresholds for defining forests for Kyoto Protocol as opposed
to UNFCCC reporting, (ii) Article 3.4 as well as the Marrakesh Accords require that the activity took placesince 1990, and (iii) the Marrakesh Accords’ definition of forest management20 contains additional criteria
on stewardship. For further discussion of this possible definitional difference see Figure 4.2.8 andaccompanying text in Section 4.2.7.2 (Choice of Methods for identifying lands subject to forest
management). Unmanaged forests that remain unmanaged are included neither in the UNFCCC nor in the
Kyoto Protocol reporting.

•

For Kyoto reporting lands subject to cropland management as described in the Marrakesh Accords are
identical to Cropland/arable/tillage lands in UNFCCC reporting.

•

Grazing land management usually occurs on lands classified as grasslands in the UNFCCC inventory.
However, grazing land management can also occur in managed forests, and not all grasslands are necessarily
grazing lands. Unmanaged grasslands will be excluded from both the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol
reporting.

•

Afforested and reforested (A/R) lands are always managed forests. Yet, carbon stock changes and non-CO2
greenhouse gas emissions are to be reported under Article 3.3 only.

•

Deforested lands are usually managed (thus, there is no “D” box in the unmanaged grasslands). An
exception is a wetland created from alterations of a hydrological regime, e.g., through the construction of a
road.

4.2.2
4.2.2.1

Generic methodologies for area identification,
stratification and reportingR EPORTI NG REQ UIREMENTS

The Marrakesh Accords state that areas of land subject to Article 3.3 and Article 3.4 activities must be
identifiable21, adequately reported22 and tracked in the future.23 Section 4.2.2.2 discusses two land reporting
20

Paragraph 1 (f) of the Annex to the draft decision -/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in
document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p. 58: “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 asustainable manner.

21

Paragraph 20 of the Annex to the draft decision -/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in document
FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p.61: National inventory systems under Article 5.1 shall ensure that areas of land subject toland use, land-use change and forestry activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 are identifiable, and information
about these areas should 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.

22

Paragraph 6 of the Annex of the draft decision -/CMP.1 (Article 7), contained in document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3, p.22:
General information to be reported for activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, 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;(ii) Units of land subject to activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, which would otherwise be included in land
subject to elected activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, under the provisions of paragraph 8 of the annex todecision -/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry); and(iii) Land subject to elected activities under Article 3, paragraph 4. […](c)The spatial assessment unit used for determining the area of accounting for afforestation, reforestation anddeforestation.

23

Paragraph 19 of the Annex to the draft decision -/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in document
FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p.61: Once land is accounted for under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, all anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions by sources from and removals by sinks on this land must be accounted for throughout
subsequent and contiguous commitment periods.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

4.23

Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol

methods that can be applied to all Article 3.3 and Article 3.4 activities. Section 4.2.2.3 discusses how thesereporting methods can draw on the three approaches presented in Chapter 2. Section 4.2.2.4 provides a decision
tree for selecting one of the two reporting methods, and Section 4.2.2.5 includes a more detailed discussion of
how lands subject to Articles 3.3 and 3.4 can be identified, so that the requirements of either reporting method
can be satisfied.

4.2.2.2

R EPORTI NG M ETH ODS FOR L ANDS SUBJECT TO A RTICLE
3.3 AND ARTI CLE 3.4 ACTIVITIESTo meet the reporting requirements of the Marrakesh Accords, general information to be reported on activities
under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 must include the geographical boundaries of areas encompassing units of land subject
to afforestation and reforestation, deforestation, and lands subject to elected activities among forest management,
cropland management, grazing land management and revegetation activities. To achieve this, a Party may choose
one of two methods (Figure 4.2.3):
Reporting Method 1 entails delineating areas that include multiple land units subject to Article 3.3 and 3.4
activities by using legal, administrative, or ecosystem boundaries. This stratification is based on samplingtechniques, administrative data, or grids on images produced by remote sensing techniques. The identified
geographic boundaries must be georeferenced.
Reporting Method 2 is based on the spatially explicit and complete geographical identification of all units ofland subject to Article 3.3 activities and all lands subject to Article 3.4 activities.
To implement Reporting Method 1, it is good practice to stratify the entire country and to define and report thegeographic boundaries of these areas of land. Criteria for stratification of the country could include statisticalconsiderations for the sampling intensity or sampling approaches, considerations of the type and amount of landuse change activities (Article 3.3) and elected activities (Articles 3.4), as well as ecological or administrative
considerations. Within each resulting geographic boundary the units of land subject to Article 3.3 activities andthe lands subject to any Article 3.4 activities (if elected) must then be quantified using the approaches describedin Chapter 2 (Section 2.3 Representing land areas), in accordance with the guidance in Section 4.2.2.3, as well as
the methods in Sections 4.2.2.5 (generic methods) and 4.2.5 to 4.2.10 (activity specific methods).
To implement Reporting Method 2, a Party should identify and report the spatial location of all lands and unitsof land based on a complete mapping of all areas within its national boundaries. This is described in Chapter 2 as
the wall-to-wall mapping version of Approach 3 (Section 2.3.2.3). This reporting method uniquely identifies
lands and units of land and enables activities to be reported without the risk of double counting. To put thisreporting method fully into practice requires large-scale data collection and analysis, and the preparation ofsummary statistics to ensure that reporting is transparent yet concise.
Figure 4.2.3

4.24

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

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Methods for estimation, measurement, monitoring and reporting of LULUCF activities under Articles 3.3 & 3.4

With either reporting method, once land is reported as being subject to activities specified under the Marrakesh
Accords, it should be traceable for the first and subsequent commitment periods. Therefore, if a Party chooses
Reporting Method 1, it is good practice to record the information needed to identify the sample locations and theunits of land or lands identified in the samples, and to use the same sample locations for any future monitoring.
This ensures that changes in the status of land covered by sample plots (Reporting Method 1) or in the entire
country (Reporting Method 2) can be tracked and monitored from 1990 to the end of the commitment period.
The geographic boundaries resulting from the stratification of the country should be reported using printed maps
or digital maps, as described in Section 4.2.4.3.1 (Reporting).

4.2.2.3

R ELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A PPROACHES IN C H APTER 2
AND R EPORTING METHODS I N C HAPTER 4

Chapter 2 (Basis for consistent representation of land areas) describes three approaches to representing land area.
The detailed reporting requirements of Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol as elaborated in the Marrakesh
Accords are met by the two reporting methods given in this chapter, and underpinned by the approaches
described in Chapter 2. This section, summarised in Table 4.2.2, discusses which of the three Chapter 2
approaches are suitable for identifying units of land subject to Article 3.3 activities or lands subject to selected
activities under Article 3.4. Note that even the most data-intensive Approach 3 outlined in Chapter 2 can only
meet the requirements of the Marrakesh Accords without supplemental information if the spatial resolution atwhich land-use changes are tracked is consistent with the size parameter selected by a country to define forest,i.e., polygon sizes of 0.05 to 1 ha or grids of 20 to 100 m (see STEP 1.1 in Section 4.1.1). Land cover and landuse mapping using, for example, 1 km2 (100 ha) pixel resolution does not meet the Protocol’s requirements andsupplemental information will be required.

4.2.2.3.1

APPROACH 1

Approach 1 in Chapter 2 provides information that is not spatially explicit and it only reports the net changes in
the areas of different land-use categories. Hence, this approach does not meet the land identification
requirements of the Marrakesh Accords. National inventory databases are often compiled from detailed spatial
inventories that can be based, for example, on sampling approaches that involve a grid or sample plot system. In
countries where this is the case, it may be possible to re-compile the detailed inventory information for thegeographical boundaries, which have resulted from the stratification of the country, to meet the reporting
requirements of the Marrakesh Accords. This means that Approach 1 can only be applied to Reporting Method 1
if additional spatial data at the required spatial resolution are available as a result of re-compiling the inventory
information, and if the gross land-use transitions (rather than the net changes in land-use categories) arequantified.

4.2.2.3.2

APPROACH 2

Approach 2 focuses on land-use transitions. Although it provides useful information on land-use changes,
especially regarding afforestation, reforestation and deforestation under Article 3.3, it is not spatially explicit.
Hence, additional spatial information at the required spatial resolution is necessary to meet the reporting
requirements of the Marrakesh Accords. This approach can therefore only be used to identify units of land or
land subject to activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 if additional spatial data are available. As with Approach 1, it
may be possible to apply Approach 2 to Reporting Method 1 if additional spatial data at the required spatial
resolution become available from re-compiling the inventory information.

4.2.2.3.3

APPROACH 3

Approach 3 explicitly tracks land based on sample approaches, a grid system, or a polygon system within thegeographic boundaries, which have resulted from the stratification of the country. This approach is applicable toReporting Methods 1 and 2 above, as long as the spatial resolution is fine enough to represent the minimum
forest area as defined by the Party under the Marrakesh Accords.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

4.25

Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol

TABLE 4.2.2
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN APPROACHES IN CHAPTER 2 AND REPORTING METHODS IN CHAPTER 4
Chapter 2 Approaches

Reporting Method 1(Broad area identification)

Reporting Method 2(Complete identification)

Approach 1

Can only be used if additional spatial information isavailable by re-compiling inventories.

Not applicable

Approach 2

Can only be used if additional spatial information isavailable by re-compiling inventories.

Not applicable

Good practiceGood practice

if resolution is fine enough to represent minimum
forest area. Involves aggregating data within thereported geographic boundaries.

if resolution is fine enough torepresent minimum forest area.

Approach 3

4.2.2.4

C HOICE OF R EPORTING M ETHOD

It is good practice to choose an appropriate reporting method using the decision tree given in Figure 4.2.4.
National circumstances may allow a Party to use a combination of both reporting methods. In such a case, it isgood practice to first stratify the entire country and then to quantify and report the area of units of land and land
using Reporting Method 1. Within those geographical boundaries where complete spatial identification of lands
and units of land is possible, Reporting Method 2 can then be applied.
Figure 4.2.4

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
Develop additional spatial
information by re-compilingdetailed inventory database

Develop spatial
information of
the boundaries

No

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

Yes
Use Reporting Method 1

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

Yes

Use Reporting Method 2

When using Method 1 it is usually good practice to use the same geographical boundaries for all activities. This
will greatly facilitate the identification, quantification, and reporting of land-use changes. However, national
circumstances may provide justification for different choices of geographic boundaries for different activities.
For example, different geographic boundaries may be chosen so as 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 or units of land subject to Article 3.3 or 3.4 activities that moved from

4.26

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Methods for estimation, measurement, monitoring and reporting of LULUCF activities under Articles 3.3 & 3.4

one category to another must be appropriately assigned to the correct geographical boundary. This might require
proportional allocation of the units of land to each stratification system in use.

4.2.2.5

H OW TO IDENTIFY LANDS ( UNI TS OF LAND ) IN GENERAL

4.2.2.5.1

SPATIAL CO NFIGURATION OF FORESTS AND AFFORESTATION,
REFORESTATION O R DEFORESTATION EVENTSThe Marrakesh Accords specify that each Annex I Party to the Kyoto Protocol must choose country-specificparameters within the definition of forest as an integral part of their Kyoto Protocol reporting. The latest possible
date to do that is 31 December 2006, or one year after the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol for that Party,
whichever is later24. This requires selecting values for the following three parameters: the size of the minimum
area of land that can constitute a forest, ranging between 0.05 and 1 ha, and parameters for crown cover (10 –30%) and tree height at maturity (2 – 5 m). The parameter for the minimum area of land that constitutes a forest
does also specify the minimum area on which afforestation/reforestation or deforestation events occur. Thus acountry that selects, say 0.5 ha as the minimum area of forest land, must also identify all deforestation events
that occur on lands that are 0.5 ha or larger. The identification of units of land on which land-use changes occur,
such as deforestation, requires the detection of a reduction in forest cover from above to below the countryspecific threshold of forest, accompanied by a change in land-use.
The Marrakesh Accords do not specify the shape of areas, neither for forest, nor for those areas on which
afforestation, reforestation or deforestation events occur. Square areas that meet the size range of the Marrakesh
Accords would be 22.36 m (0.05 ha) to 100 m (1 ha) on each side. But a rectangle that is 10 m wide and 1,000 mlong is also 1 ha in area, as is a 5 m wide and 2,000 m long rectangle. Therefore, a treed shelterbelt or any otherstrip of trees that exceeds these sizes could be considered a forest. But if such “linear forests” are included in a
Party’s definition of forest, it is good practice to also consider as non-forest any areas being cleared from trees
by "linear deforestation events", such as roads, transmission right-of-ways, or pipeline corridors. When suchcorridors have resulted from cuts since 1990, they should be treated as deforestation events under Article 3.3.
For example, if a country selects 1 ha as the minimum area of forests and afforestation, reforestation ordeforestation events, and further specifies that these areas are square, then a 20 m wide corridor cut through aforest with 100% canopy closure, will reduce canopy closure to 80%. This is higher than the range of canopy
closures (10 – 30%) that could be selected by a Party. Therefore the residual area is defined as forest, and evenwhen this corridor through the forest is cut since 1990, it would not constitute a deforestation event. If this
"only" 20 m wide corridor is part of a long corridor, which streches for many kilometers, such as a transmission
right-of-way or a pipeline corridor, the total corridor area is much greater than 1 ha. Therefore the definitional
criteria applied to specify the shape of the forests and of the areas subject to afforestation, reforestation ordeforestation events can have a large impact on the amount of land reported under Article 3.3.
It is therefore good practice for countries to include, with their report on the choice of forest definitions, adescription of the definitional criteria which are used to identify forests and areas on which afforestation,
reforestation or deforestation events occur. It is also good practice to apply these criteria consistently to theidentification of both deforestation and afforestation or reforestation events that have occurred since 1990. For
instance, these criteria can simply be defined as the minimum width that will be accepted for a forest and an area
subject to an afforestation, reforestation or deforestation event. Then the minimum length of the area follows
from the combination of width and the chosen parameter for minimum area which can constitute a forest. For
example, if the size were defined as 1 ha, with a minimum width of 20 m, then a rectangle of minimum width
has to be at least 500 m long to meet the 1 ha size requirement.
"Linear deforestation events" narrower than the selected minimum width criteria can contribute to reported
carbon stock changes if they occur within lands subject to FM activities, given the Party has elected FM as
Article 3.4 activity. Similarly, shelterbelts that are narrower than the selected minimum width criteria can also
contribute to reported carbon stock changes, if these shelterbelts are within lands subject to cropland
management, grazing land management, or revegetation activities, given the Party has elected the respective
Article 3.4 activity.

24

See paragraph 16 of the Annex of Draft decision -/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in document
FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p. 61, and paragraph 8 (b) of the Annex to Draft decision -/CMP.1 (Modalities for theaccounting of assigned amounts), contained in document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.2, p. 59, and also Table 4.2.4a.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

4.27

Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol

4.2.2.5.2

SOURCES OF DATA FOR IDENTIFYING LANDS

The needs for the reporting of lands subject to activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 have been outlined in theprevious sections. The data and information available to a country to meet these needs will depend largely on
national circumstances. These include the land and forest inventory systems already in place and the additional
measures a country chooses to implement in order to meet the reporting requirements.
In very general terms there are three major options that can be taken to meet the information needs:• To use information from existing land-use and forest inventory systems.
• To implement a monitoring and measurement system.
• To implement an activity reporting system that includes verification and auditing procedures.
It is likely that in most countries the existing land use and inventory systems are inadequate to meet all the land
reporting requirements of the Kyoto Protocol, and that, with varying degrees of incremental efforts, additional
information must be obtained through monitoring or in-country reporting systems. A country’s choices of theappropriate systems will depend on national circumstances. For example, a country could determine that it would
be most efficient to combine an activity reporting system to identify units of land subject toafforestation/reforestation, and a monitoring system to identify units of land subject to deforestation.

Use of existing invent ories
Countries that maintain detailed forest and other land-use inventories or collect annual or periodic spatial land
statistics may be able to identify lands affected by Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities since 1990 from their inventories.
This, however, will only be possible if the national inventory and data collection systems meet stringent
technical requirements. The systems must be able to define the land use and forest area in 1990, have an update
cycle that is sufficiently short to capture land-use change events between 1990 and 2008, and between 2008 and2012, 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 be georeferenced and used
repeatedly during future monitoring. If the latter is not possible, e.g., because monitoring procedures werechanged, it is good practice to develop computational procedures, which allow to convert the data between theused sampling schemes or which, at least to have a method, allow to map the data from a previous to a successor
sampling scheme (see also Sections 4.2.4.1. Developing a consistent time series and 4.2.4.1.1 Recalculation).
Forest inventories in large countries often do not record polygons less than, for example, 3 ha in size. The
requirement to identify afforestation, reforestation or deforestation activities at a resolution of 0.05 to 1 hectares
can be met, however, with additional statistical analyses to establish the area subject to afforestation,
reforestation or deforestation events that occurred in units less than 3 ha in size. One possible approach could beto determine the size-class distributions of afforestation/reforestation and of deforestation events in the country,
using a statistical sampling approach. The proportion of the area of afforestation/reforestation and of
deforestation events that is between 0.05 – 1 ha and the minimum mapping unit in the inventory (in this example
3 ha) can then be applied to estimate the area of afforestation/reforestation and deforestation events from the 3ha resolution inventory. For example, if the 3-ha resolution inventory shows that there have been 1,000 ha ofafforestation/reforestation events in units of 3 ha or larger, and the sample-based size-class distribution ofafforestation/reforestation events shows that on average 5% of the afforestation/reforestation events is in areas ofsize between 0.05 – 1 ha and 3 ha, then the 1,000 ha represent 95% of the total afforestation/reforestation area
(and the total is estimated to be 1,000 • 100/95 = 1,052.6 ha). It is good practice to document the statistical
validity of the sample-based size-class distribution, and its regional and temporal variation. Note that thisapproach to augmenting existing inventory information also has implications for the determination of carbon
stock changes: since these 5% of the area are not geographically referenced, only statistical methods such as
regional averages can be used to determine their carbon stock changes and trace their fate, once they are included
under Article 3.3 or 3.4, over time.
Countries that choose an inventory-based approach for the identification of units of land subject toafforestation/reforestation activities can face the challenge that non-forest areas are not normally included in theforest inventory. In this case, countries must ensure that their inventory system detects land-use transitions fromnon-forest to forest and expands the forest inventory into the newly created forest area. Some countries monitorchanges from non-forest to forest by means of remote sensing of lands not previously covered by the forest
inventory or by maintaining inventory plots on non-forest land.

4.28

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Methods for estimation, measurement, monitoring and reporting of LULUCF activities under Articles 3.3 & 3.4

Monitoring and meas urement of activities
In order to meet the reporting requirements of Articles 3.3 and 3.4, countries may have to develop andimplement a monitoring system for the identification and recording of land use and land-use change. Such amonitoring 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, forexample where a base map has been derived from composite satellite images obtained over several years, as isoften the case where cloud cover, sensor failures, or other technical reasons make it impossible to obtaincomplete national coverage for a single point in time.
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 (see Sections 2.4.2 Sampling methods; 4.2.4.3 Uncertainty assessment; 5.2 Identifying and quantifying
uncertainties; and 5.3 Sampling). Appropriate pre-stratification of the country (see Section 4.1.1, STEP 1.3) for
which sample estimates will be developed may reduce the uncertainty.

Activity reporting
Identification of lands that are subject to activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 can be achieved through theimplementation of an activity reporting system. For example, since afforestation events are often difficult to
detect through remote sensing and often occur outside the area of existing forest inventories, a country may
choose to identify these lands through an activity reporting system. Instead of trying to detect afforestation
events from inventory or monitoring systems, countries can request that those individuals or agencies thatafforest or reforest areas report on their activities. Activity reporting may also be most efficient where
information about land use is required that may not be readily determined from remote sensing, such as cropland
management, or grazing land management.
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 actual aswell as the expected volume growth function for the land.
It is good practice for Parties that rely on activity reporting systems, which put into place methods for internal
auditing and verification to ensure that activities are neither over- nor underreported. Administrative information
on programmes or subsidies for afforestation activities alone may not include information on plantation
establishment success. Spatially explicit information, i.e., either the delineation of the units of land, or references
to a country’s national map grid coordinates (e.g., UTM, Universal Transverse Mercator) or legal description of
the units of land subject to an activity, are required for the domestic audit and verification procedures applied toa reporting system.
Further details on the identification of lands are provided in the activity-specific sections of this chapter(Sections 4.2.5 to 4.2.10).

4.2.3

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

Once the areas subject to activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 have been determined, the Marrekesh Accords
specify that the carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions on these areas must be estimated.
The generic methods of estimating the carbon stock changes, for all pools to be reported (see below), aredescribed in Chapter 3 (LUCF sector good practice guidance). 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
4.2.5 to 4.2.10.
Coverage of activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 requires an estimation of all carbon stock changes, andemissions and removals of non-CO2 greenhouse gases (regardless of cause, such as growth, harvest, natural
disturbance, decomposition etc.) from all lands subject to the included activities and for all pools withdiscretionary omission of those that are not a source of carbon, with higher-tier methods used for key categories.
The methodology used to estimate greenhouse gas emissions and removals for a particular year (1990, 2008,2009,…, or 2012) depends on the land use in the current and in prior years, because shifts in categories or land

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

4.29

Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol

uses can occur over time (see Section 4.1.2). Therefore the methodologies may vary between units of land or
land within one Article 3.3 or Article 3.4 category. 25 The methodology used to calculate greenhouse gas
emissions or removals associated with a unit of land or land 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 andchanges in land use, where appropriate. If the land use in the current year does not correspond to an Article 3.3
activity or an elected Article 3.4 activity, and if a reporting requirement was not established through land use orland-use change in prior years, then the land is not reported at all under the Kyoto Protocol.

4.2.3.1

P OOLS TO BE REPORTEDThe IPCC Guidelines provide methodologies for the estimation of the carbon stock changes in two major carbon
pools: biomass and soil organic carbon; they mention dead organic matter as an area that should be considered infuture work on inventory methods. The Marrakesh Accords specify that carbon stock changes in five pools must
be reported: aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, dead wood, litter, and soil organic carbon (Table
3.1.2). Decreases in one pool may be offset by increases in another pool, e.g., biomass pools decline after adisturbance but litter and dead wood pools can increase. Thus the change in a single pool can be greater than the
net change in the sum of the pools.
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 is calculated. Any net decrease in carbon stocks is converted to theequivalent CO2 emission in the reporting tables (see Section 4.2.4.3) and any net increase is reported as theequivalent CO2 removal. Carbon stock changes are converted to CO2 emissions and removals by multiplying thenet carbon stock change by 44/12 (the stochiometric ratio of CO2 and C) and by converting the sign: a decreasein carbon stocks (negative sign) leads to an emission to the atmosphere (positive sign) and vice versa. The
storage of carbon in harvested wood products is not included in the reporting since it is not listed as a poolcovered by the Marrakesh Accords. Chapter 3 provides clear definitions of carbon pools (Table 3.1.2). 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 five pools.
The Marrakesh Accords specify that a Party may choose not to account for a given pool in a commitment period,
if transparent and verifiable information is provided that the pool is not a source.26 Good practice in providing
verifiable information, which demonstrates that excluded pools, if any, are not a net source of greenhouse gases,
can be achieved by:•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;•

Reasoning based on sound knowledge of likely system responses. For instance, if cropland is converted toforest land by afforestation or reforestation, the dead wood pool cannot decrease, because there is typicallyno deadwood in a cropland (if it does not contain trees, e.g., if it does not contain any shelterbelts, was no
orchard, and was no other agroforestry system);•

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

Combined methods.

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 4.2.4.2 Uncertainty Assessment).

25

For example, two units of land may both be in the cropland management category. However, one of them may haveresulted from grassland conversion into cropland, the other from continuing cropland management, so that the greenhousegas assessment methods need to take account of differing values of soil carbon resulting from their different management
histories.

26

See paragraph 21 in the Annex to the draft decision -/CMP.1 (Land use, lan-use change and forestry), contained in
document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p.62.

4.30

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Methods for estimation, measurement, monitoring and reporting of LULUCF activities under Articles 3.3 & 3.4

4.2.3.2

Y EARS FOR WHICH TO ESTIMATE CARBON STOCKCHANGES AND NO N -CO 2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONSThe Marrakesh Accords specify that the carbon stock changes for each unit of land subject to an Article 3.3
activity, and for lands subject to elected activities under Article 3.4 be reported for each year of the commitment
period27, beginning with the start of the commitment period, or with the start of the activity, whichever is later.
To ensure that actual carbon stock changes are reported, and not artefacts resulting from changes in area overtime, the calculations of carbon stock changes should be implemented in the following sequence: For each unitof land or land, the carbon stock change should first be calculated for the year of interest, and these stockchanges should then be summed for all areas. The inverse sequence, i.e., first summing up the carbon stocks
across all areas at times t1 and t2 and then calculating the difference in carbon stocks, can result in errors if thearea at times t1 and t2 is not the same, and is therefore not recommended.28
It is therefore good practice to conduct all calculations of carbon stock changes and greenhouse gas emissions
for the area at the end of the inventory year, and to use this approach consistently through time.
This means that if the activity started on 1 July 2009, then the carbon stock changes and greenhouse gas
emissions should be reported for each of the last four years of the commitment period, 2009-2012. If the activity
started after 1990 but before 1 January 2008, then reporting of the carbon stock changes and greenhouse gas
emissions for the commitment period should cover each of the five years of the commitment period, 1 January
2008 to 31 December 2012. These reporting requirements as a function of time are summarized in Table 4.2.3.
Where differences occur between the sum of the five annual reports and the report for the entire commitment
period, these should be addressed and reconciled at the end of the commitment period (see Sections 4.2.3.3,
4.2.4.1.1 and Chapter 5).

TABLE 4.2.3
CALENDAR YEARS FOR WHICH CARBON STOCK CHANGES ARE TO BE REPORTED (FOR EACH ACTIVITY
AND EACH OF THE FIVE POOLS DESCRIBED ABOVE), AS A FUNCTION OF THE TIME WHEN THE ACTIVITYSTARTED. “R” DENOTES YEARS FOR WHICH REPORTING IS NECESSARY
Activity started

Calendar year for which reporting is necessary
2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Before 2008

R

R

R

R

R

In 2008

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

In 2009
In 2010
In 2011
In 2012

R

R

R

R

R
R

Each activity (afforestation, reforestation, deforestation, forest management, cropland management, grazing land
management and revegetation) may consist of a suite of practices and may begin with one or several of these.
For instance, an afforestation programme may begin with planning, land purchase, producing propagationmaterial etc. Operations like site preparation can also precede the planting or seeding (as a result of which theland actually becomes a “forest”). Some of these operations are carbon-neutral, while others like site preparation
may result in significant carbon, nitrous oxide or methane emissions. It is good practice 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 thesuite of the operations. 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 can either a) measure the27

See paragraph 5 in the Annex to the draft decision -/CMP.1 (Article 7), contained in document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3, p.
22.

28

For example, if the area of an Article 3.4 activity is 100 ha at the beginning of an inventory year and 200 ha at the end of
the same inventory year, then the difference in carbon stocks on the 200 ha over the inventory year must be calculated –otherwise the carbon stock at the beginning of the year (X tonnes of C / ha • 100 ha) is almost always smaller than the
carbon stock at the end of the year (Y tonnes of C / ha • 200 ha), and an apparent increase would merely result from thepresence of carbon stocks as the area increases.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

4.31

Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol

carbon stocks on the site prior to the start of any operations related to the activity (in case carbon stock changes
are estimated using multiple stock measurements), or b) make sure that the estimate of the stock change includes
an estimate of the emissions resulting from these initial operations.

4.2.3.3

R EPORTI NG AND MEASUREMENT INTERVALS

The Marrakesh Accords specify that all emissions from sources and removal by sinks caused by Article 3.3 andelected Article 3.4 activities be reported annually. 29 A number of methods are available to obtain annual
estimates and the annual reporting requirement does not imply that annual field 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
4.2.3.7 (Interannual variability). Carbon stock changes for pools with high uncertainties, e.g., soil organic carbon,
are usually not detectable on an annual or short-term basis. Broadly speaking, when countries are developing andselecting methods to meet their reporting requirements, they should seek a balance which is affordable, makebest use of data that are already available, allow stock changes to be verified consistently with the approaches set
out in Chapter 5 (Section 5.7 Verification), and not make inventories susceptible to the impacts of annual
fluctuations in weather. Although Section 4.2.3.7 suggests that field data collection on a five-year cycle may
represent a reasonable compromise, the re-measurement interval also depends on the pool and the magnitude ofthe expected changes relative to the spatial variability in the pool and the uncertainties involved in pool size
assessments. For example, changes in soil carbon can often only be detected over longer time periods. Dataalready 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.

4.2.3.4

C HOICE OF METH OD

Estimation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from Articles 3.3 and elected Article
3.4 activities should be consistent with the methods set out in Chapter 3. For each unit of land under Article 3.3
or land under Article 3.4, it is good practice to use the same tier or a higher tier for estimating stock changes andgreenhouse gas emissions as the one that was used for the same land in the UNFCCC inventory, following
Chapter 3 of this report. The only exception to this rule is revegetation: if the lands on which revegetation occurs
are not a key category, then revegetation is also not a key category. If the lands on which the revegetation occurs
are a key category in the UNFCCC inventory30, then revegetation can either be treated as a key category, or aseparate test to identify the “key category” can be applied (see Chapter 5, Section 5.4.4 Identifying key
categories under Kyoto Protocol Articles 3.3 and 3.4).
Tier 1 as elaborated in Chapter 3 assumes that the net change in the carbon stock for litter (forest floor), deadwood and soil organic carbon (SOC) pools is zero, but the Marrakesh Accords specify that above- andbelowground biomass, litter, dead wood and SOC should all be counted unless the country chooses not to counta pool that can be shown not to be a source. Therefore Tier 1 can only be applied if the litter, dead wood and
SOC pools can be shown not to be a source using the methods outlined in the Section 4.2.3.1. Tier 1 can also
only be applied if forest management is not considered a key category, which can only be the case if “forests
remaining forests” in Chapter 3 are not a key category.

4.2.3.5

F ACTORI NG OUT INDIRECT , NATURAL AND PRE -1990
EFFECTS

The Marrakesh Accords specify that information be provided whether or not anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions by sources and removals by sinks from activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 factor out removals fromelevated carbon dioxide concentrations above pre-industrial levels, indirect nitrogen deposition, and the dynamic

29

Note that although annual reporting is required, countries have the option to account either annually or over the entire
commitment period (cf. paragraph 8(d) in the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Modalities for the accounting of assigned
amounts), contained in document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.2, p.59).

30

This is possible where the croplands or grasslands on which the revegetation takes place are key categories with respect tothe UNFCCC inventory, whereas the area on which the revegetation takes place may be very small compared to thoseunder cropland or grassland management.

4.32

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Methods for estimation, measurement, monitoring and reporting of LULUCF activities under Articles 3.3 & 3.4

effects of age structure resulting from activities prior to 1 January 1990.31 In addition to the requirement to report
whether or not these effects are factored out, those Parties that choose factoring out should also report themethods they used. For the purpose of accounting under the Kyoto Protocol for the first commitment period,“factoring out” has been addressed through the cap for carbon credits for forest management under Articles 3.4
and 6. The "factoring out" issue is currently under consideration by the IPCC and will therefore not be addressed
further here.

4.2.3.6

D ISTURBANCESDisturbances include processes that reduce or redistribute carbon pools in terrestrial ecosystems. Examples
include fire, windthrow, insects, droughts, flooding, ice storms, etc. Although disturbances can be either naturalor human-induced, or of unknown causes, they affect the carbon cycle of managed forests and other managed
lands, and therefore, they are to be included in the carbon stock change and greenhouse gas assessments for
those landsthat are subject to activities under Articles 3.3, 3.4 or 6. These disturbances are also considered in theinventories under the UNFCCC (see Chapter 3, e.g., the Introduction to Section 3.2 Forest land).
Since unmanaged forests and other unmanaged lands are included neither in the UNFCCC nor in the Kyoto
Protocol reporting requirements disturbances in areas which remain unmanaged are not to be considered.
Four major impacts of disturbances on managed ecosystems can be identified. First, disturbances can cause
direct releases of carbon and non-CO2 greenhouse gases to the atmosphere (e.g., during fires) or transfers ofcarbon out of the ecosystem (e.g., during harvest). Second, they redistribute carbon between ecosystem carbon
pools, e.g., live biomass is transferred to dead wood and litter. Third, they result in post-disturbance emissions,e.g., through the decay of residual biomass after a disturbance. Forth, they re-set stand dynamics to an earlier age
class of the same or a new growth trajectory. Tier 3 models that estimate carbon stock changes in forested
landscapes simulate each of these processes and integrate the impacts of disturbances on stand and landscapelevel carbon stocks (e.g., Kurz et al., 1992; Kurz and Apps 1999).
Taking this into account, the following can be said:•

Carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions resulting from disturbances on land subject toan Article 3.3 activity (afforestation, reforestation, and deforestation) or an elected Article 3.4 activity (e.g.,forest management) have to be included in the reported numbers. See for example, Section 3.2.1.1 for
guidance on how to estimate and report carbon stock changes and Section 3.2.1.4 for greenhouse gas
emissions from fires. If the carbon stock changes resulting from disturbances were not included in the
UNFCCC reporting, they have to be added for the Kyoto reporting.

•

Carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions resulting from disturbances during thecommitment period on land subject to projects (Article 6) have to be included in the reported numbers.

•

If project-related management activities (e.g., Article 6) result in a reduction or avoidance of disturbances(e.g., fire or insect control), a change in carbon stocks relative to a baseline (with disturbances) can occur. It
is good practice to estimate and include in the reporting the actual carbon stock changes occurring in the
project area.

4.2.3.7

I NTERANNUAL VARIABILITY

The annual rate of net carbon emissions or removals in an ecosystem is strongly influenced by local weather
patterns, climate variability, management actions, natural disturbance variations and other factors that alter
growth and decomposition rates (e.g., in Griffis et al.,2000 ; Tian et al., 1998; Flanagan et al., 2002).
Consequently, the rate of net carbon emissions or removals in a given area may vary from year to year, and canshift between a net source and a net sink in successive years.
There are two aspects to interannual variability, and they need to be addressed independently. First, the national
statistics on the between-years variation in harvest rates, land-use change, or natural disturbances such as thearea burned, are usually available, and it is good practice to include these in the calculation of carbon stockchanges. Second, the variations in growth and decomposition rates due to seasonal and annual variations inenvironmental conditions, such as moisture regimes, temperature, or growing season length are much moredifficult to quantify.

31

See paragraph 7 in the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Article 7), contained in document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3, p. 23.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

4.33

Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol

The impacts of interannual variability in environmental conditions on the estimates of annual rates of net
emissions and removals of carbon may result in incorrect conclusions about long-term trends where estimatesfrom a single year are extrapolated. Conversely, interpolation of long-term trends in, for example, forest growth
rates may result in under- or overestimation of the actual growth in a single year. The forest growth functions
and yield tables used in countries with forest management planning systems are based on measurements ofperiodic growth (e.g., over 5 or 10-year re-measurement intervals) and thus are incorporating and averaging theimpacts of past interannual variability of environmental conditions. One approach that would meet good practiceis to use such growth functions to estimate biomass growth rates, because they represent the average growth
rates and are therefore influenced little by short-term fluctuations in environmental conditions.
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, the growth estimates should be adjusted accordingly.
Countries that use process-based models to simulate annual variability in stand growth and other stock changes
need to also evaluate these predictions against measurements of periodic stock changes on permanent sample
plots and adjust the predictions where necessary.
In addition to the carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions during the commitment period,
the Kyoto Protocol also requires an estimate of carbon stock changes during the base year (1990 in most cases)
for those elected activities for which net-net accounting applies (Table 4.1.1). The impact of this estimate for asingle year could be large because it will be compared against the estimates for each year in the commitment
period in which this activity occurred. The effects of interannual variability in the base year could therefore belarge. The direction of the impact depends on how the year 1990 deviated from the long-term climatic averages.
Moreover, it may be difficult to confirm the estimate for the base year using direct measurements, unless thesewere already taken in 1990. Where environmental conditions in the base year (e.g., 1990) caused major
deviations in the carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from their longer-term (e.g., 5year) averages, it is good practice to consistently report emissions using longer-term averages of environmental
conditions or actual annual estimates of emissions when estimating stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas
emissions.
The effect of interannual variability may decrease as the geographical area considered increases. For example,
the effects of local weather patterns may partially offset each other across a large country, but may be very
pronounced in a small country or within a small region of a country. There are, however, climatic processes thatcan synchronize variations in weather over large regions, such as El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events
which typically occur on time scales of 3 to 7 years, or global climate change. Within limits, the longer themeasurement or estimation interval the more likely it is that the results will capture the true long-term averagevalue. Where non-linear processes are involved, e.g., the sigmoidal accumulation of forest biomass over age,
simple linear interpolation for intermediate years will become increasingly unreliable with longer time periods.
In general, an averaging period of about five years is likely to reduce the impacts of interannual variation.
It is good practice to document whether the methods selected for the estimation of carbon stock changes andnon-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions are sensitive to interannual variability of environmental conditions during thecommitment period, and to report how interannual variation was addressed in the inventory calculations.

4.2.4
4.2.4.1

Other generic methodological issues
D EVELOPING A CO NSISTENT TIME SERIESThe lands subject to Article 3.3 or elected Article 3.4 activities and the management thereon need to be tracked
continuously through time, to ensure that all emissions and removals are reported. Moreover, the continuity ofmanagement greatly influences carbon emissions and removals, and changes in management or land use areoften the periods associated with the greatest changes in carbon stocks. For example, it is not sufficient merely tostate that 10% of a cropland management area has been under no-till for a specified period. The rate of carbon
stock change for the total area depends on whether the same 10% of land has remained under no-till or whether
the 10% of no-till occurred on a different portion of the area in different years. It is therefore good practice tofollow continuously the management of land subject to Article 3.3 and elected 3.4 activities. (See also Box 4.2.1)
Assessment of the continuity of management on land could be achieved either by continuously tracking lands
subject to an Article 3.3 or elected Article 3.4 activity from 1990 until the end of the commitment period (cf.
Section 4.2.7.2 Choice of methods for identification of forest management lands), or by developing statisticalsampling techniques that allow the transition of different types of management on land subject to Article 3.3 or

4.34

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Methods for estimation, measurement, monitoring and reporting of LULUCF activities under Articles 3.3 & 3.4

elected 3.4 activities to be determined (see Section 5.3 Sampling). An example of how such a scheme could
operate is given in Box 4.2.1.
A supplementary condition for developing a consistent time series is to use the same methods for estimating
carbon stock change and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions during the whole period.
Time series consistency is discussed further in Section 5.6 (Time series consistency and recalculations) of thisreport.
BOX 4.2.1
AN EXAMPLE OF CONSISTENCY FOR MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

To estimate changes in soil carbon stocks, whether by Tier 1, 2 or 3 methods, management
practices on applicable lands need to be followed continuously over time. Ideally, the managementof each land would be tracked explicitly. But such data may not always be available. An
alternative approach may be to estimate the average history of lands now under a given
management. Consider the following example.
Example: Cropland management
Suppose there was a cropland region of 10,000 ha, of which 5,000 are in no-till (NT) in the year
2000, up from 2,000 ha in 1990. The remainder, in each year, is under conventional tillage (CT).
In order to simplify this example, suppose also that the land management in the year 1990 was
unchanged for a long period before (more than 20 years). The estimated soil carbon change isbased on a matrix of coefficients; say 0.3 Mg C/ha/yr for land shifting from CT to NT, -0.3 Mg
C/ha/yr for a shift from NT to CT. (The carbon stock change is calculated by the amount of soil
carbon, the relative carbon stock change32 factor, over 20 years, for the management activity, andthe length of the period, one year. See Chapter 3.3.1.2, and Tables 3.3.3 and 3.3.4.) Unfortunately,
there has been no tracking of management on individual land. However, based on a statisticalanalysis (e.g., a survey), it is possible to estimate, with reasonable confidence, the following shifts:
CT



NT

3,500 ha

CT



CT

4,500 ha

NT



CT

500 haNTNT

1,500 haThe total carbon gain is therefore:(3,500 • 0.3 + 4,500 • 0 + 500 • (-0.3) + 1,500 • 0) Mg C/yr = 900 Mg C/yr.

4.2.4.1.1

RECALCULATIONAs inventory capacity and data availability improve, the methods and data used to calculate estimates are
updated and refined. Recalculation of historic emissions and removals is good practice when new methods are
introduced or existing ones refined, when new sources and sinks categories are included, or when data are
updated (for example through new measurements during the commitment period or the availability of new
information on verification). Recalculations may also be needed if lands are reclassified at a later time (e.g., forlands that have lost forest cover but where a classification as deforested lands was pending and has been resolved,
see Section 4.2.6.2.1).
The Marrakesh Accords make provisions for recalculation33, consistent with the UNFCCC reporting guidelines,
and mention that previous estimates should be recalculated using the new methods for all years in the time series.
Annual greenhouse gas emissions and removals reported for a given year during the commitment period can berecalculated in subsequent reporting years (up to reporting for 2012). Special attention must be given to those
activities under Article 3.4 to which the net-net accounting rule applies, i.e., all activities except Forest
Management. For these activities, the use of refined or updated data or changed methods should be peerreviewed or validated in another way before being implemented, especially if data in the base year will change asa result (see Chapter 7, Section 7.3 Recalculations, in GPG2000 and Chapter 5, Section 5.6.3 Recalculation and32

While Chapter 3 uses the language of emission/removal factors, in Chapter 4 also the term “carbon stock change factor” isin use to refer to carbon emission/removal factors.

33

See paragraphs 4, 12 (notably 12(d) and12(e)), 13 and 14(e) in the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Article 5.1),
contained in document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3, pp. 5-8.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

4.35

Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol

periodic data, in this report for additional guidance). 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.
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(Cross-cutting issues) of this report and Section 7.3 (Recalculations) of the GPG2000.

4.2.4.2

U NCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

According to the Marrakesh Accords, uncertainties should be quantified and all information on anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks which result from activities under Articles 3.3 and3.4 have to be within levels of confidence as elaborated by any IPCC good practice guidance adopted by the
COP/MOP. 34 Generally, the approaches provided in Chapters 2 and 3 and Sections 5.2 Identifying andquantifying uncertainties, and 5.3 Sampling, can be used for assessing uncertainties associated with estimatesreported under the UNFCCC and under the Kyoto Protocol LULUCF activities. However, some issues and terms
which are specific to the Kyoto Protocol require additional uncertainty assessment, for example the identificationof the areas subject to Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities or the need to track activities since 1990. For Kyoto Protocol
reporting, uncertainty assessment is particularly important in order to support verification in accordance with the
Quality Assurance and Quality Control requirements as specified in Chapter 5.35 In addition, to be consistent
with good practice, the uncertainties in inventory estimates should be reduced as far as practicable. Moreover,while selecting a particular tier to estimate changes in carbon stocks and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions, it isgood practice to consider the implications of this choice for the management of uncertainties.

4.2.4.2.1

IDENTIFYING UNCERTAINTIESFor a complete enumeration and explanation of each possible source of uncertainty relevant in the inventory
under the UNFCCC, the reader is referred to Chapters 2 and 3. In the context of the Kyoto Protocol thefollowing sources of uncertainties are likely to be significant:• Definitional errors, such as bias and inconsistencies resulting from the interpretation and implementation of
the various definitions in the Kyoto Protocol and the Marrakesh Accords (including the potential mismatch
between data available to Parties and their interpretation of the definitions);• 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);• Activity data errors (e.g., distinction between the harvesting-regeneration cycle (Article 3.4) vs. deforestation(Article 3.3) or human-inducement of afforestation and reforestation);• 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), or due to differing scales used
to identify lands subject to the various activities, e.g., afforestation/reforestation vs. deforestation, or
modifications made to the sampling procedures and/or densities during the course of time);• Identification errors arising while defining the geographical boundaries of areas encompassing lands and unitsof lands subject to the activities in Articles 3.3 and 3.4 (although this may not have a direct impact on theuncertainty of the carbon stock change estimates for a given activity);• Model errors occur whenever models or allometric equations are used to estimate carbon stock changes or
non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions and removals, which is likely to be the case at higher tiers. It can be very
34

This refers to paragraph 6 (d) including footnote 5, and paragraph 9 including footnote 7 in the Annex to draft decision-/CMP.1 (Article 7) contained in FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3, p.23 and p.24, respectively.

35

For instance activities under Article 3.3 shall be "...measured as verifiable changes in carbon stocks in each commitment
period..." and "...The greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks associated with those activities shall bereported in a transparent and verifiable manner…". Article 3.4 explicitly mentions uncertainties, i.e., "...human-induced
activities related to changes in greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks in the agricultural soils and theland-use change and forestry categories shall be added to, or subtracted from, the assigned amounts for Parties includedin Annex I, taking into account uncertainties, transparency in reporting, [and] verifiability...". (Kyoto Protocol Articles 3.3
and 3.4). See also paragraphs 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) in the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Article 5.1), contained in
FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3, pp.4-5.

4.36

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Methods for estimation, measurement, monitoring and reporting of LULUCF activities under Articles 3.3 & 3.4

cumbersome to trace the propagation of errors through complex models chained to each other. In general, thismay introduce additional uncertainties, except for those cases where simpler models can be used to estimate
typical uncertainty ranges that can be combined with central estimates from complex models.
• Sampling errors associated with the number of samples (number and location) within a “geographicalboundary”. In this case samples do not sufficiently cover the temporal and spatial variability of the estimatedparameters. This is particularly critical when using Reporting Method 1 (as described in Section 4.2.2.2).
Sampling issues are described in detail in Section 5.3 (Sampling).

Some notes on f actors aff ecting uncertainty
Natural Variability
Natural variability is a result of variations in natural controlling variables, such as annual climate variability, andvariability within units of land that are assumed to be homogenous, e.g., the spatial variability of e.g., forest soils
within a given unit of land. When sufficient experimental data are available, good practice should permit
determination of the resulting combined plot-level and upscaling uncertainties using standard statistical methods(e.g., Tate et al., 2003). In some cases, especially for inter-annual or inter-decadal variability, considerable
effects may result that can 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 averagecoefficients and by averaging direct measurements over a time period sufficiently long to assess the variability,
as discussed in Section 4.2.3.7 above.

Lack of activity data and docum entation in tim e-series consistency
In addition to uncertainties in default carbon emission and removal factors, there are known inaccuracies in thecase of missing activity data (cf. Section 4.2.8.1.1). Determining retrospectively the inventory for the base year,
i.e., for most Parties the year 1990, may pose a particular challenge for cropland management, grazing land
management and revegetation. Where the 1990 base year net carbon emission and removals cannot beestablished using the default carbon emission and removal factors, they may be estimated by extrapolating aconsistent time series. This requires data on the land management history for the past 20 years, because thedefault method for estimation of the greenhouse gas emissions/removals assumes that it takes 20 years for thesoil carbon pool to reach a new equilibrium after a land-use change to agriculture. Options to address the lack ofreliable data for the period 1970 to 1990 can be found in Section 4.2.8.1.1 (Base year, Cropland Management).

Resolution of rem ote sensing and ground truth
The objective of using satellite imagery for land cover assessments is to obtain, for an inventory region, total
area estimates, percentages of land-cover classes, or geographical boundaries. Remote sensing is particularly
well suited to produce a complete identification of lands and units of land when using Reporting Method 2 (seeSection 4.2.2.2). A primary source of uncertainty is the selection of imagery of inadequate resolution. In order tocapture 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.
Positional errors occur where (a) the geometric correction is not done, incomplete or false, (b) the pixel locationand location of ground truth plot do not coincide, and (c) there is insufficient accuracy in the definition of theborderlines. For example, when detecting land-use changes by a time series of remotely sensed images, thespatial displacement of pixels from one sampled image to the next will introduce errors. In the case of detectionof a transition from forest to non-forest or vice versa, the associated uncertainties will be larger when forests are
fragmented. 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 intoanother class, and commission errors, i.e., classifying wrong categories into a given ground truth category.

4.2.4.2.2

QUANTIFYING UNCERTAINTIES

Uncertainties are to be quantified according to methods as described in this report: Chapters 2 and 3 provide thenecessary data and methodological advice on estimating uncertainties associated with carbon stock changes andemissions estimation. Chapter 5 (see equations in Section 5.2) shows how to combine these estimates into
overall uncertainties.
It is good practice to derive confidence intervals by applying a quantitative method to existing data. Confidence
intervals at given confidence levels provide a minimum basis for a simple quantitative estimate of uncertainty.
To remain consistent with GPG2000, uncertainties should be estimated at the 95% confidence limits, using
component uncertainties assessed by expert judgement aiming at 95% confidence where quantification is nototherwise possible (see Section 5.2 for guidance on expert judgement).

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

4.37

Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol

Uncertainties for the Kyoto activities can be treated in the same way as other uncertainty estimates taking into
account that:•

The “since 1990” clause and the use of definitions specific to the Kyoto Protocol and the Marrakesh
Accords are likely to cause systematic errors related to the estimation of the required activity data. The
potential for differences between the managed forest area and the area subject to forest management, andalso between grassland area and area subject to grazing land management implies that the areas whose
uncertainties are being assessed may differ between the Kyoto Protocol activities and the corresponding
categories of the IPCC Guidelines.

•

Activity data can also relate to individual practices or ownership structures, e.g., the fraction of cropland
farmers using a given amendment on a particular soil. 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.

•

For cropland management, grazing land management and/or revegetation (if elected) uncertainty estimates
are needed also for the base year. These are likely to be higher than for estimates in the commitment period,
because this information may often be derived only by backward extrapolations or models, rather than by
actual inventories in or near the base year. In addition, determination of activities in the base year, whererequired, may pose difficulties if pre-base year surveys of land use are not available. Section 4.2.8(Cropland Management) discusses a default approach to this problem. The associated uncertainties could, inprinciple, 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. Further advice on providing missing data inthis way is given in Section 5.6.

•

When remote sensing is employed for classification of land use and detection of land-use change including
units of land subject to Article 3.3, the uncertainties could be quantified by verifying classified lands withadequate actual ground truth data or higher resolution imagery (see Sections 5.7.2 and 2.4.4). A confusion
matrix as described in Section 2.4.4 can be used to assess accuracy.

Separate annual uncertainty estimates need to be made for each activity under Articles 3.3 and 3.4, for eachreported carbon pool, each greenhouse gas and geographical location. Estimates should be reported using tables
generated following the model of Tables 4.2.6a, 4.2.6b and 4.2.6c as found in Section 4.2.4.3 (Reporting andDocumentation). Separate tables should be reported for the base year in case CM, GM and/or RV are elected.
Estimates should be expressed as percent of the area and of the emissions by sources or removals by sinks (orchanges in stocks) reported in Tables 4.2.6 a, b and c.
Uncertainty associated with areas of lands and units of land need to be estimated. When using Reporting Method
1, it is good practice to report a separate estimate of uncertainty for each of the Article 3.3 activities, and each of
the elected Article 3.4 activities within a given geographical boundary. Under Reporting Method 2, eachgeographical boundary is subject to a single activity. Therefore there will only be one uncertainty estimate
needed for each geographical boundary.
Where uncertainties are difficult to derive, default values for uncertainties are to be used. Guidance on selecting
default carbon emission or removal factors for cropland management can be found in Annex 4A.1, Tool for
Estimation of Changes in Soil Carbon Stocks associated with Management Changes in Croplands and Grazing
Lands based on IPCC Default Data. Since these factors are taken from the IPCC Guidelines, no true uncertainty
ranges can be assigned. However, using expert judgement, default uncertainty ranges corresponding to acoefficient of variation (the ratio of the standard deviation and the mean) of 50% can be assigned, based on an
analysis of no-till long-term experiments in Europe in which 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 revegetation,
default uncertainty ranges cannot be specified. It is good practice for a Party electing revegetation to provide its
own estimates of the uncertainty associated with emissions and removals from all pools for the affected lands.
These could be derived from using Tier 2 and 3 methods to assess emissions and removals of carbon due torevegetation (see Section 5.2 Identifying and quantifying uncertainties).
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). Chapter 6 in GPG2000 (Quantifying Uncertainties inPractice) and Chapter 5 of this report (Cross-cutting ssues) provide advice on quantifying uncertainties inpractice, including combining expert judgements and empirical data into overall uncertainty estimates.

4.38

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Methods for estimation, measurement, monitoring and reporting of LULUCF activities under Articles 3.3 & 3.4

4.2.4.2.3

REDUCING UNCERTAINTIES

Estimating uncertainties in a quantitative manner helps to identify major sources of uncertainties and to pin-point
areas of potential improvements in order to reduce uncertainties in future assessments. In particular, for reporting
under the Kyoto Protocol it is recommended to make efforts to convey the overall uncertainty estimates to allagencies 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 contributetowards reducing uncertainties. For instance, a country may choose on purpose to estimate uncertainties by morethan one procedure. This will produce complementary results for the same country and data category, prompting
further research in potential sources of inconsistency and ultimately enhancing the robustness of estimates.
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 of areas
subject to Kyoto Protocol activities.
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.

4.2.4.3
4.2.4.3.1

R EPORTI NG AND DOCUMENTATIONREPORTI NG

The anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks from land use, land-use change
and forestry activities, estimated using the methods described before and in the activity-specific Sections 4.2.5 –4.2.10, must be reported as outlined in the Marrakesh Accords.36 Some information on definitions and elected
activities must be reported prior to the first commitment period (by the end of 2006), whereas muchsupplementary information must be reported annually during the first commitment period. The information to bereported is summarised in Tables 4.2.4a and 4.2.4b, respectively, but excludes information associated withremoval unit (RMU) accounting. It is good practice to report all information requested in these tables.
Annual reports under the Kyoto Protocol must include estimates of areas of land subject to activities under
Article 3.3 and 3.4 (where elected), of emissions by sources and removals by sinks on these areas of land, andthe associated uncertainties, using Tables 4.2.5 through 4.2.7. It is good practice to include in these reports
additional information on methods and approaches used to identify lands and to estimate the emissions andremovals.

36

See paragraphs 4 to 9 of the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Article 7), contained in document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3,
pp.22-24.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

4.39

Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol

TABLE 4.2.4a
SUPPLEMENTARY INVENTORY INFORMATION TO BE REPORTED PRIOR TO 1 JANUARY 2007 OR ONE YEAR AFTER THE ENTRY
37
INTO FORCE OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL FOR THE PARTY, WHICHEVER IS LATER
Information to bereportedDefinition of forest by
the Party

Detailed information

Reference inMarrakesh
38
Accords•

A single minimum land area value between 0.05 and 1 hectare;

8 (b)

•

The minimum width that defines the spatial configuration of that area (seeSection 4.2.2.5.1);

and•paragraph 16of the Annex
to draftA single minimum tree height value between 2 and 5 metres;
decision
Justification that such values are consistent with the information that has-/CMP.1
historically been reported to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the(LULUCF),
United Nations or other international bodies, and if they differ, explanation
FCCC/CP/why and how such values were chosen.
2001/13/Add.1
p.61•

A list of activities elected by the Party

8 (b)

•

Information on how the Party’s national system under Article 5, paragraph
1 will identify land areas associated with the elected activities

8 (c)

•

Information on how the Party interprets the definition of Art 3.4 activities(e.g., what activities are included under forest management)•
The Party’s own
precedence or hierarchy
among Article 3.4
activities

As outlined in Section 4.1.1 it is good practice to establish precedence
conditions and/or a hierarchy among 3.4 activities to facilitate theestimation and reporting procedures, and so that lands are allocated only to
one of the Article 3.4 activities.

••

Elected activities under
Article 3, paragraph 4

A single minimum tree crown cover value between 10 and 30%;

37

Paragraph 2 in draft decision -/CMP.1 (Modalities for accounting of assigned amounts), contained in document
FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.2, p.56.

38

Entries in this column refer to relevant paragraphs in the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Modalities for the accounting of
assigned amounts), contained in document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.2, pp.57-72. In the table not necessarily all relevant
legal texts are referred to.

4.40

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Methods for estimation, measurement, monitoring and reporting of LULUCF activities under Articles 3.3 & 3.4

TABLE 4.2.4b
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION TO BE REPORTED FOR THE ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY DURING THE FIRSTCOMMITMENT PERIOD ACCORDING TO THE MARRAKESH ACCORDS. TEXT IN ITALICS INDICATES A DIRECT QUOTE FROM
THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS IN THE MARRAKESH ACCORDS
Information to bereported

Detailed information

Reference inMarakeshAccords39

Land related information
Approach for
geographical locationand identification ofunits of land

The geographical location of the boundaries of the areas that encompass:

6 (b)(i) Units of land subject to activities under Article 3, paragraph 3;(ii) Units of land subject to activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, which would
otherwise be included in land subject to elected activities under Article 3,
paragraph 4, […];
(iii) Land subject to elected activities under Article 3, paragraph 4.

Spatial assessment unit

The spatial assessment unit used for determining the area of accounting forafforestation, reforestation and deforestation

6 (c)Information on methods and approaches to estimate emissions and removals
Description of
methodologies used

The emissions and removals should be estimated using methodologies given in
the IPCC Guidelines as elaborated by this report, and using the principles as laidout in the draft decision -/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry). The
methodologies used should be reported with information on the reporting
method for lands subject to Articles 3.3 and 3.4 (Reporting Method 1, 2 or a
combination thereof), the approach(es) used for land identification, and the tierlevel(s) for estimating the emissions and removals. National approaches,models, parameters and other related information should be describedtransparently indicating how they improve the accuracy of the reporting. The
assumptions and methodologies used for an inventory should be clearly
explained to facilitate replication and assessment of the inventory by users of
the report and taking into account the principles in paragraph 1, items (a), (b),(d), (g), (h) in the Marrakesh Accords, draft decision -/CMP.1 (Land use, landuse change and forestry), cf. document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p.56.

see 6 (a)Justification whenomitting any carbon
pool

Information on which, if any, of the following pools: above-ground biomass,
below-ground biomass, litter, dead wood and/or soil organic carbon were notaccounted for, together with verifiable information that demonstrates that theseunaccounted pools were not a net source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions

6 (e)Information on indirect
factors on greenhousegas emissions andremovals

Information should also be provided which indicates whether or notanthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks fromland use, land-use change and forestry activities under Article 3 paragraph 3
and elected activities under Article 3 paragraph 4 factor out removals from:

7(a) Elevated carbon dioxide concentrations above pre-industrial levels;(b) Indirect nitrogen deposition; and(c) The dynamic effects of age structure resulting from activities prior to 1
January 1990
(See Section 4.2.3.5.)
Changes in data andmethods

39

Any changes in data or methodology since the report of the previous year, e.g.,in the choice of methods, activity data collection method, activity data,difficulties of detection (e.g., distinction between harvesting and deforestation
when estimating the D area), parameters used in the calculations should bereported in a transparent manner. The reporting should include information onwhether these changes have been applied also to reporting on previous
inventory years to ensure consistency of the time series.

10

Entries in this column refer to relevant paragraphs in the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Article 7), contained in
document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3, pp.21-29. In the table not necessarily all relevant legal texts are referred to.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

4.41

Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol

TABLE 4.2.4b (CONTINUED)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION TO BE REPORTED FOR THE ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY DURING THE FIRSTCOMMITMENT PERIOD ACCORDING TO THE MARRAKESH ACCORDS. TEXT IN ITALICS INDICATES A DIRECT QUOTE FROM
THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS IN THE MARRAKESH ACCORDS
Information to bereported

Detailed information

Other genericmethodological issues

Any additional relevant information on methodological issues, such asmeasurement intervals, disturbances, interannual variability (see Section 4.2.3)

Reference inMarakeshAccords40

Specific information for activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4
Article 3.3 specificinformation

Article 3.4 specificinformation•

Information that demonstrates that activities under Article 3, paragraph 3,began on or after 1 January 1990 and before 31 December of the last yearof the commitment period, and are directly human-induced;

8 (a)

•

Information on how harvesting or forest disturbance that is followed by there-establishment of a forest is distinguished from deforestation;

8 (b)

•

It is good practice to provide information on the size and geographicallocation of forest areas that have lost forest cover but which cannot beclassifed as deforested (and will therefore remain classified as forest with are-assessment in the next inventory).

A demonstration that activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, have occurredsince 1 January 1990 and are human induced

9 (a)Information related to the estimates of emissions by sources and removals by sinks(for reporting data, see Tables 4.2.5-4.2.6)
Estimates forgreenhouse gas
emissions by sources
and removals by sinks

Estimates of greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks forhuman-induced activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3, and, if any, elected
activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, and for all geographical locations
reported in the current and previous years, 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 must also be included.

see 6 (d)[…] Estimates for Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, shall be clearly distinguishedfrom anthropogenic emissions from the sources listed in Annex A to the Kyoto
Protocol.[…]5

Afforestation and
Reforestation

Information on emissions and removals of greenhouse gases from lands
harvested during the first commitment period following afforestation andreforestation on these units of land since 1990 consistent with the requirements
under paragraph 4 of the annex to draft decision –/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use
change and forestry).

8 (c)Cropland management,
grazing land
management andrevegetation

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks foreach year of the commitment period and for the base year for each of theelected activities on the geographical locations identified, excluding emissions
reported under the Agriculture sector of the IPCC Guidelines.

9 (b), andparagraph 9 of
the annex todraft decision-/CMP.1(LULUCF),FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p.59

Absence of overlap
between 3.3 and 3.4
activities

Information that demonstrates that emissions by sources and removals by sinks
resulting from elected Article 3, paragraph 4, activities are not accounted forunder activities under Article 3, paragraph 3.

9 (c)Uncertainty of emission Estimates of emissions and removals shall be within levels of confidence as
6(d), footnote 5
and removal estimates elaborated by any IPCC good practice guidance adopted by the COP/MOP and
in accordance with relevant decisions of the COP/MOP on land use, land-use
change and forestry.

40

Entries in this column refer to relevant paragraphs in the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Article 7), contained in
document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3, pp.21-29. In the table not necessarily all relevant legal texts are referred to.

4.42

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Methods for estimation, measurement, monitoring and reporting of LULUCF activities under Articles 3.3 & 3.4

It is good practice to use coordinates as set out in Section 4.2.4.3.2 below for the reporting of the geographicallocation of the boundaries that encompass the units of land subject to activities under Article 3.3 and the lands
subject to elected activities under Article 3.4. This information can be summarised on a map for visualpresentation and data sharing. It is also good practice to report the land transition matrix below (Table 4.2.5) todemonstrate that the Party has accounted for all areas where afforestation, reforestation and deforestation and, if
elected, 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 land remaining FM land), while other cells indicate the areas of lands converted
to other categories (e.g., cropland converted to afforested land). It is good practice to explain any changes in the
total area over consecutive inventories.
It is good practice to use Tables 4.2.6a-c and Table 4.2.7 to submit annual estimates. For Article 3.3 and 3.4
activities (Tables 4.2.6a and 4.2.6b), data must be provided by geographical locations, whereas for projects(Table 4.2.6c) data must be filled in by project. The Marrakesh Accords also require that, in addition to the data
for the actual inventory year, a Party also reports this information for the base year for cropland management,
grazing land management, and revegetation. No reporting is necessary for those Article 3.4 activities that were
not elected by the Party.
When filling in these tables, care should be taken to insert carbon stock changes for each pool with proper signs.
Carbon stock changes are to be reported in units of carbon as positive when the carbon stock has increased, andas negative when the carbon stock has decreased. All changes are totalled for each geographic location, and thetotal values are then multiplied by 44/12 to convert carbon stock changes to CO2 emissions or removals. This
conversion also involves sign change from the equations used to make the estimates. Non-CO2 greenhouse gas
emissions are to be reported as positive, as these represent increases in abundances in the atmosphere.
Table 4.2.7 is a summary table of carbon stock changes resulting from activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 forthe inventory year. It is good practice to use the table also for the base year if cropland management, grazing
land management, and/or revegetation have been elected. This table summarises data of the compilation tables
by activity across all carbon pools and across all strata within a country.
In addition to the data in the Tables 4.2.6a-c and 4.2.7, respectively, it is good practice to report the underlying
assumptions and factors used for the calculation of the carbon stock changes and emissions of CH4 and N2O, aswell as for the calculation of the uncertainties. Such information can be obtained using the worksheets in Chapter
3 or from equivalent information supporting the estimates obtained using higher tiers or other methods.
The Marrakesh Accords contain a clause that carbon stock changes resulting from harvesting ofafforestation/reforestation land during the first commitment period will not result in a debit greater than thecredit previously accounted for that unit of land (see Table 4.2.4).41 If such units of land exist for the inventory
year, it is good practice to distinguish them from other afforestation/reforestation lands and to report them (andthe associated carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions) separately in Tables 4.2.6 to 4.2.7.
Although this is an issue related to accounting, it is mentioned here because inventory data are likely to beneeded to implement the provision.
Finally, separate annual uncertainty estimates should be reported for each activity under Articles 3.3 and 3.4, foreach carbon pool, each greenhouse gas and geographical location. Estimates should be reported using tables
generated following the model of Tables 4.2.6a, b and c. Separate tables should be reported for the base year
when CM, GM and/or RV are elected. 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) reported in Tables
4.2.6a, b and c.

41

Paragraph 4 in the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in document
FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p.59.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

4.43

Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol

TABLE 4.2.5
LAND TRANSITION MATRIX: LAND AREA (IN HA) SUBJECT TO THE VARIOUS ACTIVITIES IN THE INVENTORY YEAR AND THE PREVIOUS YEAR
Note that some of the transitions in the matrix may not be possible (e.g., once land has become subject to A, R, or D, it cannot become subject to FM, CM, GM, or RV in the next year)
INVENTORY YEAR:

Land in year prior to inventory
by activity

Land in inventory year by activity

4.44

A

R

D

FM if elected

CM if elected

GM if elected

RV if elected

Other

Total

A
R
D
FM if elected
CM if elected
GM if elected
RV if elected
Other
Total

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Methods for estimation, measurement, monitoring and reporting of LULUCF activities under Articles 3.3 & 3.4
TABLE 4.2.6a
TABLE FOR REPORTING, FOR THE INVENTORY YEAR, CARBON STOCK CHANGES AND NON-CO2 EMISSIONS BY SOURCES AND REMOVALS BY SINKS FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES /1
1,2
1
LANDS: (I) A AND R NOT HARVESTED DURING THE FIRST COMMITMENT PERIOD; (II) A AND R HARVESTED DURING THE FIRST COMMITMENT PERIOD; (III) A AND R THAT ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO
3
3
ELECTED ARTICLE 3.4 ACTIVITIES ; (IV) D; (V) D THAT IS ALSO TO SUBJECT TO ELECTED ARTICLE 3.4 ACTIVITIES ; AND (VI) FM IF ELECTED. (I) PLUS (II) EQUALS ALL A AND R LANDS. (IV)EQUALS ALL D LANDS. (I) PLUS (II) PLUS (IV) EQUALS ALL A, R, AND D LANDS (ARTICLE 3.3). (VI) MUST NOT INCLUDE ANY A, R, OR D (ARTICLE 3.3) LANDS. (III) AND (V) ARE PROVIDED ONLY
4
FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES .
Activity:
Inventory year:
Increases (+) and Decreases (-) in Carbon Stock 6
5Geographical Location

Serial No.

9ID

Area of
ActivityAbovegroundbiomassBelowgroundbiomass

LitterDead wood(ha)(Gg C/yr)(Gg C/yr)(Gg C/yr)(Gg C/yr)

Soil

Total Carbon
Stock
Changes7

Emissions (+)
or Removals (-)
from Carbon
Stock Changes8

CH4
Emissions

N2O
Emissions(Gg C/yr)(Gg C/yr)(Gg CO2e/yr)(Gg/yr)(Gg/yr)1
2
3…
N
Total for the activity
Note that those countries that use Tier 1 or Tier 2 methods that allow separate reporting of increases (such as growth) and decreases (such as harvesting) of a pool should also do so by approppriately expanding the table.
In these cases, the net stock changes should also be reported, and these are subsequently used for the calculation of the total stock changes.
1

As afforestation (A) and reforestation (R) activities are treated in the same way, they can be reported together. The separation of afforestation and reforestation lands that are harvested from those that are not harvested
during the first commitment period is necessary because of the requirement set in paragraph 4 in the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), cf. FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p.59.

2

If A and R lands have been harvested in the inventory year, then special carbon accounting rules apply that allow countries to limit debits from harvesting. This requires the tracking of “credits” earned on these lands inprevious inventory years or commitment periods.

3

Units of land subject to activities under Article 3.3 which would otherwise be included in land subject to elected activities under Article 3.4 must be reported (cf. paragraph 6 item (b) (ii) in the Annex to draft decision-/CMP.1 (Article 7), contained in FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add 3, p.22).
4
See paragraph 6, in particular 6 (b), of the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Article 7), contained in FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add 3, p.22.
5

Geographical location refers to the areas that encompass units of land subject to Article 3.3 and lands subject to Article 3.4 activities.

6

If a pool is not reported, the text “NR” (for “not reported”) must be entered, and it must be demonstrated that the pool is not a source.

7“Total carbon stock changes” is the sum of carbon stock changes of all five pools.

89

Emissions/Removals are calculated by multiplying total carbon stock changes by 44/12 to convert to CO2 followed by reversing the sign to follow conventions of emissions/removals reporting.
ID: unique identifier of the geographic location.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

4.45

Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol

TABLE 4.2.6b
TABLE FOR REPORTING, FOR THE INVENTORY YEAR, CARBON STOCK CHANGES AND NON-CO2 EMISSIONS BY SOURCES AND REMOVALS BY SINKS FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE 3.4
ACTIVITIES/LANDS: (I) CM; (II) GM; (III) RV. SEPARATE TABLES (OR SEPARATE ROWS IN ONE TABLE) SHOULD BE USED TO REPORT THOSE ACTIVITIES THAT OCCUR ON MINERAL SOILS AND ON
ORGANIC SOILS. THE COLUMN “LIMING CO2 EMISSIONS” IS TO BE FILLED FOR GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS WHERE THESE EMISSIONS APPLY. (SEE SECTIONS 4.2.8 AND 4.2.9 FOR DETAILS.)
THESE TABLES SHOULD ALSO BE PROVIDED FOR THE BASE YEAR
Activity:
Inventory year:
Increases (+) and Decreases (-) in Carbon Stock2
Geographical
Location1
Serial No.

6ID

Area of
ActivityAbovegroundbiomassBelowgroundbiomass

Litter

Dead
wood

Soil

(ha)

(Gg C/yr)(Gg C/yr)(Gg C/yr)(Gg C/yr)(Gg C/yr)

Total
CarbonStock
Changes3

Emissions (+) or
Removals (-)
from Carbon
Stock Changes4

Liming CO2
emissions

CH4
Emissions5

N2O
Emissions5(Gg C/yr)(Gg CO2e/yr)(Gg CO2e/yr)(Gg/yr)(Gg/yr)1
2
3…
N
Total for the activity
1

Geographical location refers to the areas that encompass lands subject to Article 3.4 activities.
If a pool is not reported, the text “NR” (for “not reported”) should be entered, and it must be demonstrated that the pool is not a source.
3“Total carbon stock changes” are the sum of carbon stock changes of all five pools.
4
Emissions/Removals are calculated by multiplying total carbon stock changes by 44/12 to convert to CO2 followed by reversing the sign to follow conventions of emissions/removals reporting.
5
For CM, GM and RV, if elected, methane and nitrous oxide emissions are reported here for transparency purposes only. They are reported and accounted along with the Kyoto Protocol Annex A
sources in the Agriculture sector.
6
ID: unique identifier of the geographic location.
2

4.46

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Methods for estimation, measurement, monitoring and reporting of LULUCF activities under Articles 3.3 & 3.4
TABLE 4.2.6c
TABLE FOR REPORTING, FOR THE INVENTORY YEAR, CARBON STOCK CHANGES AND NON-CO2 EMISSIONS BY SOURCES AND REMOVALS BY SINKS FOR PROJECTS UNDER ARTICLE 6.
A COPY OF THIS TABLE MUST BE PROVIDED FOR EACH TYPE OF ACTIVITY.
Project activity:
Inventory year:
Increases (+) and Decreases (-) in Carbon Stock2
SerialnumberProject
ID1

Area of
Project

AbovegroundbiomassBelowgroundbiomass

LitterDead wood(ha)(Gg C/yr)(Gg C/yr)(Gg C/yr)(Gg C/yr)

Soil

Total Carbon
Stock Changes3

Emissions (+) or
Removals (-) from
Carbon Stock
Changes4

CH4
Emissions

N2O
Emissions(Gg C/yr)(Gg C/yr)(Gg CO2 e/yr)(Gg/yr)(Gg/yr)1
2
3…
N
Total for theactivity
1
Project ID is a unique identifier of the project.
2
If a pool is not reported, the text “NR” (for “not reported”) must be entered, and it must be demonstrated that the pool is not a source.
3“Total carbon stock changes” is the sum of carbon stock changes of all five pools if temporary plots are used, but if permanent plots are used, the change in stock in each component
should be summed by plot and the mean and confidence intervals be computed across all plots. See Section 4.3 for details.
4
Emissions/Removals are calculated by multiplying total carbon stock changes by 44/12 to convert to CO2 followed by reversing the sign to follow conventions of emissions/removals
reporting.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

4.47

Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol

TABLE 4.2.7
SUMMARY TABLE OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SOURCES AND REMOVALS BY SINKS BY ARTICLES 3.3, 3.4 AND 6ACTIVITIES FOR THE INVENTORY YEAR. NOTE THAT EMISSIONS ARE TO BE REPORTED BY PROPERLY APPLYING ONE OF TWOREPORTING METHODS DETAILED IN SECTION 4.2.2.2.
Inventory year:

Activity

Areas

CO2
Emissions (+) or
Removals (-)

CH4 4

N2O 4

(ha)

(Gg CO2 e/yr)(Gg/yr)(Gg/yr)1

A and R not harvested during the first commitment period
A and R harvested during the first commitment period1
A and R that is also to subject to elected Article 3.4
activities1, 6D
D that is also to subject to elected Article 3.4 activities6
Article 3.4 FM if elected
Mineral Soils5
Article 3.4 CM if elected2

Organic Soils5
LimingMineral Soils5

2

Article 3.4 GM if elected

Organic Soils5
LimingMineral Soils5

Article 3.4 RV if elected2

Organic Soils5
LimingArticle 6 A and R activities3
Article 6 FM activities3
Article 6 CM activities3
Article 6 GM activities3
Article 6 RV activities3
1

As afforestation (A) and reforestation (R) activities are treated the same way, they can be reported together. The
separation of afforestation and reforestation lands that are harvested from those that are not harvested during the firstcommitment period is necessary because of the requirement set in paragraph 4 in the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1(Land use, land-use change and forestry), cf. FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p.59.

2

If CM, GM and/or RV is elected, a copy of this table should be completed and reported for the base year.

3

Emissions and removals related to Article 6 projects hosted by the reporting Party, if any, should be reported in the final
five rows, recognizing that they are already implicitly included in the national estimates of activities under Articles 3.3
and 3.4 reported in this table. Double counting will be avoided at the accounting stage when converting Removal Units
into Emission Reduction Units.

4

For Article 3.4 CM, GM and RV, if elected, methane and nitrous oxide emissions are reported here for transparency
purposes only. They are reported and accounted along with the Kyoto Protocol Annex A sources in the Agriculture
sector.

5

The headings “Mineral soils” and “Organic Soils” follow the breakdown by sources and sinks in the CM, GM and RV
sections of Chapter 4. It should include all C pools, if applicable (i.e., shelterbelts…), occurring on croplands, grazing
lands or revegetation lands with mineral and organic soils, respectively and should be equal, for each activity, to the totalof the column “Total changes in carbon stocks” of Table 4.2.6b.

6

Afforestation (A), reforestation (R) and deforestation (D) lands, which are also subject to elected Article 3.4 activities, arealready included in the A/R and D totals.

4.48

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Methods for estimation, measurement, monitoring and reporting of LULUCF activities under Articles 3.3 & 3.4

4.2.4.3.2

DOCUMENTATION

Documentation requirements under the Kyoto Protocol are outlined in the Marrakesh Accords as part of thedescription of the requirements for inventory management.42
It is good practice to document and archive all information, i.e., the underlying data and description of, orreference to, methods, assumptions and parameters used, which are used to produce estimates of emissions bysources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases that would allow independent reviewers to follow the processof developing the reported estimates. Documented data and explanation of methods should be provided for bothsteps: the identification of land and the assessment of carbon stock changes and the emissions of non-CO2
greenhouse gases.
Documentation should also include information about uncertainty assessment (see also Section 4.2.4.2
Uncertainty Assessment), QA/QC procedures, external and internal reviews, verification activities and key
category identification (see Chapter 5, Cross-cutting Issues).

Activities def inition and identif ication
It is good practice to explain how the Marrakesh Accords definitions of the elected Article 3.4 activities havebeen interpreted according to national circumstances. For instance, if only a part of the managed forests reported
in the UNFCCC greenhouse gas inventory is included under forest management in the Kyoto reporting, thecriteria that are used to distinguish forests under “forest management” from “managed forests” should be
provided. Differences between croplands (or grasslands) in the UNFCCC greenhouse gas inventory and lands
undergoing cropland management (or grazing land management) under the Kyoto reporting should also be
documented.

Data documentation
In particular when using Reporting Method 1, the areas encompassed by the geographical boundaries resulting
from the stratification of a country, should be identified by unique serial numbers in the tables. These serial
numbers are to be cross-referenced to a database or other archive (the LULUCF Archive) specifying thelocations in terms of established legal or administrative boundaries, or by means of an existing coordinate
system, for example an established national grid system, the UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator) grid or
latitude and longitude.
The documentation of estimates of greenhouse gas emissions and removals must include:•

The sources of all data used in the calculations (i.e., complete citations for the statistical database(s) fromwhich data were collected);•

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);•The frequency of data collection; and•Estimates of the associated uncertainties together with a description of the major sources of theuncertainties.

Description of the methods used in land identif ication and estimation ofemissions and removals
The methods should be documented with the following information:•

Choice of reporting methods for lands subject to Articles 3.3 and 3.4 (Reporting Method 1, 2) or adescription of the reporting method, if a combination of the two is used;•

Description of the approach used for geographical location and identification of the geographicalboundaries, lands, and units of land; references of maps used, if any;•

Choice of tier(s) used for estimating greenhouse gas emissions and removals;•

Methods used for estimating carbon stock changes, non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions and magnitudes of
the corresponding uncertainties;

42

Paragraph 16 (a) in the Annex to the draft decision -/CMP.1 (Article 5.1), contained in FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3, p.9.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

4.49

Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol•

Choice of activity data;•

If Tier 1 is used: all values of default parameters and emission/removal factors used;•

If Tier 2 is used: all values and references of default and national parameters and emission/removal factors
used;

•

If Tier 3 is used: description of, or references to, the scientific basis for the models used, description of theprocess by which carbon stock changes and emissions or removals are estimated;•

In case of Tier 2 or 3 the documentation should justify the use of specific parameters, factors or models;•Transparent and verifiable information that demonstrates that the pools not included in the reporting are notsources.

Analysis of f luctuations
It is good practice to explain significant fluctuations in reported emissions or removals between years. The
reasons for any changes in activity levels and in parameter values from year to year should be documented. If thereason 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, Section 5.6 Time
series consistency and recalculations).

4.2.4.4

Q UALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

It is good practice to implement quality control checks as outlined in Chapter 5, Section 5.5 (Quality Assurance
and Quality Control) on category-specific QC Procedures, and expert review of the emission estimates.
Additional quality control checks as outlined in Tier 2 procedures in Section 5.5 and quality assurance
procedures may also be applicable, particularly if higher-tier methods are used to estimate carbon stock changes
and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions. A detailed treatment of inventory QA/QC for field measurement is
described in Appendix 4A.3 of the GPG2000.
Some important issues are highlighted and summarised below.
When compiling data, it is good practice to cross-check estimates of emissions and removals of greenhousegases against independent estimates. The inventory agency should ensure that estimates undergo quality control
by:•Cross-referencing aggregated production data (e.g., crop yield, tree growth) and reported area statistics withnational totals or other sources of national data (e.g., agriculture / forestry statistics);•

Back-calculating national emission/removal factors from aggregated emissions and other data;•

Comparing reported national totals with default values and data from other countries.

It is also good practice to verify that the sum of the disaggregated areas used to estimate the various
emissions/removals equals the total area under the activity, reported as per guidance in Chapters 2 and 3 (using
the LU/LUC matrix).

4.2.4.5

V ERIFICATIO N

Good practice guidance for verification is given in Chapter 5, Section 5.7 (Verification).

4.50

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF