Review Comments by Experts on the Second Order Draft of Volume 4 of 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

2294

2

2306

4

4

2

From line

1

164

To lineComment

1

General comment: For transparency it would be really helpful if references used toestimate values proposed in tables are included for all of them in a consistent way. Someare listed with reference in the notes of the tables, in other cases it is not available and for Rocio Danica Condor
Golec
some cases there is even a dedicated annex. The best approach should be that eachvalue there is an associated reference and/or publication (e.g. UPDATED - TABLE 2.4
with reference in a separate column for each value).

1641

Reference is not working, please provide one: http://www.fao.org/global-soilpartnership/pillars-action/4-information-and-data/global-soil-organic-carbon-1642gsocmap/en/

2296

4

2

178

185

5176
5178

4
4

2
2

183
202

183
207

It would be really useful if the example of the REDD+ also includes a simple mapping of
REDD+ activities with those from the IPCC emissions and removals categories because
as it is know remains vague. It would also be interesting to include a link or website fromthe Australian case.
Is the number 4 a typo or a foot note?
Is there a need to identify Approach 2 and 3 methods prior to this? Are these Tiers?

4088

4

2

255

374

It is unclear where the guidelines refer to Tier 1 methods for biomass estimation

2558

4

2

268

270

4850

4

2

293

293

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

Noted

Harmonize how references are included in all tables

Rocio Danica Condor
Golec

Accepted

Rocio Danica Condor
Golec

Accepted with
Modification

Stephen Dettman
Stephen Dettman

Noted
Accepted

Andrea TILCHE

Rejected

The term "valid under the respective conditions" is too vague for being operationally used
Accepted with
César Pérez-Cruzado
here. A more precise definition is required.
Modification
Accepted with
The equation does not describe a linear function. The transformed equation on line 299 is. Roland Hiederer
Modification
The equation shown is not linear. Moreover, this formulation is not common in biomass
Accepted withmodelling, as the value of the biomass when the value of the independent variable is zero
César Pérez-Cruzado
Modificationmust be zero, and not "c". Moreover, the linearization shown in L299 does not correspondto the model shown in L293 as the term "+ln(c)" is missing.

The map can now be accessed via:
http://54.229.242.119/GSOCmap/

About mapping, it was in the previous version (FOD) andthen deleted because of criticisms.
Links to the websites already exist

In the Introduction of this Chapter the choice of methods,
including models and default estimates for Tier 1 methods
for estimating C stock changes are described. Much of thistext was greyed out because it was not included in the
Refinement.
The text has been modified to include a cross-reference tothe lines 328-356
The text has been modified, deleting "linear".
The text has been modified to better describe theapplication of the general form of the equation, including thelogarithmic transformation in case the intercept (parameter"c") is equal to zero.
The text has been modified to better describe theapplication of the general form of the equation, noting thatfrom a biological perspective the result of the equation ("y")
is always a positive number.

2556

4

2

293

293

4852

4

2

294

294

The value of "C" is used when Y <> 0 for X=0.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted with
Modification

2754

4

2

302

302

Verify bibliographic citation format

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

AcceptedHarmonized how references are included in all tables

2990

4

2

306

306

Verify bibliographic citation format

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

AcceptedHarmonized how references are included in all tables

4090

4

2

313

314

Spell out BEF in first use of the term

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

Xiangzheng Deng

Rejected

Editorial
The section provides examples of most common variables
used by allometric models, in relation to the potential theiruse in the estimation process of C stock changes; given thelarge amount of literature in the field of allometry,references to main publications have been included in thesection, noting that the provision of an exhaustive list ofvariables is not feasible and out of the scope of theguidance.

Stephen Dettman

Accepted with
Modification

2664

4

2

316

319

Because of the variation in morphological features, the best-fit equations for both organ
and total biomass differed among populations. I therefore recommend that preferredpredictors for different species could be provided based on plant classification, improving
applicability of the species-specific allometric model.

5198

4

2

327

327

Flowchart -- is there an accuracy threshold that should be provided here? We don't wantto continue refining ad infinitum

The flow-chart has been revised.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

2992

2

338

338

Verify bibliographic citation format

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

AcceptedHarmonized how references are included in all tables343

I have a major comment regarding the statistical framework for testing model suitability
based on the accuracy of the models on the population to be studied. This is an extremely
Accepted with
important pooling, as some Technical Notes from UNFCCC for this purpose misleads the César Pérez-Cruzado
Modification
concept of biomass model suitability and cannot be applied due to the statistical propertiesof the biomass data. For more details see the enclosed Supporting Documents.

2560

4

4

2

342

2562

4

2

342

343

I have a major comment regarding the importance given to the metadata of the biomass
models regarding the in-situ validation with an independent and probabilistically-selected
Accepted with
César Pérez-Cruzado
sample. From my point of view, the focus on metadata for biomass validity judgements
Modification
should only be allowed for the lower TIER, where as the higher TIER would always need ain-situ validation. See a detailed explanation in the Supporting Document of this comment.

2994

4

2

343

343

Verify bibliographic citation format

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted

The text is redrafted to accommodate the comment asfollows: "The applicability of a model can also be tested
using a representative data set (e.g. Paul et al, 2016;
Perez-Cruzado et al, 2015; Youkhana et al 2017). The
accuracy of the allometric model should be assessed byevaluating the related statistical indicators."
The text is redrafted to accommodate the comment asfollows: "The applicability of a model can also be tested
using a representative data set (e.g. Paul et al, 2016;
Perez-Cruzado et al, 2015; Youkhana et al 2017). The
accuracy of the allometric model should be assessed byevaluating the related statistical indicators."
Harmonized how references are included in all tables
The text is redrafted to accommodate the comment asfollows: "The applicability of a model can also be tested
using a representative data set (e.g. Paul et al, 2016;
Perez-Cruzado et al, 2015; Youkhana et al 2017). The
accuracy of the allometric model should be assessed byevaluating the related statistical indicators."
List of potential statistical indicators have been deleted, andthe text in the box related to the model fitting has been
modified to explicitly link the model fitting against sample
data.
The section provides additional guidance for Tier 2 method,in relation to the potential use of allometric models in theestimation process of C stock changes; the provision of listof models stratified by geography, species or other is out of
the scope of this guidance. Relevant references ad generalconsiderations are provided in the text, allowing an expert
reader to find the appropriate allometric model.
There is not a combination of species specific and genericallometric models that would be acceptable a-priori. In
addition it would be inappropriate to combine speciesspecific models with stand level models.

2564

4

2

343

345

Accepted with
The goodness of fit of the model is independent on the model suitability. See the detailed
César Pérez-Cruzado
comments on this respect on the Supporting Document of this comment.
Modification

4854

4

2

345

345

It is not obvious how the Chi-square test, which is used for tests if categorical data are
related, fits with the description given in Box 2.0B.

2666

4

2

346

354

Generally used models are recommended to list out based on geography or species, andXiangzheng Dengprovide guidance or standards for selecting allometric model from the existing pool ordeveloping new ones.

Rejected

5180

4

2

346

356

Is there a combination of species specific and generic or stand level models that would be
acceptable? The problems in combining more accurate and less accurate data in a single Stephen Dettman
estimate can be problematic.

Rejected

2996

4

2

348

356

Verify bibliographic citation format

2998

4

2

358

373

Verify bibliographic citation format

3000

4

2

376

386

Verify bibliographic citation format

5182

4

2

399

406

It is important to ensure that recalculations using newer models are appropriately adjusted
Stephen Dettman
to avoid the appearance of on-the-ground changes that are greater than reality

Accepted with
Modification

7176

4

2

402

402

Please correct "m" to "model"

Accepted

Text has been revised, including the importance of timeseries consistency and the reference to guidance provided
in Vol.1, chapter 5.
Corrected

3002

4

2

403

403

Verify bibliographic citation format

AcceptedHarmonized how references are included in all tables

3004

4

2

412

412

Verify bibliographic citation format

AcceptedHarmonized how references are included in all tables

Roland Hiederer

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Paula Ollila
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted with
Modification

AcceptedHarmonized how references are included in all tables

AcceptedHarmonized how references are included in all tables

AcceptedHarmonized how references are included in all tables

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

3006

4

2

426

427

Verify bibliographic citation format

3008

4

2

433

433

Verify bibliographic citation format

8306

4

2

440

538

ExpertPoot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

A small portion of this section points out issues that arise when developing total biomass
or carbon estimate across political boundaries. The issue stems from the fact that every
country has a different definition of forest, has different sampling methods, and varying
confidence and data quality. When applying one forest cover map over the entire world,
biomass density conversion to total biomass will inevitably be inconsistent and biased
toward the forest type for which the particular utilized map was designed. Other issues notdiscussed in the section include variation in confidence level of the data reported bycountries and the lack of comparability across countries. As it is, all data is displayed as
being of equal quality even though some areas have much narrower confidence intervals
than others. We suggest that this document discusses the issue of portraying data quality Y. Anny Huang
spatially along with other maps, and the discussion on confidence level be further
expanded.

Response

Author's Note

AcceptedHarmonized how references are included in all tables

AcceptedHarmonized how references are included in all tables

Accepted with
Modification

Some nations may be putting a significant amount of resources into quantifying biomass
and carbon, and have higher confidence in their data. To help nations compare theirbiomass and carbon trends with the rest of the world, it would be of great benefit to know
which areas of the world are most comparable given the confidence level. We suggestthat IPCC continue to look for ways to improve comparability of nations’ data.
[- comments from Adam Moreno of the California Air Resources Board]
3010

4

2

446

447

Verify bibliographic citation format

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

452

4

2

468

469

consider adding 2 additional factors: 6. How the stratification approaches used for Grounddata sampling and RS data are aligned
Naikoa Aguilar7. How the ground to RS data allometry is defined as several alternatives are available
Amuchastegui
this adds a new level of allometry to the estimates as it moves from field based variables
to RS based variables in particular in the case of LiDAR.

3012

4

2

470

470

Verify bibliographic citation format

8674

4

2

473

473

It would be good to cite clear examples of the use of remote sensing, calibrated by field
data, to detect change over time. This can be done by editing the text to read "…
detectable change events (Gonzalez et al. 2014, 2015), including…" Gonzalez, P., B.
Kroll, and C.R. Vargas. 2014. Tropical rainforest biodiversity and aboveground carbonchanges and uncertainties in the Selva Central, Peru. Forest Ecology and Management
312: 78-91. Gonzalez, P., J.J. Battles, B.M. Collins, T. Robards, and D.S. Saah. 2015.
Aboveground live carbon stock changes of California wildland ecosystems, 2001-2010.
Forest Ecology and Management 348: 68-77.

3014

4

2

497

497

Verify bibliographic citation format

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted

Rejected

In lines 528 to 532 this is addressed and for clarity including
global biomass maps. Countries will use this type of
products if they do not have their own products forcomparison and verifications as it is stated in the quotedlines above.
The text is not reordered as it will be helpful for the compiler
to understand the considerations that are relevant for theconstruction of the map in order to support their decisions
on how to use it.

Editorial. Harmonized how references are included in all
tables
The first addition: It is cover by bullet 4 already whenreferring to the combination of co-allocated remotely sense
data and field data observations.
The second addition: it is too specific for the level of theconsiderations provided.

Accepted

Editorial. Harmonized how references are included in all
tablesPatrick Gonzalez

Rejected

The intention here is to provide general guidance without
single out specific examples that may or may not be fullycompliant with the considerations given. In addition, thegeographical scale of these studies are too small.

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted

Editorial. Harmonized how references are included in all
tablesCommenVolume
t ID

8676

4

Chapter

2

From line

497

To lineComment

Expert497

For all remote sensing, in this case Lidar, field measurements are essential since they
provide the data needed to calculate carbon density. I recommend adding this point,
editing the text so that it reads "…the height of trees can be predicted. Field
measurements of individual trees provide the data to calculate volume, biomass, andcarbon density as a function of Lidar-derived height (Næsset 1997a,b, Lim et al. 2003,
Patrick Gonzalez
Gonzalez et al. 2010)." The additional reference provides a clear example of thecalculation of carbon density from Lidar: Gonzalez, P., G.P. Asner, J.J. Battles, M.A.
Lefsky, K.M. Waring, and M. Palace. 2010. Forest carbon densities and uncertainties from
Lidar, QuickBird, and field measurements in California. Remote Sensing of Environment
114: 1561-1575.

454

4

2

510

511

Yet Box 2.0 does not illustrate how the data from the map is used to generate theregionally aggregated EF, or strata level. Particularly because among other things spatial
auto correlation. A sampling will be needed and guidance on how this is to be done would
Naikoa Aguilarbe of great help. NOTE that in some cases authors have assessed at which scales
Amuchastegui
explanatory variables (e.g. LiDAR height) loose spatial autocorrelation. If map estimates
are made for areas larger than such distance, pixel level estimates could be considered
independent. This need as to be considered for the production of the EF's.

3016

4

2

531

531

Verify bibliographic citation format

Accepted

Rephrased to delete "mechanism".

Accepted

Editorial. Harmonized how references are included in all
tables

Accepted

URL in a foot note including date

Accepted

editorial

Rejected

We thank the reviewer for the comment, but it refers to text
already agreed in the 2006 GL. Changes here would violate
the consistency of the text.

Rejected

We thank the reviewer for the comment, but it refers to text
already agreed in the 2006 GL and changes here werebeyond the scope and the mandate of the 2019
Refinement. Also, when mortality exceeds growth: m isgreater than 1.

Noted

There were limited data for litter and deadwood carbon
stocks so separating the available data beyond the FAO
Ecological Zones was not possible.

Accepted

Reference to the data sources and FAO Ecological Zones
will be referenced in the Table. Only those Ecological Zones
with data were included in the updated table.

2

537

538

3018

4

2

537

538

Verify bibliographic citation format

2298

4

2

538

538

It would be helpful to provide a website for the Brazilian case study, specifically for the
PRODES.

3020

4

2

602

620

Verify bibliographic citation format

3288

4

2

624

624

Remove the brackets in EQ. 2.19

675This equation seems wrong. It does not include the case when mortality exceeds growth,such as observed during pest and disease, or fires and also in self thinning . Th The
mortality of biomass should be expressed as fraction of the biomass stock. Moreover the
Eq. should define on which variable is the sum calculated : A? G ?

723

Table 2.2. The litter layer carbon stocks is much depending upon the forest age and the
management (natural unmanaged forests vs managed forests). This is not shown in the
Table. This is a serious gap because management affects substantially the litter anddeadwood carbon stocks, probably more than the mineral soil itself.

724

Table UPDATED - TABLE 2.2 - It would be helpful to provide the reference to this FAO
Rocio Danica Condor
Ecological Zone. Not all zones have been considered, please provide information or
explanation. It would be also helpful if information of data sources used to estimate default Golec
values are included in the footnote of the table.

3292

2300

4

4

2

2

675

723

723

Accepted

Text added as follows in the BOX 2.0: The biomass map
data are used to estimate average carbon stocks fordifferent forest types from the national vegetation map.
These estimates are then combined with activity data,
derived from PRODES(http://www.obt.inpe.br/OBT/assuntos/programas/amazonia/
prodes), to estimate emissions from changes from forest toother land uses (Aguiar et al, 2012; http://inpeem.ccst.inpe.br/conteudo_en/index.html)
Editorial. Harmonized how references are included in all
tablesDirk Nemitz

42

Rejected

Beyond the scope of the refinement. The scope of thesection is to address “biomass maps” not carbon maps,
therefore the inclusion of carbon density is irrelevant given
the specific context.

Accepted

3718

4

Author's Note

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

The new box 2.0D mentions "REDD+ mechanism". This terminology is inappropriate, as"mechanisms" in this context are usually understood to be CDM, JI and the like, wheretransfers of emission reductions are the main purpose, which is not necessarily true for
REDD+. The correct terminology would be "REDD+ activities".

3290

Response

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Rocio Danica Condor
Golec
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Denis Loustau

Denis Loustau

Denis Loustau

CommenVolume
t ID

3294

6934

4

4

Chapter22

From line

773

778

To line773

780

Comment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

Eq. 2.24 is confusing. L(organic) should be renamed \delta C (organic soil) and treated as
Denis Loustau\delta C (mineral soil). The change in Cinorganic in soil seems to me beyond any
quantitative assessment at decadal time resolution, it should not be mentioned here.

Noted

The term is defined correctly in the definitions provided
below the equation. For consistency with 2006 guidelines itshould be left in its current form. Compilers are currently
used to seeing it presented in this way. As discussed laterin the guidance, impacts on inorganic C pools can beaddressed at a Tier 3 level so it has been left fortransparency.

If soil works as sink, is it allowed to compute the sink to the shallower depth than 30 cm(e.g. 20 cm)?

For Tier 1 methods all reference stocks and stock change
factors have been developed for a 0-30cm soil layer. If thedefault values are to be used then the estimation can only
be done to 30 cm.
For Tier 2 which will use country specific values it isrecognised that a different depth could be used: either
shallower or deeper than the 30 cm. However, the country
will have to justify the use of the depth selected and should
Accepted with M
ensure that in selecting that depth no bias related to
management practice can enter the estimation. For
example, if soils are tilled and mixed to 25 cm, soil carbon
stocks should be determined to at least this depth. If a
depth shallower than 25 cm was adopted, then tilled soils
may falsely appear to have a lower soil carbon stock andlead to a bias in the carbon stock change with adoption ofno-till.

Shoji Hashimoto

2662

4

2

783

792

The core of Equation 2.24 is the estimation of biochar. Documentary evidences should be
provided for “The change in soil organic C stocks from biochar amendments is estimated
Xiangzheng Deng
separately from other organic amendments due to the high resistance to mineralisation
exhibited by biochar carbon".

3086

4

2

821

829

It is suggested the use of the initial later in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm

2302

4

2

860

860

4856

4

2

862

863

4092

4

2

941

942

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Please include in reference 5 of the table also information on the Volume 4, Chapter 3 tocomplement pages (e.g. p. 3.39, 3.40, 3.41). In addition, it seems that Volume 4 Chapter 3
Rocio Danica Condor
is referring to an updated IPCC climate zone - can explanation be provided (Please check
Golec
Figure 3.A.5.1 Delineation of major climate zones, updated from the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines).
Figure 2.4:
Roland Hiederer"Are there changes in C stocks in mineral soils a Key category?"
Suggest to remove "there".
SyntaxAndrea TILCHE

Rejected

Accepted with
Modification

The biochar component included in Equation 2.24 is bydefinition that which is stable for a time frame of 1000
years. This form or organic carbon differs from thebehaviour of the other forms of soil organic carbon
contained in Equation 2.24 and needs to be tracked
separately.

As per the IPCC 2019 Refinement template, initial letter is
not capital.

The reference defining the IPCC climate zones used in thederivation of reference condition soil C stocks is taken fromAccepted with M
the Batjes (2011) publication as the source of aggregationof the data. It must be retained as is.
Accepted

Agreed.
Agreed.

Accepted

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

4094

2

4

From line

958

To line960

Comment

It is unclear where in volume 4 the guidelines refer to biomass specifically grown as
feedstock. This should be added.

ExpertAndrea TILCHE

Response

Noted

Author's Note
The biomass being used for the formation of biochar could
be derived from any biomass source. This was clearly
described in the text given the comments made about thevarious sources. - wood, plant residues, manures, etc.
Those emission must be estimated by the compiler,
regardless of whether biochar is produced, and therefore it
is not necessary to refer the compiler to those sections.

Agreed.
8834

8774

4

4

2

2

977

1005

981

1006

Need to change font size.

Moe Aung Kyaw

First, I fully support the inclusion of biochar in the refinement. I also agree with the use ofequation 2.26A for estimating the annual change in soil carbon stocks associated withbiochar amendment under the Tier 1 method.
Regarding the FPERMp factors in Table 2.3B, the difference between the values of 0.38
and 0.24 indicate a 58% increase in the fraction of biochar remaining after 1000 years
when a production temperature of 600 °C or greater was used. This may push biochar
producers to favour higher pyrolysis conditions, while the scientific basis for an increase inpersistence above a fairly low temperature threshold (450 °C) is not very strong (seeAlice Budai
Budai et al. 2016). The increase in C content for biochar produced at 450 vs 800 °C is in
the range of 20% for different feedstocks (see for example Zahng et al (2017)), and since
the factor FCp does not account for this difference, the FPERMp factor should reflect this.
I suggest the difference in the FPERMp factors for biochar produced in the temperature
range of 450 – 600 °C and >600 °C be reduced.
If possible, I would support the use of measured biochar properties (atomic ratios ofhydrogen to organic carbon) rather than production temperature for defining the FPERMp
factors in Tier 1, as production temperature may be more difficult to monitor.

Accepted
The Fpermp values were derived from published literaturestudies and are therefore data driven. The values need tobe respected and results from the combination of all data
assimilated in deriving Fpermp values. The results
included in the Budai et al. (2016) reference were includedin the data analysis used to calculate Fpermp values
provided they met the required criteria. The requirements
were that there had to be multiple measurements of carbon
mineralisation over at least one year to allow a doubleexponential decay function to be fit to the observed data
and that isotopes had to be used to distinguishmineralisation of added biochar C from that of native soil C.
Accepted with M The results of the Fpermp analysis extended the data
presented by Budai et al. (2016). The description of themethodology used to derive the Fperm values and a figure
showing all values have been added to Annex 2A.2
The paper referenced as Zahng et al. (2017) was notincluded in the database. In fact on conducting a search of
the scientific literature (for Zahng et al. 2017 and Zhang eta.l 2017) this paper could not be found by the authors of
this section. Also, changes in FCp across the heating
temperature classes (<450 C, 450-600 C and >600 C) wereless than the variation in FCp within each heating
temperature class.

CommenVolume
t ID

654

4

Chapter

2

From line

1005

To line1006

Comment

ExpertTable 2.3B is extremely important because annual change in biochar carbon stock cansignificantly vary depending on values for “Fperm”.
From my viewpoint, default values provided in this table seem much lower than I
expected. This table says that default values are determined from a lot of studies.
However, an additional data input is required to improve it (e.g. data of biochar produced
in Japan).
Masato Yano
In order to provide such an additional input efficiently, please let me know the following
background information on this table:
1. Highest heating temperature in biochar production process (referred to in data sources)
2. Time at highest heating temperature (referred to in data sources)
3. Method to determine a single default value from a lot of studies (simple average?)
4. Reason why “1000 year” is used as “permanence” criteria

Response

All studies from which data were extracted to calculate
Fpermp are included in the references listed in Annex 2A.2.
Studies needed to meet the following requirements: 1) there
had to be multiple measurements of carbon mineralisation
over at least one year that allowed a double-exponential
decay function to be fit to the observed data and 2) isotopes
had to be used to distinguish mineralisation of added
biochar C from that of native soil C. The values are data
driven and need to be respected and not influenced byopinion or points of view.
The potential presence of additional datasets is
acknowledged. The goal of data collection was to becomprehensive but some references may have been
missed. The values provided are consistent with the dataassembled and the methodology described in Annex 2A.2.
Accepted with M
Compilers may develop country-specific values using theapproach that was applied here to derive the default factors(if the data exists).
The reason for defining Fperm as the fraction of biochar
remaining after 1000 years was to be confident that thevalues derived from equation 2.26A provided a valid
estimate of the sequestration of biochar C given larger
uncertainties in the dynamics of biochar over decadal times
scales. Compilers can develop country-specific factors that
include the shorter term dynamics.

3022

4

2

1063

1063

Verify bibliographic citation format

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted

3024

4

2

1139

1165

Verify bibliographic citation format

Accepted

6936

4

2

1168

1180

Just a comment. I think this statement is very good. This lets people aware of the implicit
assumptions.

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Shoji Hashimoto

Noted

4858

4

2

1171

1173

It is suggested to remove the sentence "If the models … mass basis."
As worded it can be interpreted at being contradictory to the subsequent sentence.

Roland Hiederer

Author's Note

Noted

6938

4

2

1173

1173

typo; "the carbon stock" -> "the carbon stock"

Shoji Hashimoto

Accepted

4860

4

2

1181

1539

Three-Pool Steady-State C Model for Mineral Soils
see General comments.

Roland Hiederer

Noted

AgreedAction: Updated to Environmental Conservation format.
Thanks
The second sentence should be different to the first
sentence indicated by the reviewer. The first describes thesituation when a model is initialised with an equivalentmass soil carbon stock. The second describes the situation
when a fixed depth is used and no variance in bulk density
is incorporated. These are different approaches andcould/should provide different outcomes.

Agreed.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

3026

2

1185

1186

Verify bibliographic citation format

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted

6940

4862

6942

2490

2492

4

4

4

4

4

4

2

2

2

2

2

1210

1212

1240

1279

1315

1215

1212

1274

1279

1343

I think providing the information of global database is very good. However, global
databases in particular soil databases sometimes provide very incorrect data when you
look at them at a small scale like for small country-scale. It is better to state theuncertainty of large uncertainty in global scale database and let people aware of that.

The link is set to data at 0.5° resolution (CRU TS v. 4.01).
This appears to be rather coarse (see line 1211) for some non-flat regions.

Shoji Hashimoto

Roland Hiederer

I agree that providing three-pool model is very good. This provides a good tool to countries
who don't have their own accounting system, and this tool may be used for validating
accounting provided by each country. One comment. The three-pool steady-state model isbased on the CENTURY model. It is know that prediction of SOC dynamics is affected by
Shoji Hashimotomodel structure, and it is common to evaluate the prediction using multi-model. I think thatyou should state the limitation (bias) of the three -pool model. I hope that you will in the
future advance this steady-state soil carbon model with other SOC model like RothC andYasso and will provide accounting based on multi models.

please check the units of variables in the formulaplease check the units of variables in the formula

Mingshan Su

Mingshan Su

Author's Note
AgreedIn our view it is the responsibility of the user of the data toquantify the uncertainty, whether it comes from national or
global databases. This is the case for all sources, and is
Accepted with M not unique to soil C, but we have added text highlighting thepoint.

Noted

Noted

Accepted

Accepted

It is accepted that the spatial resolution is coarse, but acompiler is not required to use these data. Certainly,
national datasets would likely be a better source and have afiner resolution.

The reviewer comments are acknowledged and it is agreed
that in the future the approach could be extended byincorporating other model frameworks. The implementation
described has been prepared as means of implementing a
Tier 2 modelling approach. The Century approach waschosen because of its wide testing across a range ofenvironments and because the application of the steadystate approach has been published scientific papers(Paustian et al. 1997; Ogle et al. 2012).

Units of the first line of the equation were not correct - the kvalue left a unit of y-1 in the right side of the equation,
which must be balanced in order to produce units of t C/hain the result. We added a new term D which defines theduration of the time step and is set to 1 year for the Tier 2
Steady state method. This additional term in the model
cancels the y-1 units associated with the value of k.

Units of the first line of the equation were not correct - the kvalue left a unit of y-1 in the right side of the equation,
which must be balanced in order to produce units of t C/hain the result. We added a new term D which defines theduration of the time step and is set to 1 year for the Tier 2
Steady state method. This additional term in the model
cancels the y-1 units associated with the value of k.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

2494

2

2304

4

4

2

From line

1414

1474

To line

1439

1474

Comment

please check the units of variables in the formula

ExpertMingshan Su

NEW GUIDANCE: TABLE 2.3C - a list of references is provided - it would be really helpful
Rocio Danica Condor
if each parameter has associated a reference and/or publication. This will help
Golectransparency of values reported.

Response

Accepted

The values have been revised to represent 95% confidence
intervals for the parameter estimates, and are allowable
Accepted with M values for a Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis.

4

2

1474

1474

Table2.3C: What do you mean by (min and max)? Is the range just for reference or
allowable values or for monte carlo uncertainty assessment?

Shoji Hashimoto

3028

4

2

1601

1613

Verify bibliographic citation format

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted

1630

Agreed, but flux tower measurement is expensive, and meeting these requirements isunrealistic.

Shoji Hashimoto

Noted

Verify bibliographic citation format

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

3030

6948

4

4

4

2

2

2

1625

1633

1639

1636

1644

The requested information is a property of the particular
database and how countries extract data from those
databases. The uncertainty would be different for different
countries. It will be important for countries to acknowledge
Accepted with M
or derive the uncertainty once the data to be used is definedand extracted.

Accepted

Rejected

4

2

1651

1667

Verify bibliographic citation format

7724

4

2

1785

1785

page 2.55, add a footnote for a formulation of Mb. Suggested formula for the footnote
would be: Mb = Crop * RAG /1000

Kadir Aksakal

This comment applies to text that was out of scope of therevision.

Accepted

Shoji Hashimoto

3032

AgreedAgreedNeed to state the uncertainty of global SOC databases. Particularly for small countries.

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Units of the first line of the equation were not correct - the kvalue left a unit of y-1 in the right side of the equation,
which must be balanced in order to produce units of t C/hain the result. We added a new term D which defines theduration of the time step and is set to 1 year for the Tier 2
Steady state method. This additional term in the model
cancels the y-1 units associated with the value of k.

It is not possible to allocate references to each parameter.
The references listed provided the data that was used to ina Bayesian calibration process. In other words the datafrom all the indicated papers were used in the derivation of
all the model parameters. The process for deriving the
Accepted with M parameters is presented in Annex 2A.3. Note that themethod has been moved to Cropland Remaining Croplands
based on other comments.

6944

6946

Author's Note

AgreedThank you for the comment. This comment refers to textthat was not included in the Refinement.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

Rocio Danica Condor
Golec

Noted

Ana Blondel

Accepted with
Modification

2308

4

2

1821

1821

For transparency, it would be helpful to specify, describe or elaborate how expert
assessment by authors works to estimate values (see UPDATED - TABLE 2.6(CONTINUED))

3512

4

2

1900

1900

A conjunction seem to be missing: it should be "Plot designs should also consider theextent remotely sensed data that are.." instead of "Plot designs should also consider theextent remotely sensed data are…"

3516

4

2

1933

1934

3514
4864
4866

4
4
4

2
2
2

1962
1968
1970

1962
1968
1970

ExpertIs the note "(with markings not be visible to the land owner)" required in this context? If it is
Ana Blondel
considered required, suggest to add "if possible"
It should be "direct measurements" instead of "destructive measurements"
Ana Blondel
Probably appropriate is "accuracy" instead of "precision".
Roland Hiederer
Probably appropriate is "accuracy" instead of "precision".
Roland Hiederer

4868

4

2

1990

1990

The sentence seems to restrict measurement-based Tier 3 method to forest.
This should not be the case, such methods are also applicable for grassland andcropland.

3518

4

2

2015

2016

Table 2.6A, Row Step 6: Missing "and" between "carbon stock change estimates" and"their associated uncertainty."

3034

4

2

2047

2059

Verify bibliographic citation format

3036

4

2

2061

2075

It is suggested the use of the initial later in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm

3520

4

2

2079

2080

The word "more" should not be deleted, it is needed for the whole sentence to makesense (… more…. than…)
I don't agree that manual calibration is suitable for simple models and automatedcalibration is suitable for complex model. It is impossible to determine parameters
automatically for complex models. Look at the parameters of the CENTURY model, I
guess the most parameters were determined by manual evaluation. The same is true forthe calibration of CBM-CFS3. They determined parameters via MCMC, but only limited
parameters were determined automatically via MCMC; most parameters must be
determined manually before. Look at the parameters for a simple linear model. You candetermine the parameters automatically using statistical software.

Response

Author's Note
These values were selected by the authors of the 2006
IPCC GL, and so these current authors do not know how
these values were selected. The last values was added
and is just the average of the other values, but is still basedon expert knowledge of the previous authors.
The text was edited as follows to improve grammar albeit
slightly different to that suggested by the reviewer. "Plotdesigns should also consider if the extent remotely sensed
data are going to be used can to enhance the accuracy ofthe estimates."

Accepted

Added 'if possible' ass requested.

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

Changed to 'direct measurements' as suggested.
Changed 'precision' to 'accuracy'
Changed 'precision' to 'accuracy'

Roland Hiederer

AcceptedNational Forest Inventory has been replaced with National
Inventory so as to be generic, and examples of both forestand soil measurements included to make it relevant tograssland and croplands also. The following is the revised
text "Most countries using a measurement-based Tier 3
method will already have an existing well establishednational inventories National Forest Inventory or similarsystem that has been established for many years. Typically,
these inventories systems have been established for
purposes other than collected data for estimating
greenhouse gas emissions and removals; such as for , inparticular timber resource assessment or, soil typemapping. "Ana Blondel

Accepted

Added 'and' as suggested.

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
AntonioAna Blondel

Accepted
Rejected

Editorial changes have been made to ensure thebibliographic format is correct.
The IPCC style guide for bullets requires the use of small
letters, semi-colons, and full stop at end.

Accepted

Reverted to original 2006 Guideline text.

Shoji Hashimoto

AcceptedContent has been modified to include additional automatedapproaches to generating parameter sets and removed text
specifying which approach is suited to simple or complex
models.

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Rejected

The IPCC style guide for bullets requires the use of small
letters, semi-colons, and full stop at end.

6950

4

2

2125

2131

3038

4

2

2133

2140

It is suggested the use of the initial later in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm

3522

4

2

2145

2145

Box 2.2F: it should be "The information in this box" instead of "This information in this box" Ana Blondel

Accepted

Edited text as suggested.

3524

4

2

2203

2203

Delete repeated word in "… of the the model..."Accepted

3040

4

2

2278

2283

It is suggested the use of the initial later in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm

Removed duplicate word as suggested.
The IPCC style guide for bullets requires the use of small
letters, semi-colons, and full stop at end.

Ana Blondel
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Rejected

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

3042

4

2

2286

2337

Verify bibliographic citation format

3526

4

2

2302

2302

3528

4

2

2328

2328

3044

4

2

2343

2371

3530

4

2

2383

2384

Remove word "ran" in this line
Remove "f" before "more" in sentence: "… in which mosses can contribute 30% or f more
Ana Blondel
of..."
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Verify bibliographic citation format
Antonio
Table 2.6B, Row Step 6: for the whole paragraph to make sense, it should be
Ana Blondel"Explanation of how any differences..."instead of "Explanation of any differences..."

788

4

2

2385

2883

970

4

2

2396

2399

3046

4

2

2411

2412

972

4

2

2422

2424

8894

4

2

2435

2438

3532

4

2

2443

2443

5184

4

2

2445

2446

3048

4

2

2452

2452

ExpertPoot-Delgado Carlos
AntonioAna Blondel

General Comment on section 2.6 IAV: While innovative and potentially helpful to a subset
of countries using the 2019 Refinement, based on the following considerations andobservations we believe that the material presented in this section on IAV is better suited
for an appendix rather than in the main body of Volume 4, Chapter 2, reasons include:
From a review of the approved Table of Contents for the 2019 Refinement, there appears
to be no mention of including new guidance on Inter-Annual Variability in Volume 4,
Chapter 2. Additionally, the guidance could confuse inventory compilers that will beapplying the IPCC Guidelines. The IPCC Guidelines should be very clear on what are theJeffrey CoburnTier 1, 2 and 3 methods, this IAV approach is not associated with the IPCC Tiers, it is aseparate sub-analysis that allows countries to more clearly identify, separate and report
fluxes from natural disturbance and is not consistent with the application of the Managed
Land Proxy. Inclusion in an appendix is more consistent with recognition that thisguidance is optional for countries. A "text box" in Chapter 2 could be provided briefly
mentioning this IAV approach and then refer the reader to an appendix where theguidance would be provided. This would help minimize confusion among inventory
compilers using the 2019 Refinement and be just as useful for those countries that choseto perform this supplementary analysis.
It is unclear what is the stated difference between natural disturbances and climate
francesco nicola
variability. Disturbances through fires, insect breaks, wind throws and ice storms, to use
the same list used herein, are a direct cause of climate variability (especially extremes). In tubielloother words, these two causes do not seem to be independent.
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Verify bibliographic citation format
Antonio
The stated purpose of this section may well be to support countries increase''transparency'' in reporting GHG emissions on managed lands. At the same time
however, this stated goal appears to muddle an implicit principle of MLP, in this reviewer's
francesco nicola
opinion, which is that if you take over land for economic gain, then you need to betubiello
prepared to ''pay'' consequences in terms of owning both emissions and removals,
regardless of the human or natural component. Furthermore, once land becomesmanaged, there may be actions that will tend to amplify natural disturbances, making theseparation more difficult compared to the undisturbed case.
This image is important, please insert the correct reference (Grassi et al at line 2438)
Simone Rossi
since the paper should now be published
It should be "can occur" instead of "occur"
Ana Blondel
There are many instances where a steady state is disturbed and a permanent shift to a
Stephen Dettman
new regime happens. This would imply that "averaging out" is not as often the case as
may be expected
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Verify bibliographic citation format
Antonio

Response

Author's Note

Accepted

Editorial

Accepted

Removed ran as suggested.

Accepted

Removed f as suggested.

Accepted

Editorial

Accepted

Added 'how' as recommended in by the comment.

Rejected

Re; Appendix - Rejected: The Table of Contents for thisreport approved by the IPCC plenary includes the following
for Volume 4: Chapter 2.5 Additional generic guidance forTier 3 methods
Issue 1: Provide guidance on how to address inter-annual
variability. Re Tiers: This section describes an approachthat is applicable at any Tier, if a country decides Re: MLP
Rejected: The consistency with MLP is explained
throughout this section.

Accepted with
Modification

We revised the text to further clarify.

Noted

Editorial board determined the citation format.

Noted

What is the "implicit principle of the MLP" referred to by thisreviewer? The MLP clearly focusses on anthropogenic
emissions. This approach does represent a refinement of
the estimates of the anthropogenic E/R and by using
refinement the text reaffirms that this is consistent with the
MLP. The text also makes it clear that this is neither a goodpractice nor is it mandatory.

Accepted

Reference Updated

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

The text already provides examples of such state changes
and points out that the averaging out only applies when
there are no trends.
The editorial decides on citation format and it will be
implanted consistently.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

974

4

2

976

4

3050

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

2457

2458

It appears to this reviewer that, rather than providing a ''second-order'' approximation of
the MLP, this new method rather throws it out of the window entirely, introducing
something that is completely counter to the MLP in concept. . Why would you take away
only ''natural'' disturbances then and not all natural fluxes?

francesco nicolatubiello

Rejected

The text reaffirms the MLP concept and offers a method forrefinement. Moreover the IPCC Guidelines are designed toseparate natural from anthropogenic fluxes.

2

2460

2461

Kindly insert language indicating that, depending on specific regions, human management francesco nicolaof forests is also a strong co-determinant of fire events and disturbances.
tubiello

Accepted

4

2

2460

2479

Verify bibliographic citation format

978

4

2

2478

2479

3534

4

2

2489

2490

Except when human activity, for instance a choice of a specific management regime, ishighly correlated with the change in fire frequency.
Table 2.6C: Error in numbering of footnotes? Footnote "2" should be footnote "14"

3052

4

2

2500

2500

Verify bibliographic citation format

3054

4

2

2508

2509

Verify bibliographic citation format

3536
3538

4
4

2
2

2509
2594

2509
2594

Missing ref "Liski et al. 2006" in list of references at the end of Vol 4, Chapter 2
It should be "these" instead of "their"

3056

4

2

2608

2632

Verify bibliographic citation format

3058

4

2

2678

2679

Low quality of the figure and dissonant with the format of figures of the document. It is
recommended to redesign

3060

4

2

2688

2724

Verify bibliographic citation format

3062

4

2

2734

2735

Low quality of the figure and dissonant with the format of figures of the document. It is
recommended to redesign

980

4

2

2749

2753

This reviewer is taken aback by the the logic shown in this sentence. If the country in theexample admits that most of the wildfires are human-induced, then it would be morecorrect to say that wildfires have a mostly anthropogenic component.

3064

4

2

2754

2755

986

4

2

2771

2771

982

4

2

2772

2773

984

4

2

2778

2778

988

4

2

2778

2780

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antoniofrancesco nicolatubiello
Ana Blondel
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
AntonioAna Blondel
Ana Blondel
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antoniofrancesco nicolatubielloLow quality of the figure and dissonant with the format of figures of the document. It is
Poot-Delgado Carlos
recommended to redesign
Antonio
Considering that there is a lower (as well as a higher) limit to the amount of area burned,
francesco nicola
how can this distribution be normal? It would rather be skewed. Would your method worktubiello
in such cases?
Apologies, but the logic of these statements is hard to grasp by this reviewer. It would
seem to be extremely difficult, in a context where as in this example, most fires are
human-induced, to use rare events beyond the 95% confidence interval as indicative of
natural disturbance not materially influenced by the country's land use management
francesco nicola
practices, based on the fact that'' the use of fires is forbidden in forest.'' Clearly prevention
tubielloof criminal behaviours was a bit low. The frequency of arsonists can be the same over thetime series, and cause huge fires when conditions are ''potentially'' right (a drought, etc.),
but would not have caused huge fires without ''human prodding.'' Yet this does not meanthat the extent of the fire can be ascribed to natural disturbances.
Events outside of two sigmas do not correspond to a 95% confidence interval, rather the francesco nicola
latter corresponds to 1.96 sigmas
tubiello
It seems to this reviewer that it is not possible to identify an outlier as defined in thisfrancesco nicola
method and attribute to it to a ND. Even worse, this reviewer suspects that the resulting
time series can hardly be proven to be representative of the anthropogenic component of tubiellothe MLP emissions.

Accepted

Added text stating that "land use and land-use change suchas deforestation and peatland drainage can influence therisk and impacts of fire (Page and Hooijer 2016)."
The editorial decides on citation format and it will be
implemented consistently.

Noted

May already implies that there may be exceptions.

Accepted

Corrected footnote numbering
The editorial board decides on citation format and it will be
implemented consistently.
The editorial board decides on citation format and it will be
implemented consistently.
Reference has been added
Text revised
The editorial board decides on citation format and it will be
implemented consistently.
Final product will use higher quality figure resolution and wehave replaced with a black and white figure.
The editorial board decides on citation format and it will be
implemented consistently.
Final product will use higher quality figure resolution and wehave replaced with a black and white figure.
That depends on whether "most" refers to the number offires or the area burned. In any case, the key sentencestates that these emissions have both a natural and ananthropogenic components, without any indication of theirrelative magnitude.
Final product will use higher quality figure resolution and wewill check on B&W format.
First, a distribution can be normal even if there is a zero
lower limit, second the distribution of the area annuallyburned may be normal. SANDRO PLEASE CHECK.

Noted
Noted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Noted
Noted
Noted

Accepted with
Modification

Noted
Rejected

Noted

If the number of fires started by arsonists is the sameacross years, and one year has a much larger area burned,in this example that area would be considered "natural"
because it is beyond the control of the country.

Noted

Noted - the value of 1.96 was rounded to 2.

Noted

This methodology for identifying outliers is well establishedand the resulting time series is well accepted to be
representative of anthropogenic emissions within the MLP
since the ND emissions have been disaggregated.

CommenVolume
t ID

992

994

4

4

Chapter22

From line

2778

2778

To lineComment

2781

General comment on the proposed IPCC method to eliminate outliers. The usefulness ofdevising a method --even if unorthodox--for computing some sort of backgroundanthropogenic signal over managed land is not disputed. However, it is advised to modify
the text to avoid conveying to the reader that the idea of the proposed IPCC method issomewhat grounded in statistics. It is not; the use of 2 sigmas in a context of a non-normal
distribution and the elimination of outliers as proposed does not appear to follow any
francesco nicola
established statistical approach. The authors are pointed to an existing, statisticaltubiello
approach, known as the Chauvenet Method, which is very similar to theirs, but includes a
critical additional component that lets one decide whether or not to take out an ''outlier''
based on more robust statistical analyses of sample size and Z tests--and is applicable tonon-normal distributions as well. See for instance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauvenet%27s_criterion andhttps://analytics.ncsu.edu/sesug/2007/SA11.pdf

2781

990

4

2

2781

2781

3066

4

2

2781

2782

3068

4

2

2803

2804

3540

4

2

2835

2836

3542

4

2

2879

2879

8678

4

2

2884

3632

3296
6952

4
4

2
2

3137
3151

3138
3151

4086

4

2

1192

4

ExpertGeneric comment # 2 on this section. I would suggest not to call this method a ''secondorder refinement'' to MLP. In fact, it is completely contrary to the spirit of the MLP. At facevalues, it may be considered, at best, a method in support of review processes offrancesco nicola
inventories (which in itself has nothing to do with MLP). At worse, it appears that the IPCC
tubiello
guidelines are being modified to basically address pet concerns of a handful of countries,
with potential use to further qualify their mitigation commitments in their favour, while theplanet goes up in smoke.

From the figures, it appears that this cannot be a normal distribution (centred aroundwhich mean), considering that the fire emissions can never go to negative, although this is francesco nicolatubiello
what would be implied by the other tail of this ''normal'' distribution, which would have to
be situated below the zero of the vertical axis.
Low quality of the figure and dissonant with the format of figures of the document. It is
Poot-Delgado Carlos
recommended to redesign
AntonioLow quality of the figure and dissonant with the format of figures of the document. It is
Poot-Delgado Carlos
recommended to redesign
AntonioBox 2.2M, footnote 28: It should be "the cumulative area that has been subject to" instead
Ana Blondelof "the cumulative area the has
been subject to"
Remove question mark (?)
Ana Blondel
For the user of the report, it is essential to compile all references into a single
Patrick Gonzalez
alphabetized list.
the Avitabile reference is duplicated following Zianis et al.'s
Denis Loustau
Typo: Garcia*Palacios -> Garcia Palacios
Shoji Hashimoto
It would be useful to ensure that EVERY generic methodology is cross-referenced in thesubsequent chapters so it is clear where information provided in chapter 2 might berelevant. (Overall, the best way forward would be to fully modularise the guidelines and, in Andrea TILCHE
addition to the pdf. versions, present them on an interactive web platform. But that's a
discussion for another day.)
GENERAL. First, the glossary should have definitions of ''managed'' and ''unmanged
francesco nicola
land''.
tubiello

Response

Author's Note

Accepted with
Modification

Text revised to better explain the method

RejectedFirst- there is no mention of "second-order refinement" inthe text. The term used is second-order approximation.
Second, while this reviewer's interpretation of the "spirit of
the MLP" is noted, the IPCC has stated clearly andrepeatedly that the MLP needs improvement because
estimates derived using this approach confound bothanthropogenic and natural causes of emissions andremovals. Third, a country in which direct emissions fromwildfire can amount to 40% of the emissions from all othersectors does not consider this to be a "pet concern". And if
such a country invests hundreds of millions of dollars into
rehabilitation of areas affected by natural disturbances, it
has an interest in seeing this reflected in the GHG
inventory.

Noted

First, a distribution can be normal even if there is a zero
lower limit, second the distribution of the area annuallyburned may be normal. SANDRO PLEASE CHECK.

Noted
Noted
Accepted

Final product will use higher quality figure resolution and wewill check on B&W format.
Final product will use higher quality figure resolution and wewill check on B&W format.
typo

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

Noted

The final format of the document is still under considerationby the TSU.

Accepted"Managed land" will be included in the Glossary.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

Noted

This issue will be taken into consideration in the revision ofdraft Glossary.

Noted

The sectors and categories used in national GHG
inventories are explained in Vol.1, Chapter 8 of 2006
Guidelines, which is out of scope of this refinement work.
Also it should be noted such difference between inventory
sectors and others is explained in the TFI FAQ webpage.

4

GENERAL. Second, the definition provided in Vol 4 Ch 1, ''land where humaninterventions and practices have been applied to perform production, ecological or social
functions'', reveals a fundamental pitfall with the entire concept of the six IPCC ''land use''categories. In international statistical classifications of land use, únmanaged'' issynonimous of ''not in use'', which is a separate land use category that is used as residual francesco nicolatubiello
to cover 100% of the land. In practice, there can be no unmanaged cropland andgrassland (insofar as cropland + grassland == agriculture, as defined by the FAO.) nor
settlements. Hence ''umnaged'' only applies to forest, wetlands and other land. In the realworld additoinally, considering that administrative regulations are in place over all lands
within countries, there is hardly any portion of the land surface that is ''unmanaged''.

4

GENERAL. AFOLU is a ''sector'' only in relation to sectors being specific components of a
NGHGI. It is clearly not a ''sector'' in the sense of international statistical and socioeconomic classifications (see i.e., ISIC). To this end, ''agriculure'' is a sector, and forestry
is a sector, but ''forests'' and ''wetlands'' are not. Also, ''croplands'' and ''grasslands'' asland use classes are definitely part of ''agriculture'' as a economic sector--albeit they are
under the FOLU part of AFOLU. The difference between IPCC terminology andfrancesco nicola
internationally endorsed economic and land use classificatoins should be clarified at the
tubiello
ouset in these GLs, both in VOl 1, 4 and the glossary. It is fundamental in assessing
emissions from ''food'' for instance, as well as for policy analyses of mitigation in the socalled ''land use sector'' (which also is not a ''sector'' in the above sense. It would be usefulto provide some text xplaining such differences. SOme was recently written in the AIr
Emissoins accounts secton of teh System of Environmental and Economic Accounts for
Agriculture, Forestry and FIsheries endorsed by the UN Statistical Commission(http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/environment/methodology/en/)

1198

4

GENERAL. AFOLU. Considering the above, it is clear that, from a purely land use
classification of human activities (all human use land --and water--in fact), emissions fromindustry, settlements, energy, etc., should be housed under ''other land'' of the IPCC
classification. In other words, A land use classification that is complete should encompass
all activities that use land. Obviously this is not the case in IPCC, where ''AFOLU'' only
francesco nicola
means agriculture and forestry activities, plus any component that affects ecosystemstubiellomediated carbon cycle and other GHG emissions/removals. Or to put it with text from VOl
4 Ch 8, AFOLU is concerned with ''... estimating carbon stock changes and greenhousegas emissions and removals associated with changes in biomass, dead organic
matter (DOM), and soil carbon on lands classified as...''. A little clarificatoin to this end
could very usefully be given at the outset, for clarity, perhaps in the glossary.

Noted

The sectors and categories used in national GHG
inventories are explained in Vol.1, Chapter 8 of 2006
Guidelines, which is out of scope of this refinement work.
Some of the points will be taken into consideration in therevision of draft Glossary.

8618
4096
4098

4
4
4

Typo ("Example")
Categories is spelt wrongly
The "A" in Argentina should be capitalized

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

Typo corrected
Table 3.1.A has been changed into a Box with a new title.
Argentina case study (Box 3.1) has been deleted.

1194

1196

3
3
3

66
70
91

66
70
91

Leehi Yona
Andrea TILCHE
Andrea TILCHE

CommenVolume
t ID

6012

1930

2194

4

4

4

Chapter33

3

From line

140

140

140

To lineComment

Expert298

To increase transparency, reduce the reporting burden of compilers and ensure
consistency of international statistics, it would be essential to include ‘mapping tables’ thatmake the similarities and differences between the IPCC land use categories and the land
use classification defined in the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA)(seea.un.org) explicit. Furthermore, such ‘mapping tables’ could be complemented bysuggesting ways to bridge those categories that differ. The SEEA provides highly detailed
definitions and guidance on land use (see Paragraphs 5.245 - 5.262 and Annex I B1) forcompiling asset accounts for land. This detailed guidance ensures consistency acrosscountries and over time. The SEEA distinguishes between seven land categories and four
Florian Flachenecker
categories for inland waters. Similar to the IPCC guidelines, the SEEA differentiates
between land that is managed/in use and unmanaged/not in use. Given that the definitionof land use categories is important for several data producers (earth observation
community, international organisations, countries, etc.) and data users (modelers,countries, international organisations, etc.), this section would greatly benefit from anelaboration on how to bridge and possible align the IPCC and SEEA approaches.
Additionally, it would allow data providers to enhance their efficiency in data reporting aswell as ensure transparency across different, yet strongly related international reporting
processes.

298

To increase transparency, reduce the reporting burden of compilers and ensure
consistency of international statistics, it would be essential to include ‘mapping tables’ thatmake the similarities and differences between the IPCC land use categories and the land
use classification defined in the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA)(seea.un.org) explicit. Furthermore, such ‘mapping tables’ could be complemented bysuggesting ways to bridge those categories that differ. The SEEA provides much moredetailed definitions and guidance on land use (see Paragraphs 5.245 - 5.262 and Annex I
Jessica Chan
B1) for compiling asset accounts for land. This detailed guidance ensures consistency
across countries and over time. The SEEA distinguishes between seven land categories
and four categories for inland waters. Similar to the IPCC guidelines, the SEEA
differentiates between land that is managed/in use and unmanaged/not in use. Given thatthe definition of land use categories is important for several data producers (earth
observation community, international organisations, countries, etc.) and data users(modelers, countries, international organisations, etc.), this section would greatly benefit
from an elaboration on how to bridge and possible align the IPCC and SEEA approaches.

298

To increase transparency, reduce the reporting burden of compilers and ensure
consistency of international statistics, it would be essential to include ‘mapping tables’ thatmake the similarities and differences between the IPCC land use categories and the land
use classification defined in the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA)(seea.un.org) explicit. Furthermore, such ‘mapping tables’ could be complemented bysuggesting ways to bridge those categories that differ. The SEEA provides much moredetailed definitions and guidance on land use (see Paragraphs 5.245 - 5.262 and Annex I
Julian Chow
B1) for compiling asset accounts for land. This detailed guidance ensures consistency
across countries and over time. The SEEA distinguishes between seven land categories
and four categories for inland waters. Similar to the IPCC guidelines, the SEEA
differentiates between land that is managed/in use and unmanaged/not in use. Given thatthe definition of land use categories is important for several data producers (earth
observation community, international organisations, countries, etc.) and data users(modelers, countries, international organisations, etc.), this section would greatly benefit
from an elaboration on how to bridge and possible align the IPCC and SEEA approaches.

Response

Accepted with
Modification

Accepted with
Modification

Accepted with
Modification

Author's Note

Reference to SEEA has been added in line 179 of the SOD.
The relationship between IPCC, SEEA and FAO land coverand land use classifications can be found at
http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-standards, which isuseful to compare and harmonise different land
classification systems. We agree with the comment thatinventory compilers need to develop relationship between
land classification systems for a given country based on
country-specific definitions of IPCC land-use categories.

Reference to SEEA has been added in line 179 of the SOD.
The relationship between IPCC, SEEA and FAO land coverand land use classifications can be found at
http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-standards, which isuseful to compare and harmonise different land
classification systems. We agree with the comment thatinventory compilers need to develop relationship between
land classification systems for a given country based on
country-specific definitions of IPCC land-use categories.

Reference to SEEA has been added in line 179 of the SOD.
The relationship between IPCC, SEEA and FAO land coverand land use classifications can be found at
http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-standards, which isuseful to compare and harmonise different land
classification systems. We agree with the comment thatinventory compilers need to develop relationship between
land classification systems for a given country based on
country-specific definitions of IPCC land-use categories.

CommenVolume
t ID

2694

4

Chapter

3

From line

152

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note152

It is a need to provide a category on forests definition based upon "forest cover area/area",
forest density "forest biomass weight/area" and tree characteristics "height, diameter, and Mostafa Jafari
ground cover"

Rejected

Forest definitions are nationally determined. IPCC should
not provide this strict definition. Land-use definitions (Inc.
Forestland) are required to be define and reported explicitly
based on the method used by the country. Existing IPCC
2006 text: "Countries will use their own definitions of thesecategories, which may or may not refer to internationallyaccepted definitions, such as those proposed by FAO,
Ramsar, etc."

Rejected

This comment refers to the existing 2006 Guidance.
Comments are out of scope of the refinement. Forest Landdefinitions are nationally determined.

Accepted

Adopted Wetland definition is the original existing IPCC
2006 text in this Ch3. The definition in the glossary was
updated for consistency.
This section has been revised thoroughly to address thisand other comments related to this section.

2642

4

3

155

155

1) For areas likely to reach a threshold value of forest land, what percentage of vegetation
structures are likely to be deforested (rapidly)? 2) For those areas, what are the countryspecific and industry-specific time buffers between vegetation structure reaching a forest
Remy Bargout
threshold and then being harvested? 3) Will the future conversion of forest land be
captured here (i.e. reported by countries) ? 4) Could the present value of carbon and valueof future carbon ( in 5 to 10 years) in vegetation structures below forest threshold
represent a potentially greater marginal impact on warming effects?

6176

4

3

164

168

Definition of wetlands differs substantially from the in the glossary. Recommend
consistency to avoid confusion.

Accepted

Accepted

this comment triggered multiple changes in the document toimprove consistency in the treatment of terms.

Accepted with
Modification

Deleted reference to country's total land area. Revised
sentence clarifies that land area should remain consistentacross time series.

Accepted

Deleted: )Noted

This is a good example of a change in use due to an event.
We note this is a good specific example, but the aim is tokeep the text generally applicable. We believe this would be
able to be addressed based on the existing text. Hence wenote this comment but have not included it.

Carolyn Maxwell

6026

4

3

184

196

The language regarding changes between land-use categories is unclear, or perhaps
simply incomplete. Why wouldn't cropland that is being used as grassland change to the
Alison Adams
grassland land-use category? It would be helpful to people doing land use accounting if
you include additional information about what constitutes a change in land-use, or refer tothe section of the report that covers this.

946

4

3

185

185

Editorial: Land-use categories needs a hyphen, but land use as a name does not. Please
remove hyphen. Please ensure consistency throughout the text.

952

4

3

198

198

8418

4

3

199

199

8420

4

3

201

201

francesco nicolatubiello

It is suggested, as general good practice to the authors, to try and provide definitions thatare coherent with other, relevant international definitions used by countries forinternational reporting outside of UNFCCC, chiefly to FAO and for the SDGs. When this isfrancesco nicola
not possible, it is suggested to at least provide maps of how IPCC categories are linked totubiello
other key international classifications. For instance, for UN reporting outside of UNFCCC,
a country’s total ‘’land area’’ does not include ‘’inland’’ or ‘’internal’’ waters, which may be
relevant to how mangrove forests are reported.
delete )Alicia Villamizar
mass movements as a landslides due heavy rains or extreme events that in turn introduce
huge amounts of new sediments that can cause soil changes and for instance thecolonization of new vegetation or in extreme cases, the impediment of any future
vegetated land. In this case, the land use can change. This was the case of the extreme
Alicia Villamizar
rains along the north coastal states of Vargas, Carabobo and Aragua in December 1999 in
Venezuela. The new sediments incorporated by this event, created new lands along thiscoast. After 10 years post event, the new land use is mainly, urban. Then, the new landuse is settlement.

8422

4

3

205

205

also adds (the extreme rains example lines 201 page 3.7) could be one case of adds
lands.

Alicia Villamizar

Noted

6028

4

3

207

207

Weird/incorrect use of the word "exit"; maybe "are no longer included"

Alison Adams

Accepted with
Modification

4100

4

3

218

218

The Letter "C" in countries should be small.

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

This is a good example of a change in use due to an event.
We note this is a good specific example, but the aim is tokeep the text generally applicable. We believe this would be
able to be addressed based on the existing text. Hence wenote this comment but have not included it.
Replaced bullet point with: 'excluding lands lost due tochanges within political boundaries for the entire timeseries'
Changed: "Countries" to "countries"

CommenVolume
t ID
6030

4

Chapter

3

From line

249

To lineComment

Expert255

Inconsistent use of "land-use"; in accordance with definition outlined earlier, shouldn't
forest in this example be land-cover? The sentence saying that all land classes will bereferred to as "land-use" for ease is slated to be removed, so using "land-use" here nolonger makes sense.

Accepted with
Modification

Alison Adams

Response
Accepted with
Modification

7728

4

3

252

255

This guidance is hardly applicable, and it cannot therefore be made as a good practicesince good practices must be -by definition- practicable. It is also incorrect since it would
force a country to report as forest an area i.e. 0.9 ha that doesn't meet the forest definition.
Iordanis Tzamtzis
Further, the guidance is not applicable to sampling, for instance through dimensionlessplots; where the plot area is used to classify the single point (the centre) of the plot.
Please, Delete the para.

6032

4

3

266

266

Should be "land-use changes that occurred" -- the "that" is missing

Alison Adams

Accepted

6034

4

3

267

267

Should be "cumulative" not "cumulated"

Alison Adams

Accepted

6036

4

3

268

268

Should be "for which it is good practice" -- the "it" is missing

Alison Adams

Accepted

296

Table 3.1A For tropical coastal environment this is a critical definition due the complex
continuous landscape of wetlands between mangroves (land/marine), coral (marine) and(seagrasses (marine) which together contribute to the carbon storage and sequestration(Breithaupt et al., 2012). The conversion of coastal vegetated ecosystem (algae, marshes,
Alicia Villamizar
mangroves, and seagrasses) to the total annual emission of anthropogenic greenhousegas (estimated in 0.15–1.02 Pg billion tons of carbon dioxide) is equivalent to 3–19% of
those from deforestation globally (Pendleton et al., 2012). It is not easy to separate thesetypes of wetlands and much less have reliable estimates of coverage or differentiation
between these type of wetlands.

297

Table 3.1A should provide the recommendation to stratify the category in subdivisions forcroplands that contains tree vegetation (below and above the forest threshold) as well as
Iordanis Tzamtzis
for urban parks in settlements. This is the way to ensure that proper methods are applied
to estimate carbon stock changes and associated emissions and removals.

8424

7730

2640

418

4

4

4

4

3

3

3

3

296

296

296

296

Accepted

Author's Note
Inconsistencies in the use of land use and land cover havebeen addressed throughout the text. This has resulted inedits to address this comment but not beyond simply
removing land-use.

It was clarified in the text that the intent of the discussion is
on emissions rather than on area land-use change.

Text was edited as suggested to read "...land-use changes
that occurred...."
Spelling error was corrected. "cumulated" corrected to"cumulative"
Edited text as suggested to read "... for which it is goodpractice..."
The authors note the considerable difficulty in both setting
then applying definitions for land uses where theboundaries are unclear and can move. This applies in many
circumstances, but is most difficult in wetlands andmangroves as it can affect the total land area and theemissions included in the countries reports. We need to
add a line to the table noting this problem (we can put it
under wetlands). We noted a possible solution of using thenational border to determine where land stops and marine
starts.

Accepted

The new text deals with this issue more clearly, noting thatlands that meet the national definition for forest should beclassed as Forest Land. It also notes potential interactions
between cropland and grassland and the classification
issues for Settlements

297

Decisions and applications of decisions are needed. Each countries definitions need to beclear and included within IPCC reporting. Particularly for systems with potential to reach agiven threshold, and how long the system is likely to remain in that state after meetingsurpassing a certain carbon threshold (given the surrounding economic demands toconsume the mature natural resources produced by that system). In terms of 'how thedefinition is applied', countries should be asked to document, report, and assess (selfRemy Bargout
critically and transparently) the methodologies and processes used to define andmeasure, along with the effectiveness and limitations of these methodologies, given thepolitical will, capacities, resources, and time that country actors have. Diverse styles ofscientific rigor and transparent communication of methodologies, are likely to increase thelong-term confidence and trust-based empiricism of IPCC reporting, and the actionableoutcomes from that knowledge.

Noted

We agree with this comment. However, this table aims toprovide some examples for inventory compilers and not acomprehensive list of options or decisions. We believe thepoints raised here are covered through other areas of thetext in this Chapter. Hence we have noted this comment

297

table 3.1.A. On Forest land definition "Examples and Documentation", with respect to theneed for documenting and include a description of how the definition is appliedconsistently, I would include the need for explaining how the definition will be
Naikoa Aguilaroperationalized. This pertains the choice of approach to be used as well as e.g. in the
Amuchasteguicase of use of RS data, the link between the MMU as defined by the area component (e.g.
0.5 ha) and the spatial resolution of the data to be used (1/2 length or 1/4 the area). MoreOn the MMU in the MMU section.

Accepted

We have added text noting that it needs to be operational
and also consistent through time

CommenVolume
t ID

948

4

Chapter

3

From line

296

To lineComment

297

Table 3.1.A. Kindly consider adding a column to indicate corresponding FAO land use
definitions (see the file ''Definitions and classification of Land Use, Agricultural Practices
and Irrigation'' at http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-standards --the excel files includes
FAO definitions and a mapping to IPCC classes). FAO definitions, used by most countries
reporting to IPCC when reporting to FAO, could be to facilitate decisions on some of theissues raised in the table. In fact, should it not be noted at the outset of this section, as inmany other chapters that regularly refer to FAO data as useful national alternative
francesco nicola
sources, that countries report internationally to FAO their land use statistics, and that suchtubiello
definitions and associated FAOSTAT data (http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RL ) could
be used to help fill missing gaps in national data? This is precisely what is done in Vol 4
Ch. 10. Why not here? As an example of how FAO land use definitions could help addresssome of the very issues highlighted in this table (cropland-grassland shifting modes), FAO
discriminates between land shifting from cropland to grassland (for FAO: ''land underpermanent meadows and pasture'') giving a threshold of five years, below which countries
do not report different land use.
Table 3.1A, ''grassland'' case. The advice provided is incomplete. One needs also to
consider the national or international land use definition of ''agriculture,'' not simply that of‘’forestry’’, to decide where to put wooded grasslands.
Tab 3.1.A. Are the cases presented herein as ''elements the country needs to consider''exhaustive? If not, as is likely the case, kindly indicate so in the text.

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

Accepted with
Modification

While we agree with the comment that this is somethingthat compilers of other documents and inventories need todo, we consider this outside the scope of the work here. We
would suggest that this mapping could be completed by the
FAO to help ensure consistency. We also do not wish to do
this mapping as the IPCC does not control the FAO dataand changes in any definition or process could render the
GL incorrect. We provide guidance stating inventory
compilers should report how the used (national orinternational) land-use classes match the IPCC land-use
categories.

francesco nicolatubiello

Accepted with
Modification

We have changed the text to address this issue as perprevious comments as wellfrancesco nicolatubiello

Accepted

Rocio Danica Condor
Golec

Accepted

950

4

3

296

297

954

4

3

296

297

2310

4

3

297

297

TABLE 3.1A (NEW) - a reference or web site for RAMSAR or specifically for the map will
be really useful for compilers.

Approach three seems like a huge improvement, and more rigorous than approaches 1
and 2. What might be missing in Approach 3 is the direct and indirect correlation between
land conversion areas. Whether or not this aims to give a current snapshot, past andpresent snapshot, or future prediction... in each scenario there are flows of impact
between conversion areas (i.e. X areas of land in conversion to forest or grassland, and Y
areas of land in conversion to cropland or settlements only gives a snap shot of out
comes). Approach 3 does not attempt to measure the directional intensity of thisconversion, or measure the level of interconnection between different land conversion
areas or different land areas in general. non-conversion areas (nor measure the degree ofRemy Bargout
these interconnections changing over time). A time-continuous measurement of changing
spatial areas (i.e. size and location changes in land conversion areas over time) would becomplimented by time-continuous measurement of changing relational areas (i.e. intensityand directional changes in land relationship areas over time). In other words, measuring
the size and location of conversion areas that exceed threshold criteria for being
conversion hotspots (the definition of a conversion hotspot being: an area that issignificantly and multi-directionally negatively or positively AFFECTED by one or moreother conversion area(s) or conversion hotspot(s) AND/OR negatively or positively
EFFECTING one or more other conversion area(s) or conversion hotspot(s).

2644

4

3

311

317

6038

4

3

348

348

6040

4

3

396

396

Unclear what "relevant to the inventory year" means in this case -- maybe misuse of word
Alison Adams"relevant"?
Remove "methodologically"
Alison Adams

Noted

Rejected
Accepted

Table 3.1.A was changed into a Box. Changed the title ofthe box to note the list is not exhaustive.
Link to the RAMSAR website added(https://www.ramsar.org/). We have only linked to the
RAMSAR convention page as this link should remain stable
as opposed to linking to the data directly.

Comment refers to the existing text from IPCC (2006); only
minor editorial changes to this section are proposed in the2019 Refinement, and the basic definitions of the three
approaches remains the same.

Comment references existing text from IPCC (2006); we
believe "relevant" is appropriately used.
Deleted: "methodologically"

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

1932

4

3

420

420

2196

4

3

420

420

6014

4

3

420

444

7732

4

3

421

421

956

4

3

421

421

958

4

3

421

421

7734

4

3

433

433

4102

4

3

436

436

7736

4

3

606

606

2312

4

3

622

622

7738

4

3

622

623

7740

4

3

622

623

From line

To lineComment

Expert

The authors are invited to refer to the international framework on environmental-economic
accounting, the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) (seea.un.org).
Three SEEA accounts are particularly relevant to this chapter: land use, land cover and air
Jessica Chanemission accounts. Therefore, it is suggested to refer the reader to the SEEA land use
classification in Lines 184 onwards (see Comment 1) and to the possibility to make use ofexisting data in SEEA accounts (e.g. on land use, land cover and air emissions) in Lines
420 onwards.
The authors are invited to refer to the international framework on environmental-economic
accounting, the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) (seea.un.org).
Three SEEA accounts are particularly relevant to this chapter: land use, land cover and air
Julian Chowemission accounts. Therefore, it is suggested to refer the reader to the SEEA land use
classification in Lines 184 onwards (see Comment 1) and to the possibility to make use ofexisting data in SEEA accounts (e.g. on land use, land cover and air emissions) in Lines
420 onwards.
The authors are invited to refer to the international framework on environmental-economic
accounting, the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) (seea.un.org).
Three SEEA accounts are particularly relevant to this chapter: land use, land cover and air
Florian Flachenecker
emission accounts. Therefore, it is suggested to refer the reader to the SEEA land use
classification and to the possibility to make use of existing data in SEEA accounts (e.g. onland use, land cover and air emissions).
This sentence "Most Parties have at least some national data that can be used forreporting land areas." is inconsistent with the universality of method provided by IPCC
Iordanis Tzamtzis
Guidelines. All countries in the world have data available, at least for compiling an
Approach 1 land representation. Please delete the sentence.
After first sentence, kindly add: ''In addition, most countries report annually their land use
statistics to FAO. These could provide a useful alternative when national data is missing,francesco nicola
FAO provides mapping tables from FAO to IPCC land use classes (see the filetubiello''Definitions and classification of Land Use, Agricultural Practices and Irrigation'' at
http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-standards ).
As a complement to the small comment above, the same comment made in general for
Ch. 10 Vol. 4 would usefully apply to this chapter. FAOSTAT national statistics, as well asother FAO data and tools, should be mentioned as a useful alternative when national
information is missing. This applies to agriculture as well as land use categories. To thisfrancesco nicola
end, it may help to insert a Table summarizing the relevant FAO sources available totubiello
national compilers. Kindly consider the tables within the IPCC (2015) report(https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/mtdocs/pdfiles/1411_FAO-IPCCIFAD_Rome_AFOLU.pdf ). FAOSTAT and FRA statistics in particular are collected frommember countries as part of their international reporting to FAO.
Delete the sentence " and prevent errors through time", it is redundant. Indeed, aconsistent land representation in accordance with IPCC GLs refers to the word "biases"
Iordanis Tzamtzis
which covers systematic errors and the word "uncertainty" which covers the random
errors.
"don't" should be "do not"Andrea TILCHE
Replace "emissions estimation methods to be used" with "methods applied to estimate
carbon stock changes and associated emissions and removals"
TABLE 3.6 A (NEW) - It would be really helpful to provide a country example per each of
the method presented in this table.
Under Approach 3 the word "Continuous" should be replaced by "Permanent".
The text in the second part of the box referring to wall-to-wall mapping for Approach 2 is
not clear. Please add bullets.

Response

Author's Note

Accepted with
Modification

Reference to SEEA has been added to the footer on page
3.8

Accepted with
Modification

Reference to SEEA has been added to the footer on page
3.8

Accepted with
Modification

Reference to SEEA has been added to the footer on page
3.8

Accepted with
Modification

Re-phrased: "Existing national data can be used for
estimating land areas, alone or in combination …"

Accepted with
Modification

Reference to FAO data sources are cited and additional text
was added to clarify how FAO constructs their databaseswith national data.

Accepted with
Modification

Reference to FAO data sources are cited and additional text
was added to clarify how FAO constructs their databaseswith national data.

Accepted

Deleted: "and prevent errors through time"

Accepted

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Rocio Danica Condor
Golec
Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted

Replaced: "don't" by "do not"Replaced: "emissions estimation methods to be used" to"methods applied to estimate carbon stock changes andassociated emissions and removals". Consistency changes
have been made throughout the Chapter as well.
Countries examples were added as references in text under
Method/Approach, where available.
Replaced: "Continuous" by "Permanent".

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Bullets added.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To line

2314

4

3

643

643

7742

4

3

643

644

420

4

3

646

651

Figure 3.2. Just to point out that as International data is presented as a possible means to Naikoa Aguilarcover gaps in coverage, the same could be done to cover gaps in time series if available. Amuchastegui

Accepted

7744

4

3

647

647

Replace "past and future" with "previous and subsequent"

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

7746

4

3

650

652

What are "the nationally specific vegetation types"? And what are the "associated IPCC
cover type"?

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Figure 3.2 has been revised and new text has been added
to explain the decision tree. Terminology adjusted
consistently.

Stephen Dettman

Accepted

Figure 3.2 has been revised and new text has been added
to explain the decision tree. Terminology adjusted
consistently.

Xiangzheng Deng

Noted

No action required

7748

4

3

656

658

5186

4

3

657

657

2668

4

3

659

782

424

4

3

659

782

7750

4

3

665

666

3070

4

3

672

676

422

4

3

683

687

3072

4

3

684

687

Comment

ExpertFigure 3.1 - there is reference in an example to FAO data. It would be helpful to provide a Rocio Danica Condor
website or link that can help compilers.
Golec
The decision tree is just confusing. For instance, the question "Are spatially explicit dataneeded for some or any land areas" is meaningless. There is not any minimum
Iordanis Tzamtzis
requirement established for the land representation other than Approach 1 which is NOT
spatially explicit.

This decision tree isn't understandable, doesn't cover all land uses (only cropland andgrassland) and contains errors and confusing notions. For example:-Where the cover types are described in the chapter? Please delete it.
-It mixes the land coverage with land uses. For example in the top row in the central
rhombus, the cover type should refer to cover elements (e.g. grass), while Grasslandrefers to the land use.
- There is a rhombus indicating "Has the cover type changed since the initial timestep?"and if the answer is "No" then the guidance is to classify it to the same land use. But it
might be the case that the cover type remains and the coverage threshold for a LU haschanged which means a LU change.
This decision tree appears to be a specific example. Correct? If so this may need to beclarified. If not, I am not sure why "Is the cover type Grassland? No" decision step would
trigger the response listed ("Classify land as remaining initial cover type")
A better understanding of historical land use and land cover change will be crucial toclimate change research. The methods of reconstructing historical data based on extant
documents and limited data are recommend to add as an important supplement to theresearch of climate change.

There is need for indicating countries it is good practice guidance to inform how LC is
being used/combined with other data to inform LU. This is relevant as LC time series canbe used to inform LU at a given time and will; affect the LU time series. Both time series
are not necessarily the same.

Naikoa AguilarAmuchastegui"It is the implementation of the method that determines the Approach rather than the highIordanis Tzamtzis
level method itself." Not understandable, delete it
Poot-Delgado Carlos
It is suggested the use of the initial later in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm
Antonio
I think there is still room for guidance on differences between LC and LU, and on how
Time series pertain to 2 aspects: One is the LU time series that is covered here. Thereneeds to be explicit text and a figure explaining how one is supposed to inform the other. Naikoa AguilarAmuchastegui
However there are the LC time series which in many cases allows to inform LU
permanence or change. Some figure with decision tree explaining this would be of great
benefitPoot-Delgado Carlos
It is suggested the use of the initial later in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm
Antonio

Response

Author's Note

Accepted with
Modification

FAO website has been added to the text (see page 3.15). It
is difficult to implement this in the figure.
The decision tree (figure 3.1) does not prescribe minimum
requirements or exclude use of Approach 1; instead it helps
to select appropriate methods and approach by following
the decision path.
Figure 3.2 has been revised and new text has been added
to explain the decision tree. Terminology adjusted
consistently.
Figure 3.2 has been revised and new text has been added
to explain the decision tree. Terminology adjusted
consistently.
Figure 3.2 has been revised and new text has been added
to explain the decision tree. Terminology adjusted
consistently.

Noted

Accepted

New guidance has been placed upfront in the document todescribe how the LC time series can inform LU and clear
good practice on attribution. This additional text has also
lead to further strengthening of the guidance on thisimportant topic. Also a specific section "COMBINING
MULTIPLE DATA SOURCES" deals with combining remotesensing with other data.

Accepted with
Modification

This paragraph has been revised to clarify the intent.

Accepted

Changed capitalisation as suggested

Accepted

Accepted

New guidance has been placed upfront in the document todescribe how the LC time series can inform LU and clear
good practice on attribution. This additional text has also
lead to further strengthening of the guidance on thisimportant topic.
Changed capitalisation as suggested

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

3074

4

3

692

710

It is suggested the use of the initial later in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted with
Modification

7752

4

3

694

694

Replace "maps" with "images or maps"

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted with
Modification

7754

4

3

696

696

Replace "maps" with "images or maps"

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted with
Modification

426

4

3

696

697

However the time series can inform this if we use the LC time series to inform thequinquennial maps.

Naikoa AguilarAmuchastegui

Noted

3076

4

3

716

718

It is suggested the use of the initial later in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm

7756

4

3

717

717

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Iordanis Tzamtzis

7758

4

3

725

727

3078

4

3

729

732

Delete "Approach 2" they may also be Approach 3 datasets from samples.
The sentence is too generic that results to be wrong. Sample based method provide
statistic for specific areas of the country so far the sample size is large enough. What you
Iordanis Tzamtzis
probably is the intention to say here is that the sample based methods do not giveinformation on each single hectare of the land territory (i.e. is not FULLY spatially explicit).
Please redraft accordingly.
Poot-Delgado Carlos
It is suggested the use of the initial later in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm
Antonio

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted

As per the IPCC 2019 Refinement template, initial letter is
not capital.
Edited the text to read "(e.g., if the period between two
points in time (i.e. the change detection period) is 5 years,
but forest cover following clearing or harvesting recovers in
2 years, then management events affecting emissions andremovals may be missed, depending on the method
applied).
Edited the text to read "(e.g., if the period between two
points in time (i.e. the change detection period) is 5 years,
but forest cover following clearing or harvesting recovers in
2 years, then management events affecting emissions andremovals may be missed, depending on the method
applied).
The authors agree that this is one way to 'demonstrate thatin cases where the time between maps differ (e.g., a 5 year
gap, followed by a 2-year gap) that this does not bias
results by changing detection rates;'. the text is asking thecompliers to present sufficient information to 'demonstrate'
and neither the authors nor the reviewer dispute this need.
As per the IPCC 2019 Refinement template, initial letter is
not capital.
Deleted: "Approach 2"

5188

4

3

740

741

Is there justification for this statement? Why only Approach One?

7760

4

3

740

741

However, in combination with ancillary data those temporary plots can be used forApproach 2 and 3. The sentence doesn’t consider all possible options thus results towrong conclusions. Please delete it.

741

7550

4

3

740

Accepted

Re-drafted: "sample-based methods do not provide
information on every specific area of the land territory (i.e. is
not wall-to-wall spatially explicit)."Accepted

Changed to capital letters as suggested

Stephen Dettman

Accepted

Sentences redrafted: "It is possible to use temporary
sample plots in combination with other datasets to develop
Approach 2 or 3".

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted with
Modification

See comment 5188.

Please note the possibility to use temporary sample plots for Approach 2 and 3 methods.
Further, this was stated earlier in 2006 IPCC guidelines, V4 Ch3, page 3.33. Besides ofauxiliary data, while carrying out field inventory of sample plots, land use changes can also
be assessed in the field, e.g., by observing the surroundings of the plot, existing
vegetation, decay rates of tree stumps etc. In case of both temporary and permanent
sample plots are used, it is possible to compare them to be convinced of the data quality.
One benefit of temporary sample plots is that they are independent of previous land use
interpretations, thus field observation is not hindered due to previous recordings. I suggest Markus Haakana
to modify the text: From "Where temporary sample plots are used, it is not possible toapply Approach 2 or 3 methods ..." as follows: "Where temporary sample plots are used,
it is not possible to apply Approach 2 or 3 methods unless a time dimension can be
introduced into the sample. This can be done by drawing on auxiliary data, for example
maps, remote sensing or administrative records about the state of land in the past or
assessing in the field." See also 2006 IPCC Guidelines, V4ch3, page 3.33 about
temporary plots and time dimension

Accepted with
Modification

See comment 5188.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

3080

3

746

755

It is suggested the use of the initial later in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted with
Modification

As per the IPCC 2019 Refinement template, initial letter is
not capital.
The bullet points have been edited to include
documentation of the sample assessment protocols. The
first bullet point covers the sufficient sample size for thedesired level of uncertainty. The authors note that theterminology of the IPCC is that 'uncertainty is reduced as far
as practicable", not to 'minimise bias' therefore we have not
adopted this language.

4

428

4

3

755

756

Based on sample assessment experiences with countries as well as on recent publicationfrom McRoberts et al. 2018, Good practice should Incorporate the use of well documented Naikoa AguilarAmuchastegui
sample assessment protocols with large enough number of replicates or interpretations
per sample as to minimize interpretation bias.

3082

4

3

761

777

It is suggested the use of the initial later in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm

7762

4

3

775

775

It doesn't need necessarily to be a combination of Approaches, it can simply be a
combination of data sets within a single approach.

Accepted with
Modification

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted

Changed as suggested

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Text updated

Accepted

The authors believe this is a reference to: Levy, Peter,
Marcel van Oijen, Gwen Buys, and Sam Tomlinson. 2018.
“Estimation of Gross Land-Use Change and Its Uncertainty
Using a Bayesian Data Assimilation Approach.”
Biogeosciences 15 (5): 1497–1513.; Although this is a goodreference, it has not been included as explained above

8426

4

3

796

796

included this paper as a very explicit example of the combine use of different data sources
Alicia Villamizar
to estimate areas and changes of land use.

3084

4

3

802

815

It is suggested the use of the initial later in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted with
Modification

430

4

3

804

805

Perhaps suggest the use of equal area projections as better ones for area estimation?

Naikoa AguilarAmuchastegui

Accepted

810

What about recommending countries to use accounting units that are independent from
specific datasets? Basically the MMU is the reporting unit whose condition is described,
among other things by the LC data as informed by the RS data as well as by otherancillary data?

Naikoa AguilarAmuchastegui

Rejected

This comments does not apply to the line.

432

4

3

809

As per the IPCC 2019 Refinement template, initial letter is
not capital.
Text modified to clarify that spatial data to conform tonational mapping standard to ensure accurate area
estimates.

434

4

3

815

815

Perhaps nee4ds elaboration towards making explicit the need for bias removal andprecision estimation? "Ensuring" is rather not very informative?

Naikoa AguilarAmuchastegui

Accepted with
Modification

Bullet points text in this section were extensively edited as aresult of a number of comments on the SOD. This has led
to this bullet point being removed as it did not specificallyrelate to the combination of data sources but was rather abroader IPCC concept (i.e. 'Uncertainty is reduced as far as
is practicable' ) covered elsewhere. The bullet now reads"report uncertainty of land use and land use change
estimates".

436

4

3

832

865

Box 3.1 is rather a description of an example than an example in itself. Hence not very
Naikoa Aguilarinformative. Any chances of rendering the example more explicit? A Figure would be very
Amuchastegui
welcome.

Accepted with
Modification

Box 3.1 Argentinian case study has been deleted.

6042

4

3

836

837

Grammatically incorrect sentence. Should read: "I cases where no consistent land-use
maps are available at the national level…"

Alison Adams

Accepted with
Modification

6044
6046
8428

4
4
4

3
3
3

844
889
889

844
889
889

Remove "In the example"--not needed.
Remove ")."
delete )

3088

4

3

896

901

It is suggested the use of the initial later in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm

3090

4

3

908

914

It is suggested the use of the initial later in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm

Alison Adams
Alison Adams
Alicia Villamizar
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification

Text was revised to improve grammar which required somevariation on the suggested text as follows: "In the absenceof consistent land-use maps at the national level..."Deleted "In the example"
Deleted ")".
Deleted ")".
As per the IPCC 2019 Refinement template, initial letter is
not capital.
As per the IPCC 2019 Refinement template, initial letter is
not capital.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

438

4

3

913

914

I would add a bullet indicating the need for a description of how ancillary data werecombined/used to inform the land use assessment. In many cases in-country postprocessing allows for such data to comply with national definitions.

7764

4

3

923

923

Add "exist" after the "and land cover data"

3092

4

3

924

934

It is suggested the use of the initial letter in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm

440

4

3

926

926

It is not clear what is meant by "detection rates"

7766

4

3

930

933

7768

4

3

934

936

7770

4

3

946

958

3094

4

3

950

957

3096

4

3

975

982

3098

4

3

1010

1016

442

4

3

1013

1013

7772

4

3

1042

1046

7774

4

3

1049

1049

ExpertNaikoa AguilarAmuchastegui
Iordanis Tzamtzis
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Naikoa AguilarAmuchastegui

The good practice should be precise since it is universally applicable, while this sentencesays two different things. Then the linear extrapolation of trends cannot be a good practiceper se. Volume 1 provide various techniques for interpolation/extrapolation. A trend isn't areasonable option for extrapolation unless coupled with surrogate data/proxy, since it
Iordanis Tzamtzis
implies the possibility that an activity can have an indefinitely increasing rate (which isagainst any physic law). Revise the sentence referring to Volume 1 chapter 5 techniques
and then you may stress that a proper way to go is the one in the following sentence i.e.
the use of proxies.
Uncertainty documentation is mandatory, so the sentence needs redrafting. Further, notexisting data have not uncertainty, however what is needed to be reported is theIordanis Tzamtzis
uncertainty added through the gap-filling (interpolation/extrapolation), in which caseguidance should be provided in these GLs on how this is done.
One very important feature missed is that stratification reduces the overall uncertainty of
Iordanis Tzamtzis
the GHG estimate of any land category as well as of the sector as well as of the entire
inventory.
Poot-Delgado Carlos
It is suggested the use of the initial letter in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
It is suggested the use of the initial letter in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
It is suggested the use of the initial letter in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm
Antonio
Seems like a word is missing? "when down-scaling is required, ensure that the downNaikoa Aguilarscaled variables COMBINATION can be assigned to individual land units"
Amuchastegui
It is not correct to say that approach 2 causes misallocation of areas. As correctly noted,
approach 2 doesn't track changes across time, so it decouples a multiple change in land
use in its components. Applying IPCC default methods, such decoupling has not an
impact on the estimated C stock changes since the sum of the 2 processes is equivalent
to the C stock changes estimated by applying an Approach 3. It is however correct that thearea of each land use category is affected by the Approach used (for instance under
Iordanis Tzamtzis
Approach 1 all land use change categories are set at 0). However, such difference in thestratification on area in the land use categories has not impact across time on the total
emissions and removals estimated. In practice, the use of approach 1 or 2 doesn't meanthat the GHG estimates are biased (as the word misallocation implies), althoughassociated GHG estimates have a larger uncertainty at lower approaches than at
approach 3. So, please delete the sentence.
According to comment provided for rows 1042-1046, please replace "misallocation and
Iordanis Tzamtzis
errors" with "differences"

Response

Author's Note

Rejected
Accepted with
Modification

Guidance provided in Figure 3.2. and other parts of the
Chapter to clarify how ancillary data were combined/used to
inform the land-use assessment. In many cases in-country
post processing allows for such data to comply with national
definitions.
This edit does not improve the sentence.
As per the IPCC 2019 Refinement template, initial letter is
not capital.

Accepted

Deleted "detection rates"

Accepted

Re-drafted sentence to clarify that extrapolation orinterpolation techniques to use proxies and change drivers,
consistent with guidance provided in Volume 1.

Accepted with
Modification

Uncertainty analysis is mandatory, but uncertainty estimatesof national data may be missing. Further guidance on
uncertainty estimation is provided on pages 3.43 to 3.44.

Accepted

Suggested text has been added

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification

As per the IPCC 2019 Refinement template, initial letter is
not capital.
As per the IPCC 2019 Refinement template, initial letter is
not capital.
As per the IPCC 2019 Refinement template, initial letter is
not capital.
The authors consensus is that this sentence is clear.
Suggested text is not required.

Accepted

Rejected

Accepted with
Modification

Text has been updated to clarify the intent and what ismeant by mis-allocation.

Accepted

Text has been updated to clarify the intent and deleted
references to errors due to misallocation

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

7776

4

3

1050

1057

3100

4

3

1052

1055

7778

4

3

1072

1074

According to comment 1042-1046 delete figure 3.3

Iordanis Tzamtzis

3102

4

3

1122

1140

It is suggested the use of the initial letter in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

From line

To lineComment

Expert

It is not correct to say that is good practice to use Approach 3 or 2 since this implies that
Approach 1 isn't good practice. What you may note is that when reporting mitigation
actions within the GHG inventory that require the identification of areas where land usechanges occur (e.g. reducing deforestation) then it is good practice to apply Approach 2-3;
Iordanis Tzamtzis
further, if the mitigation actions reporting requires to track specific units of land acrosstime (e.g. when no-tillage provision is implemented) then it is good practice to apply
Approach 3. So, Please, delete the current text, and if agreed draft new text along thesuggestions provided.
Poot-Delgado Carlos
It is suggested the use of the initial letter in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm
Antonio

7780

4

3

1173

1175

This sentence is only true for soil organic matter. However, what about DOM in forest landremaining forest land? Under approach 1 I may quantify the amount of harvest occurred
Iordanis Tzamtzis
and the consequent accumulation, and subsequent decay, of DOM. So, the statement
should be more accurate and clear here.

7782

4

3

1194

1194

What does this mean? What is a "time-series summing method"?

444

4

3

1199

1202

6048

4

3

1247

1247

7784

4

3

1249

1250

3104

4

3

1256

1264

7786

4

3

1278

1278

This good practice is too burdensome and redundant. Please work in making it actuallyapplicable and therefore usefulIordanis Tzamtzis

It would be good to point out these global biomass products have a bias towards forests
Naikoa Aguilaras per the allometry used to relate biomass with height. This makes their use rather not be
Amuchastegui
the best for non-forested LU classes.
Should read: "…methods typically involve…" not "involves"
Alison Adams
When you discuss uncertainties you should use a language consistent with IPCC
glossary. In this context, bias isn't included in the uncertainty. Uncertainty refers to random
errors which are acceptable although must be minimized so far as it is practicable. On the
Iordanis Tzamtzis
other hand, biases (i.e. systematic errors) once identified must always be removed. So, an
uncertain estimate is acceptable in a GHG inventory, a biased estimate is not. So, pleasedelete the following text in brackets: "(i.e. biases)"
Poot-Delgado Carlos
It is suggested the use of the initial letter in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm
Antonio
Iordanis Tzamtzis

6050

4

3

1278

1298

Should include discussion of what to do when inventory data (e.g. forest inventory plots)
are larger or smaller than a single pixel of the RS maps being validated, or do not register
exactly in line with the RS maps being validated. In these cases, methods must be
employed to determine which pixel the inventory plot will be considered to represent, if itwill represent multiple pixels, or if its data will be in some way divided between the multiple Alison Adams
pixels with which it overlaps. The criteria for making these determinations should be well
documented. For example, see discussion of forest inventory plots used for validation in
Adams et al. 2018, "Modelling carbon storage across a heterogeneous mixed temperate
forest: the influence of forest type specificity on regional-scale carbon storage estimates."

3106

4

3

1279

1296

It is suggested the use of the initial letter in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Response

Author's Note

Accepted

Good practice was deleted and text re-draft as suggested.

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification

As per the IPCC 2019 Refinement template, initial letter is
not capital.
Figure was not deleted. Additional clarification was added to
explain the figure.
As per the IPCC 2019 Refinement template, initial letter is
not capital.

Accepted

Sections headings 3.4.1.1. and 3.4.1.2. have been removed
and also reference to good practice guidance in line 1174.
Further guidance on lagged emissions have been provided.

Accepted

Re-wrote this section to make it clearer, noting the analysisof land units through time and the general process of doing
this using advanced tools.

Noted

Agree with the comment. However, this topic is treated indetail in Ch. 2. No action required.

Accepted

Paragraph re-written.

Accepted

Deleted: "(i.e. biases)"

Accepted with
Modification

As per the IPCC 2019 Refinement template, initial letter is
not capital.
The bullet point list of good practice has been edited tomake it less burdensome without compromising the main
requirements. Other relevant points noted as guidance
opposed to 'good practice'.

Accepted with
Modification

AcceptedLines 1278 to 1298 of SOD have been revised andsimplified to clarify what constitutes good practice whenvalidating remote sensing maps without being prescriptive.
Reference cited was published in Feb 2018 - not necessary
to be included in the guidelines because it does not provide
specific guidance on validation.

Accepted with
Modification

As per the IPCC 2019 Refinement template, initial letter is
not capital.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

4104

4

3

1309

1310

The sentence beginning with "multiple" is not complete

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

3108

4

3

1328

1330

It is suggested the use of the initial letter in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted with
Modification

6866

4

3

1335

1347

3110

4

3

1350

1352

6016

4

3

1377

1380

6868

4

3

1415

1785

3112

4

3

1430

1434

446

6870

448

4

4

4

3

3

3

From line

1467

1536

1551

To lineComment

Expert

It is good to include Global PALSAR-2/PALSAR/JERS-1 Forest/Non-Forest Map as one of
Yukio Haruyama
examplesof Global Land Cover Data Sets in 2017 (Table 3A.1.1 )Poot-Delgado Carlos
It is suggested the use of the initial letter in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm
Antonio
It would be important to mentioned that ensuring consistency among international
databases and data compilation processes are crucial to (i) reduce the reporting burden
for data compilers, (ii) enhance transparency and comparability of related data, and (iii) to
avoid duplication of work at the national as well as international level. In this context, the Florian Flachenecker
System of Environmental-Economic Accounts (SEEA) should be mentioned and referred
to, as land accounts are an essential part of international compilation in line with the
SEEA.
Use of Remote Sensing (RS) Technology including Satellites data is reasonably statedYukio Haruyama
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Verify bibliographic citation format
Antonio

Response

Noted
Accepted with
Modification

Author's Note
The paragraph text has been redrafted to read: "Multiple
steps are required to develop time-series consistent mapsof LULUC data; including but not limited to developing timeseries consistent maps of land cover, attributing cover andcover changes to specific activities then applying country
specific policy rules of assigning lands to an IPCC land-use
category through time."
As per the IPCC 2019 Refinement template, initial letter is
not capital.
This dataset is already listed in Table 3.A.1.1. No action
required.

Noted

As per the IPCC 2019 Refinement template, initial letter is
not capital.
Reference to SEEA has been added in Section 3.2.
International databases are produced to support global
studies. They can be used to fill the data gaps or lack ofdata in some countries. IPCC guidelines cannot ensure
consistency among international databases produced byvarious stakeholders, however, current guidelines caninform development of future datasets.
No action required.

Accepted

Citation format corrected

Accepted with
Modification

Clarification provided: Pixel area and detectability are two
important factors in assessing MMU suitability. A commonly
accepted criteria is that the pixel area should not exceed
1/4 MMU. For example, if MMU is 0.5 ha (5,000 m2) thenLandsat data at 30 m spatial resolution (900 m2 pixel area)
would meet the MMU criteria as there will be at least 5
Landsat pixels within the MMU. In contrast, using MODIS
sensor data at 250 m pixel (62,500 m2 pixel area) would failthe MMU criteria as the area covered by a single pixel isgreater than the MMU.

1477

The explanation of how MMU relates to the RS data needs to be more clear as this has be
the cause for a lot of headache. The MMU is the smallest thing to be documented in amap. Ideally, when spiking of forests, the Area component of the definition should match
Naikoa Aguilarthe MMU size (e.g. 0.5ha). In that case the rule of thumb for the spatial resolution of theAmuchastegui
RS data use to map the MMUs is that is cannot be more than 1/2 the length or 1/4 thearea of the MMU. In this example that would 5000m2/4=1250m2 or a pixel of about 35m
side. this makes in theory Landsat data of 30m suitable to inform 0.5ha MMUs.

Accepted

1542

Radar imagery is reasonably stated. Please refer following documents as a reference ofland cover and forest mapping using SAR data.
The ALOS Kyoto & Carbon Initiative Science Team Reports, Phase 1 (2006-2008) JAXAEORC,NDX-100003
Yukio Haruyama
The ALOS Kyoto & Carbon Initiative Science Team Reports, Phase 2 (2009-2011) JAXAEORC, NDX-110010,
The ALOS Kyoto & Carbon Initiative Science Team Reports, Phase 3 (2011-2014), JAXAEORC, NDX-140008

Accepted

The authors appreciate these valuable orbital SAR sourcesthat support various GHG methodologies. All three reports
have been cited.

Rejected

The text in question is intended to be generic. In fact, there
are literally hundreds of different metrics that typically arederived from lidar point clouds and then frequently used tomodel biomass. It does not make sense to list all these
metrics and therefore not any particular metrics either.
Further, application of lidar to estimate biomass is covered
in Volume 4, Chapter 2, line 489-497 (SOD).

1552

Actually both total height and intensity as in RH25/50/75/100 as well as Home range, and Naikoa AguilarAmuchastegui
centroid height are used to estimate biomass.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

450

4

3

1556

1570

3114

4

3

1558

1570

3116

4

3

1580

1581

From line

To line

7788

4

3

1580

1581

3118

4

3

1634

1683

3120

4

3

1702

1732

6052

2316

4

4

3

3

1733

1794

1750

1794

Comment

ExpertGood practice could include the fact countries still georeferenced data to national baseline
Naikoa Aguilarmaps that comply with their standards. Particularly when using national cartographic
Amuchastegui
products that follow national geodesy standards and are used to inform the LC to LU
process.
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Verify bibliographic citation format
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Verify bibliographic citation format
Antonio
Following the link provided for SEPAL you end up in a beta version for a website. IPCC
Guidelines are for mature science and operational system so you should remove SEPAL
link. Further, it seems to me (see http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/1142131/icode/)
Iordanis Tzamtzis
that the tool is just a mask to access the tools and services provided by Google EarthEngine; thus, please replace the current link to SEPAL with a link to Google Earth Engine(https://earthengine.google.com/).
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Verify bibliographic citation format
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Verify bibliographic citation format
Antonio

Should include brief discussion about use of "fuzzy" accuracies where classification or
detection of change within a certain-#-of-pixels radius would be acceptable; see Comber
et al. 2012, "Spatial analysis of remote sensing images classification accuracy."

Is Figure 3.A.5.1 "Delineation of major climate zones, updated from the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines" consistent with information provided in Table UPDATED - TABLE 2.3 (Vol 4.
Chapter 2)? (check note 5 from Table UPDATED- TABLE 2.3)

Alison Adams

Rocio Danica Condor
Golec

8616

4

4

116

133

While the authors include recent research that suggest variable C stocks for different
types of forest lands (Box 4.3A), Tier 1 methods for forest mireal soil carbon remainunchanged from the 2006 Guidelines. The implications for mineral soil carbon stocks may
be significant if compiling inventories from primary vs. secondary forests, vs. plantations. Leehi Yona
Liao et al. (2010, cited in Box 4.3A) also suggest this difference in C stocks. As it currently
stands, there does not appear to be an effort to incorporate this potential variation in Tier 1
methods (also applies to Vol 4, Chap 4, lines 254-263

3122

4

4

206

247

Verify bibliographic citation format

3124

4

4

330

340

Verify bibliographic citation format

3276
4106

4
4

4
4

485
489

485
489

end of line is cut.
The section number is missing

3278

4

4

548

548

The terms "functional relationships" is not appropriate. Use "national forest expertise"
instead ?

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Denis Loustau
Andrea TILCHE
Denis Loustau

Response

Author's Note

Accepted

New text added to include this suggestion - "When using
global or country-specific georeferenced datasets, it is goodpractice to ensure they meet national geodetic mapping
standards."

Accepted

Citation format corrected

Accepted

Citation format corrected

Accepted with
Modification

We have been informed that FAO expects SEPAL toprovide ongoing operational support to land cover mapping,hence it is included here. SEPAL link modified to point to
the main page - https://sepal.io.

Accepted

Citation format corrected

Accepted

Citation format corrected

Rejected

This is existing text from the IPCC 2006 Guidelines. It does
not warrant update since the method discussed in thepaper, although scientifically sound, does not represent
common practice for assessing mapping accuracy.
Secondly, the methods presented in the paper are not easy
to apply in an operational environment for most countries.

Accepted

Boreal and polar climate classes do not match with theclasses shown in updated Table 2.3. The remainder of theclasses do match between Table 2.3 and Figure 3.A.5.1.
Climate classes are defined according to IPCC (2006, p.
3.39) using elevation, mean annual temperature, meanannual precipitation, mean annual precipitation to potential
evapotranspiration ratio and frost occurrence.

Noted

We clarified the text for Tier 1 and in Box 4.3A thatdata/research results do not yet allow for quantification ofeffects of forest management in a form of default stockchange factors for forest management practices for Tier 1
by the IPCC climate zones. Considerable effort was put toprovide at least some quantification for some forest
management regimes in some climate zones but results ofanalyses on data were in part contradictory as described inBox 4.3A and treatment of controls challenging fordeveloping default stock change factors.

Accepted

Checked and corrected.

Accepted

Checked and corrected.

Accepted
Accepted

The missing part was added.
The missing part was added.
Paragraph redrafted, the term avoided, example of thevariable that can be related through functional relation ships
listed in the paragraph below.

Accepted with
Modification

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

3282

4

4

552

561

I consider this expert - based interpolation or extrapolation should come AFTER the next
Denis Loustau
paragraph 562-577 dedicated to harvest effects that are primary.

3280

4

4

553

553

I don't understand what are the "methodological elements".

5190

4

4

578

581

3284

4

4

615

616

3286

356

358

360

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

615

663

663

663

It may be preferable to describe this differently. Instead of stating that inconsistencies
require a model rerun, it may be preferable to state that all model runs that extrapolate
data must use consistent variables, timelines, and approaches to ensure the accuracy ofmodel results.
Font in the table inserted in the box are uneven

ExpertDenis Loustau

Response

Author's Note

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification

Order of the paragraphs reversed and paragraphs
redrafted.

Stephen Dettman

Accepted with
Modification

Denis Loustau

Accepted

616

ERROR: Linear interpolation would produce values of 32, 20 and 12 for the Net
increment, Harvest and Net change in C by 2020.

664

Table 4.7: the forest Status/condition of some ecological zone and continents in the
Tropical and Subtropical Domains is distinguished between Primary, Secondary > 20
years, Secondary < 20 years, but in other cases the Table distinguishes only Primary andSecondary forest (such as in Tropical Moist deciduous ecozone for Africa and Asia), or
only a single value is reported for All forests (such as in the Tropical Dry forest ecozone
for Africa and Asia). However, the biomass density may vary substantially between thethree forest Status/conditions, and in fact the uncertainty values reported for aggregated Valerio Avitabile
forest conditions tend to be very large, as in these cases the Standard Deviation is similaror larger than the Mean value. Hence, where the three forest Status/conditions mentioned
above exists in the Continent but were not separated due to lack or scarcity of referencedata, it is encouraged/suggested to further search if reference data are available and,
where possible, include the missing categories and update the values accordingly. This
refinement may provide more precise default values and smaller uncertainty associated.

664

Table 4.7: the Default value for Africa in the Tropical dry forest ecozone is smaller than thevalue for the Tropical shrubland ecozone. This is counter-intuitive and may be due either(1) because only one reference was used for the Tropical Shrubland ecozone that may not Valerio Avitabile
be fully representative of the ecozone, or (2) there is a typo as the reported value (118t/ha) was not found in the reference document. A revision of this value is recommended.

664

Table 4.7: the use of ecological zones as "Tropical dry forest" and "Tropical shrubland"
may be sub-optimal to distinguish between the various forest types existing within these
ecozones, such dry forests, woodlands, miombo and savannas, which have different
biomass density. It may be helpful for the readers to provide a further explanation of thelink between the forest types and the ecozones.

Denis Loustau

Valerio Avitabile

All listed as variables now.
The paragraph is preceded now of the sentence "It is goodpractice that the model used for extrapolation utilizes
information on the methodological elements above 596 thatis consistent with those used in the rest of the time series"
Corrected

Rejected

The examples is made up to indicate that obvious linear
extrapolations are son such always. In this example, the net
forest increment has increased in the historical period(2000-2015) more than the increase in harvest volumes. As
a result, the sink (net change in C) has also increased. A
linear extrapolation of this trend would lead to a further
increase on the sink in 2020. However, in 640 this example,
the forests are aging, i.e. more forest area reaches maturity.
As a consequence, 641 assuming the continuation of thehistorical forest management practices, in 2020 the netincrement 642 is expected to saturate (i.e. in the table itremains at the 2015 levels) and the total harvest volume is643 expected to increase (because more area will reachmaturity, and thus more biomass will be ready 644 to be
harvested).

Accepted with
Modification

Tables have been expanded to be consistent across all
Ecological Zones. In some cases, based on data
availability, "n.a." was used or a single estimate wasprovided if there was not age-related information to sperate
the estimates further.

Noted

Thank you for the comment. The authors will review thetable to ensure the estimates are consistent with theavailable data. If additional data is available, since lastcompilation, it will be incorporated into the estimates.

Accepted with
Modification

Ecological zones are based on FAO 2010 map ofEcological Zones and are consistent with other Tables in
the Chapters. A reference will be added to each Table
where the classification was used which explains theclassification system.

CommenVolumet ID
362

4

Chapter

4

From line

663

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

664

Table 4.7: in general, where possible we encourage the authors to include additional data
sources (e.g. National Forest Inventory data or additional forest plot data), especially for
Valerio Avitabile
the Tropical and the Subtropical Domains, which may further improve the reported
estimates of aboveground biomass and reduce the size of the standard deviations on thebiomass estimates.

Noted

Thank you for the comment. The authors will review thetable to ensure the estimates are consistent with theavailable data. If additional data is available, since lastcompilation, it will be incorporated into the estimates.

Ngonidzashe Chirinda Noted
Poot-Delgado Carlos
AntonioThank you for the comment. The authors will review thetable to ensure the estimates are consistent with theavailable data. If additional data is available, since lastcompilation, it will be incorporated into the estimates.

3402

4

4

663

664

The value for African Primary Shrublands aboveground biomass in Table 4.7 is higher
than the Africa dry forest value, which does not seem to make sense.

3126

4

4

677

678

Verify bibliographic citation format in footnote

681

Table 4.9: as for Table 4.7, the forest Status/condition for some ecological zone andcontinents in the Tropical and Subtropical Domains is not always distinguished between
Primary, Secondary > 20 years, Secondary < 20 years. In some cases, some
Status/conditions are missing (such as in the “Tropical Dry forest” ecozone) or aggregated(such as in “Tropical shrubland” ecozone for Asia). However, the biomass growth may
Valerio Avitabile
vary substantially between the three forest Status/conditions. Hence, where the three
forest Status/conditions mentioned above exists in the Continent but were not separated
due to lack or scarcity of reference data, it is encouraged/suggested to further search if
reference data are available and, where possible, include the missing categories andupdate the values accordingly. This refinement may provide more precise default values
and smaller uncertainty associated.

364

4

4

680

366

4

4

680

681

3128

4

4

680

681

3130

4

4

683

684

3132

4

4

716

717

Table 4.9: in general, where possible we encourage the authors to include additional data
sources (e.g. National Forest Inventory data or additional forest plot data), especially for
Valerio Avitabile
the Tropical and the Subtropical Domains, which may further improve the reported
estimates of aboveground biomass and reduce the size of the standard deviations on thebiomass estimates.
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Verify bibliographic citation format in footnote
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Verify bibliographic citation format in footnote
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Verify bibliographic citation format in footnote
Antonio

2318

4

4

719

719

For transparency, it would be helpful to provide references and describe how values have Rocio Danica Condor
been obtained for UPDATED1-TABLE 4.12.
Golec

3134

4

4

719

720

Verify subsidise format end head of table 4.12 (ha-1, yr-1)

960

4

5

219

220

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Table 5.2. (this comment also applies to agro-forestry definitions in tab. 5.3). It issuggested to ensure consistency and coherency of IPCC definitions with other, non-IPCC
but important international definitions for agriculture and cropland, such as those fromFAO (which rather speaks of ''permanent crops''). When national data are missing,francesco nicola
countries should be encouraged to consider land use data they may report to FAO as atubiello
useful alternative (e.g., through FAOSTAT; World Census of Agriculture, etc.). To thisend, it is suggested to provide a mapping table between IPCC and FAO definitions. Such
Tables were already identified by IPCC (2015), the IPCC-FAO-IFAD report mentioned inother parts of this review.

AcceptedHarmonize how references are included in all tables

Accepted with
Modification

Tables have been expanded to be consistent across all
Ecological Zones. In some cases, based on data
availability, "n.a." was used or a single estimate wasprovided if there was not age-related information to sperate
the estimates further.

Noted

Thank you for the comment. The authors will review thetable to ensure the estimates are consistent with theavailable data. If additional data is available, since lastcompilation, it will be incorporated into the estimates.

AcceptedHarmonize how references are included in all tables

AcceptedHarmonize how references are included in all tables

AcceptedHarmonize how references are included in all tables

Accepted with
Modification

Thank you for the comment. To avoid confusion the authors
have removed "Tier 1 Estimated" from the title of the Table
and added superscripts and footnotes for each data column
referencing the Table which the data were taken from "For uncertainty and references refer to Tables 4.7, 8, 9
10".

Accepted

Editorial

Accepted with
Modification

The FAO land use classifications for IPCC perennial
cropland have been added as a footnote to the table, butthese are not prescriptive. In chapter 3 FD lines 176-181
guidance is added. Note also that the permanent crop classdefinition in recently published SEEA land use classes is
missing - it has been given the temporary crop definition
instead, which in turn has been given the temporary fallow
definition. - see definition opposite --->
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/ess_test_folder/
Publications/Agrienvironmental/SEEA_AFF_White_Cover.p
df

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Remy Bargout

Noted

2646

4

5

219

220

It seems necessary to consider carbon equivalent losses in the form of nitrogenmineralization and volatilization (i.e. in mulching practices)

3136

4

5

225

226

Verify bibliographic citation format in footnote

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted

4108

4

5

229

229

This should be Table 5.3, not 5.2

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

See Articles:

2648

2650

4

4

5

5

230

243

230

250

4834

4

5

348

348

4832

4

5

348

351

4836

4

5

355

355

Has IPCC been able to help address this data deficit, "The following outputs were
produced in 2017:• Technical Report on national surveys and censuses that could
incorporate a Wood fuel Supplementary Module; • Technical Report on How to include theWood fuel Supplementary Module into Existing Surveys and Derive Wood fuel Indicators; Remy Bargout* an Expert Meeting: experts from WHO,UNSD, IRENA and other internationalorganizations gathered in Rome to discuss and provide suggestions to the proposed
methodology"
The footnote related to the three-pool steady-state soil C model gives as a difference ofthe model to Tier 3 models the availability of a global set of default parameters.
Roland Hiederer
However, to qualify as a Tier 2 method country-specific data should be used.
|Instead, the difference of the Tier 2 soil C model to the Tier 3 soil C model is the limited
dynamic nature of the former.
The statement is in contradiction to the the preceding paragraph, where it is stated that for
Roland Hiederer
Tier 2 the basic equations of Tier one would be used.
The articles quoted for model overviews are rather dated.
Roland Hiederer
A more recent article could be:
Eleanor E Campbell and Keith Paustian 2015 Environ. Res. Lett. 10 123004

This comment does not appear to match the referenced
lines in the document. The loss of C is related to N
mineralization and these relationships can be addressedwith higher tier methods.
All citations and references have been checked and revised
where necessary.
All citations and references have been checked and revised
where necessary.
Below-ground biomass increment estimates are provided inTable 5.3 based on data from many studies and could be
used within a Tier 2 approach, but the Tier 1 approach isstill to assume no change in below-ground biomass of trees
in perennial cropland. Text in SOD reads:"Tier 1The default assumption is that there is no change in belowground biomass of perennial trees in agricultural systems.
There are limited below-ground biomass data for
agricultural systems."

There are limited below-ground biomass data for agricultural systems

1. Estimates of lupin below-ground biomass nitrogen, dry matter, and nitrogen turnover towheat
2. Above- and below-ground biomass dynamics in a sole cropping and an alley cropping
Remy Bargout
system withGliricidia sepium in the semi-deciduous rainforest zone of West Africa
3. Estimation of above-and below-ground biomass across regions of the boreal forest
zone using airborne laser
4. Seasonal dynamics of above‐ and below‐ground biomass and nitrogen partitioning in
Miscanthus × giganteus and Panicum virgatum across three growing
5. Development of allometric relationships for accurate estimation of above-and belowground biomass in tropical secondary forests in Sarawak, Malaysia

Author's Note

Noted

Rejected

This is still the Tier 1 assumption (for which table 5.1
provides EFs). There are below-ground increment
estimates in Table 5.3 that could be used with Tier 2
method, as the Guidance already states. The reviewer
draws our attention to 5 studies - two of these are forforests. The other three could be used by an inventory
compiler if appropriate in their circumstances, but the newchapter Tables provide more robust estimates based on alarger number of studies.

The suggestion is beyond the scope of this refinement.

Accepted with
Modification

Ch2 section 2.2.3.1 has been changed to provide rationale
about defining the method as Tier 2, which does include
country-specific data. Note that the method has been
moved to Cropland Remaining Cropland based on othercomments.
More information has been added about the rationale forusing the steady state method for Tier 2.

Accepted with
Modification

This general reference added to Ch.2 section 2.2.3.1 under
Tier 3

Accepted with
Modification

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

4838

4

5

399

400

4840

4

5

399

400

From line

To line

4842

4

5

399

400

4844

4

5

403

403

4846

4

5

403

407

2616

4

5

419

419

2618

4

5

419

Comment
Updated - Table 5.5Some updated values vary significantly from previous values.
Example: F_LU, Long-term cultivated, Tropical, Dry from 0.58 to 1.02. The new value is
not within the range of error given in the previous Table 5.5.
Updated - Table 5.5
Tillage, Reduced, Tropical: temperature regime "wet" appears twice.

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

Roland Hiederer

Noted

True and a good observation. However, the new factors
are based on many more studies and so can be consideredmore representative of the impacts. There is variation in
responses within the climate regions.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Updated - Table 5.5
Compared to the 2006 values the effect of reduced and no-till on SOC has been reduced
while the attached error has narrowed. The IPCC default values given for Tillage and theerrors attached seem to be at odds with the results reported by other sources, e.g. Baker,
Roland Hiederer
et al., 2007 (see supp.doc). For example, reduced tillage under a cool temperate moist
climate would at a 95% Conf.Level not lead to a decrease in SOC. Data from field
experiments suggest a larger range for the Conf.Interval.
One should make it clear that the error stated is limited to the data used. The actual range
for the factors may be larger than the error values indicated.

First sentence is a repetition from lines 401-402.
Roland Hiederer
The described specifications for the reference values is not conclusive. If a reference
value can correspond to degraded areas these may depend on the land use.
It would seems more transparent to stipulate that the reference values for C stocks refer to Roland Hiederer
non-degraded, unimproved lands under native vegetation, as in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines.
Please replace "Rye5" with "Rye"419

Are there any reason for that the values in table 5.5A is the mean values of Table 11.1A
and not taking the R:S into account?

Steen Gyldenkærne

Steen Gyldenkærne

Noted

The factor and errors come from analysis across manystudies by the methods described in Annex 5A.1. The
confidence limits represent standard error for mean and not
the confidence limits for population (i.e., standard
deviation). The confidence limits are considered
representative and that the true value of the mean change
falls within the limits at a 95% confidence level. Uncertainty
in determining the effect for individual location may in fact
be larger, but these values are not for individual locations,but rather national inventories using the for Tier 1 analysis.
The Baker et al. reference does not provide new
information for inclusion in the analysis of tillage factors.

Accepted

Sentence deleted from lines 401-402

Accepted with
Modification

This guidance is for a country choosing its own reference
level. We added text that the country is required to betransparent regarding the reference C stock condition.

Accepted with
Modification

Other table changes addressed this issue

Accepted with
Modification

4848

4

5

424

425

New Guidance - Table 5.5A
The average of above- and below-ground N content is only applicable when the amount ofRoland Hiederer
residues for a crop are equally divided between sources.
It may be more appropriate to use the information from Table 11.1A and part of Equation
11.6 to estimate N content in residues.

962

4

5

475

475

The current link for fiesta is http://www.fao.org/faostat

4110
2102

4
4

5
5

527
527

529

This should be Equation 5.0A, not 5.1
Equation 5.1 of 527 does not match the cited Equation 5.0A

francesco nicolatubiello
Andrea TILCHE
Shanshan Yang

2104

4

5

529

553

The unit of AGR(T)、BGR(T) or CAG(T) 、CBG(T) is incorrect.

Shanshan Yang

Accepted

2496

4

5

529

553

please check the units of variables in the formula

Mingshan Su

Accepted with
Modification

2506

4

5

584

585

The phrase '- - pyrolysis temperatures are provided in Section - - - Volume IV.' issuggested to be rewritten as '- -pyrolysis temperatures, as provided in Section - -Volume
IV, may be used'.

Muhammad Mohsin
IQBAL

Accepted with
Modification

Accepted with
Modification

We recalculated using the N concentration and proportionsof above and below ground residues from Table 11.1A. We
added additional perennial classes included in Table 11.1A.
We also added a sentence that compilers can calculate
using values in Table 11.1 to include effect of known
residue harvest.
We recalculated using the N concentration and proportionsof above and below ground residues from Table 11.1A. We
added additional perennial classes included in Table 11.1A.
We also added a sentence that compilers can calculate
using values in Table 11.1 to include effect of known
residue harvest.

Accepted
Accepted
Acceptedchanged to reference equation 5.0A
changed to reference equation 5.0A
We corrected the units so that bgr(T) and AGR(T) is in unitsof yr-1 and does not include ha-1.
We corrected the units so that bgr(T) and AGR(T) is in unitsof yr-1 and does not include ha-1.
The sentence has been deleted but the whole section
2.3.3.1 is the reference for biochar. The table references
are also changed to 2.3A and 2.3B with that in refined Ch
2.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

2508

4

5

587

590

Do the biochar producers, importers, exporters or distributors have their own centralizedrecords or the same centralized record, as soil amendment?

Muhammad Mohsin
IQBAL

Accepted with
Modification

Changed wording that compilers obtain information from thebiochar industry or from the land use sector on biochar
used as amendment. Also changed L1084 and 1085

4112
8680
8682

4
4
4

5
5
5

661
668
668

661
668
668

Change "medium" to "medium"
typo "medium" ?
typo "animal manure"?

Andrea TILCHE
Moe Aung Kyaw
Moe Aung Kyaw

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

8684

4

5

843

845

For tier 1, using RS data as this refinement has given examples of RS products ESA/Maryland/NASA should also be included here or somewhere in these Tier 1, 2, and
3

2510

4

5

990

990

The word 'of'' in 'default of 20 years' is suggested to be deleted.

2512

4

5

991

991

The word 'of' after 'accumulates' is redundant, may be deleted.

It is argued in the report that the depth can be different for Tier 2 and Tier 3
methodologies. However, no recommendations are given on this. The soil below the 30
cm layer contains about as much soil organic carbon as in the topsoil, and this carbon is
also affected by land use and management. It should therefore be good practice also to
account for changes in soil carbon below 30 cm depth. The SOC in the subsoil changes
less rapidly than SOC in the topsoil, and it may therefore require a different temporal scale Andrea TILCHE
in the accounting. The depth for accounting of SOC change is also important from aperspective of effects of management measures. It has thus been shown that the effects
of reduced or no-tillage options are much smaller when the entire soil profile is consideredthan when only the topsoil (upper 30 cm) is accounted for (Luo et al., 2010; Powlson et al.,2014). This should at least be discussed in the report, and some recommendations given.

4114

4

5

993

993

2514

4

5

993

993

2516

4

5

994

994

2518

4

5

1076

1076

2520

4

5

1081

1081

2522

4

5

1094

1094

2524

4

5

1100

1100

8686

4

5

1148

1148

Moe Aung Kyaw

Muhammad Mohsin
IQBAL
Muhammad Mohsin
IQBAL

The word 'a' in '- -rather than a soil-volume equivalent - -' is suggested to be replaced with Muhammad Mohsin
'on'.
IQBAL
The phrase '-- soil mass in a certain depth changes with the various operations - -' isMuhammad Mohsin
suggested to be changed to '- -soil mass at a certain depth with various operations - -'.
IQBAL'- - distributed for amendment - -' is suggested to be changed to '- - distributed as
Muhammad Mohsin
amendment - -'.
IQBAL- - amendments is considered - -' is suggested to be changed to '- - amendments are
Muhammad Mohsin
considered - -'.
IQBAL
Muhammad Mohsin
Please see if the last words 'or there' can be written as 'or where there'?
IQBAL
The phrase 'and environmental variables that are required' is suggested to be rewritten as Muhammad Mohsin'and which environmental variables are required'
IQBAL
Calculation result is -1.955 but it has been rounded and mentioned as -2.0. Do we havespecific decimal guide to follow?

Moe Aung Kyaw

Noted

Text in SOD is unchanged: "Under Tier 1 calculations,international statistics such as FAO databases, IPCC GPG
Reports and other sources, supplemented with soundassumptions, can be used to estimate the area of Land
Converted to Cropland from each initial land use. For higher
tier calculations, country-specific data sources are used toestimate all possible transitions from initial land use to final
crop type.". More detailed information to activity data andhow land is represented are addressed in chapter 3.

Accepted
Accepted

Accepted

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification

Provided some text that interaction of tillage and depth
considered may be particularly important consideration inchoosing depth. Also added more information to Ch2
section 2.2.3.1 since the choice of depth needs to beconsidered across land uses.

change "a" to "on a"
Change to "to a certain depth"

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Noted

There is no specific rules but -1.955 would imply excessive
precision in this case. Changes to example values for otherreasons removed this problem.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

964

4

5

1187

1195

3138

4

5

1252

1254

3140

4

5

1262

1293

From line

To lineComment

ExpertKindly consider that, for Tier 1 estimation, this formula is impossible to implement, since
there is no global information that covers the length of the growth period by country oreven regions. The IRRI data source mentioned later in this section does not cover all
countries. In fact, a global estimation of rice emissions using IPCC tier 1 could not be
francesco nicola
done using the existing 2006 GL, but rather using the rev 1996 guidelines--which provided
tubiello
a seasonal EF. This revision should capitalize on existing experience and add additional,
Tier 1 information. It is suggested to provide a Tier 1A simplified approach, similarly towhat is done for livestock, accommodating for a seasonally-averaged EF, as done in therev 1996 GL, and provide a updated list of default seasonally-averaged EFs.
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Verify bibliographic citation format
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Verify bibliographic citation format
Antonio

Response

Author's Note

Accepted

A new Table 5.11A is provided for default cultivation periodof rice on a global and regional scale, which can be used for
Equation 5.1.

Accepted"Et al" should not be in italics; and to correct the spelling of"methods" in line 1252

Rejected"Et al" should not be in italics

2106

4

5

1290

1290

Line 1290 Change "sulphate containing amendments (Lindau et al., 1993; Denier van derShanshan Yang
Gon and Neue, 2002)" to "sulphate or ammonium containing amendments (e.g., Denier
van der Gon and Neue, 2002; Dong et al., 2011; Lindau et al., 1993; Xie et al., 2010"

Rejected

966

4

5

1304

1305

In conjunction with the above comment, Table 5.11 could usefully provide an additional
column with default values for the length of the growth period, by region or even country,
where available.

francesco nicolatubiello

Accepted

1776

5

5

1318

1318

What is the definition of "aeration"? An ambiguous term.

Kazunori Minamikawa Accepted

1778

5

5

1326

1330

Would "Non-flooded pre-season >365 d" imply the upland-paddy rotation? Although not
explicitly mentioned in the text.

Kazunori Minamikawa Accepted

1780

5

5

1341

1352

Continuous parameter only for the amount of organic amendment (i.e., not for thedecomposition rate of rice straw (1 vs. 0.19 even 1-day difference)).

Kazunori Minamikawa Noted

4116

4

5

1400

1403

Non-linear regression techniques can (and should) in some cases also be used. However,
Andrea TILCHE
detecting non-linear responses would require 5 or more samples.

Noted

968

4

5

1417

1417

Kindly update link to fiesta (www.fao.org/faostat ). Consider to specify what type of rice
relevant statistics are available in FAOSTAT, similarly to what is discussed for IRRI.

Accepted

2526

4

5

1431

1432

The two lines seem to be repeat of previous two lines (1429-1430). May be deleted.

3142

4

5

1871

1871

Verify bibliographic citation format

francesco nicolatubiello
Muhammad Mohsin
IQBAL
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted

Sulphate or sulphate containing amendments (as per citedreferences) are known to significantly influence (reduce)
methane emission from rice fields. In the case ofammonium, the effects on methane emission are complex
and not yet conclusive as reviewed by Xie et al. (2010); Caiet al. (2010; and Corton et al. (2000).
A new Table 5.11A is provided for default cultivation periodof rice on a global and regional scale, which can be used for
Equation 5.1. Also, a footnote is provided to explain that theerror range in cultivation period is based on 95%
confidence interval.
In Table 5.12, the term "intermittently flooded-single
aeration" is changed to "single drainage period"; and theterm "intermittently flooded-multiple aeration" is changed to"multiple drainage period"; These changes are also appliedon the footnotes for consistency.
Footnote c is added in Table 5.13 to describe that it is"upland crop - paddy rotation".
This is the conventional way of expressing categories. The
CFOA mean values and ranges are based on experiments.
The term "<30 days" does not mean that the straw wasincorporated on the 30th day of the month, and the term ">30 days" does not mean that the rice straw wasincorporated on the 31st day of the month. The two terms
were just used to describe the border line, and thedifference in number of days is more than 1 day.
The text stated "using regression models"; it does not
qualify whether it is linear or non-linear. Hence, the current
text is applicable for both linear and non-linear regression
models.
Link is updated by making reference to the web page
(instead of hyperlink). Also, relevant data that are available
from Fiesta are added (e.g. rice area harvested).
Introductory sentences are modified to avoid redundancy

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

1782

5

5

3167

3198

4122

4

6

121

121

7168

4

6

142

142

From line

To line

4870

4

6

173

174

4118

4

6

173

174

4872

4

6

174

175

Comment

Citation from a published paper is crucial to this report. Request review after the
publication because we cannot know the details of the annex 5a.2.

ExpertResponse

Kazunori Minamikawa Noted

Section 2.3.3.1 in chapter 2 does not seem to exist. This is relevant because reference toAndrea TILCHE
the section is made throughout the volume.
“ Derivation of management factor (F MG ) and input factor (F I ) factor are” The last factor
Luhui Yan
should deleted.
Table 6.2
The change from "Moderately degraded grassland" to "High Intensity Grazing" introduces
an inconsistency in the parameter defining the Level. The management level is defined by Roland Hiederer
the level of degradation, not the intensity of grazing.
Suggested to return to 2006 Guidelines.
The revised table on stock change factors for grassland management only gives factors
related to intensity of grazing management. Some grasslands will also be managed asAndrea TILCHE
cut-based systems, e.g. for hay or silage. Factors for such systems, or for systems withcombined grazing and cut-based systems should also be given.
Table 6.2A
A different method is used to estimate the average N content in residues for Grass-Clover
Roland Hiederer
Mixtures as compared to other forage types.
For consistency one may consider using the same method also for Grass-Clover Mixtures.

Accepted

Author's Note
The Authors took into account the final decision of TFB CoChairs and CLAs that we cannot cite papers that were notaccepted for publication by the literature cut-off date of 25
June 2018. The paper by Wang et al. was published on 23
July 2018. As an option, the Authors provided Annex 5A.2
which contains adequate information about the methods
that were used, and the list of the references for the studies.
Citations in the updated EF tables, as footnotes, are doneby simply stating "see Annex 5A.2, with the list ofreferences used in the analysis".
changed to 2.2.3.1

Accepted

Accepted with
Modification

Rationale added. We changed footnote to state that highintensity grazing may lead to moderately degradedgrasslands, but this may be true in all managed grasslands
depending on the forage production and resilience of thevegetation.

Accepted with
Modification

We added cut systems to high intensity grazing systems
descriptions

Accepted

We made the method consistent across Table 5.5A Table
6.2A with Table 11.1A

4874

4

6

225

226

See comment for Table 6.2.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted with
Modification

4120

4

6

276

276

The reference to Del Grosso et al. (2008) is missing

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

2620

4

6

284

284

I miss a default value for G

Steen Gyldenkærne

Accepted

We could not find enough references with clear definition ofmoderately degraded to update the factor. We changed
footnote to state that high intensity grazing may lead tomoderately degraded grasslands, but this may be true in all
managed grasslands depending on the forage production
and resilience of the vegetation.
The reference is no longer needed as we have removed thesteady-state Tier 2 method from Ch 6.
value added.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

It is difficult to understand the logic behind the biochar methodology, which is included in
the different land use categories, but would currently probably fit better in chapter 12(harvested wood products) because we are actually talking about a harvested biomass
product. However, it is understandable why biochar is added at the level of land use
categories: where additional information is available, land use, soil type, temperature, etc.
play a role in biochar decomposition, and it is possible to assess non-CO2 greenhousegases related to the application of biochar on soils.
For Tier 1 this additional information is irrelevant, but for Tier 2 and Tier 3 this additional
level of information would be useful if there were a connection to the land on which thebiochar is to be applied. As the methodology is framed, however, there is no connection to
the land on which biochar is applied because all that is asked for is the total amount ofbiochar applied to any land use category of a country within the inventory period. Instead,Andrea TILCHE
it is necessary for the compiler to identify the source of the biochar to distinguish between
biochar feedstocks and low, medium, or high temperature processes. It is assumed thatthe compiler knows where to get that information, but this is highly questionable as there
does not seem to be an accessible database with this information. If such a database ofbiochar producers exists it would be important to refer to it in the document. How thecompiler is then going to know how much biochar has been applied in their country is
another mystery. This disconnect also needs to be resolved for the methodology to
become useful. As biochar can be considered a way of improving soil health, which could
be reported in the context of land management practices, it would be possible to develop
a methodology that is actually connecting biochar applications to the land use categories.
That would also make the methodology consistent with the nature of managing land andcould be developed in a way to reflect different Tiers of reporting.

4124

4

6

294

322

4876

4

6

695

695

4126

4

6

701

701

4878

4

6

702

704

2622

4

7

general

8466

4

7

0

0

384

4

7

1

1

Expert

F_LU is now 0.90 (was 0.48 in 2006 IPCC Guidelines, Table 5.5).
Roland Hiederer
70 tonnes C ha-1 ●0.90 ● 1.00 ● 0.92 = 58.0 tonnes C ha-1.
36.9 tonnes should probably be 30.9 tonnes; the result would then not be 1.5 tonnes
Andrea TILCHE
C/ha/yr.
The use of the Land Use factor for set-aside may be questioned.
According to this method there would be a sudden jump in soil C-stocks from year 20 toRoland Hiederer
year 21. This is, if 21 years would be considered under Tier 1.
The more consistent method would be to extend the period until equilibrium is reached.
For clarification. Is it possible to include a definition of lakes. Reservoirs and ponds arecovered, but for me are we sometimes creating lakes (1-100 ha) which in my terms (andthe general terms in the refinement) are not reservoirs as the water is not intended for use
Steen Gyldenkærne
in hydropower, water extraction etc. Table 7.7 gives some definitions but not lakes. Are
the EF the same for lakes as for reservoirs? Do "lakes" with a constant water level create
the same emissions as with fluctuating water levels?
odd row in excel sheet
Hilary Kennedy
Chapter 7 is structured around the Tier concept so it is essential that all readers fully
understand the criteria used to separate Tiers 1, 2, and 3. I therefore recommend that theauthors devote a few sentences to explaining the Tier concept at the beginning of thisPaul Glaser
Chapter and including appropriate definitions in the Glossary. Each chapter should beunderstandable solely on its contents without relying on references to previous IPCC
publications wherever practical

Response

Author's Note

Accepted with
Modification

Soil-applied biochar is included because it will be reported
by land use and has a direct impact on the soil C pool.
Under Tier 1, the biochar is not separate pool like harvested
wood products, which are part of biomass, dead organic
matter or soil C pools. Authors agree that more
information can improve the estimation, and is required todevelop a Tier 2 or 3 method. The text has been changed
so that compilers may obtain information from the biochar
industry or from statistics compiled by government
agencies or other industry groups on biochar products thatis used as a soil amendment.

Accepted
Accepted

Accepted

Good point, this is not following the guidance. Havechange FLU to 1. This also removes problem with sudden
c stock change occurring after 20 years in the original
example.

The text refer to the Ramsar (2009) classification to clarify
the definitions of different types of waterbodies. The lake
Accepted with M
versus reservoir emission factors are mentioned in theuncertainty discussion.
Noted

Thank you

Rejected

This is not consistent with other chapters in which we do not
define Tier 1, 2 and 3.

We should be consistent with other chapters, and generally
non-CO2 is an overarching title for subsections dealing with
CH4 and N2O.

8594

4

7

1

1399

Why give different names to the same gas? Use “CH4” rather than “non-CO2”

Elizabeth Sikar

Accepted

8458

4

7

18

18

Flooded Land to Flooded Land

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

CommenVolume
t ID

8460

718

4

4

Chapter

7

7

From line

40

92

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note102

will this shading in grey also be incorporated in the refinement? If just reading the chapter
without looking through the Equations and Tables pages it is very confusing w etc. Hen
the first Table is labelled 7.7 and first equation 7.10. I understand that sometext/tables/figures of previous IPCC guidelines are being retained. It is unclear thoughwhich Guidelines the previous text relates to , presumably the 2006 Guidelines for
Wetland has now been totally superseded by the 2013 Wetlands supplement? Or are
Hilary Kennedy
there some Guidelines still relevant from the original 2006 Guidelines. Rather than justputting "No refinement" couldn't there be some text in 7.1 the introduction to say which
introduction is having no refinement. It is the 2006 Guidelines chapter, but then shouldn't
some new text be added to say how the 2006 Chapter 7 relates to the 2013 supplement to
the 2006 Guidelines. In section 7.1.1 the text guides the reader to the supplement? But
which chapter/part? Can the location of the Tables/equations pages , not being refined beadequately referenced for the reader to find?

Noted

All text should be included in this section that is still relevantfrom the 2006 GL where a section has been refined. A
short paragraph should be added into the mapping tables
providing an overview of the updates/new guidance.

93

Firstly, I would like to congratulate the team of authors; the first order draft (FOD) was
greatly improved in this version (i.e., SOD). I have read the text carefully, and in general, I
still do not like the style of the IPCC guidelines because the directives are very difficult tounderstand (you need to search many documents to complete some subject) to be
deployed. At this respect, I try to put me in the reader place, trying to calculate any carbon Irineu Bianchini Jr.
emission (and sometimes it’s become a difficult task); thus, the text could be more clear
and self-explanatory. This new version of Chapter 7 (Volume 4) could also have more
explicit references throughout the text (sometimes the definition is presented anddiscussed without any authorship). Also, there are some notes that I select to examination:

Noted

We have improved the clarity of the text and provided a
range of new decision trees to assist with flow and clarity.

Note added to Table 7.7 to clarify that guidance for somegases is not provided and referring to the text for
explanations.

386

4

7

110

110

Why is NO2 included as a GHG emission here and not in the Table above?

Paul Glaser

Noted

3144

4

7

124

136

Verify bibliographic citation format

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted

8430

4

7

129

129

720

4

7

140

147

3146

4

7

189

189

4128

4

7

195

195

388

4

7

196

196

8462

4

7

196

197

8464

4

7

211

290

The sentence of "those from small constructed ponds cannot" is a little hard to follow theAtsushi Satomeaning. Please add some words after "cannot "for clarification.
Particularly with respect to eutrophic environments, the autochthonous nitrogen sources(i.e., nitrogen fixation, nitrate reduction and denitrification) would not be relevant events for Irineu Bianchini Jr.
the calculation of N2O emissions?
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Verify bibliographic citation format
Antonio

It would be helpful with a sentence explaining why constructed seawater canals are notconsideredAndrea TILCHE

Does the drainage ditch criterion also include drainage ditches that have been excavatedPaul Glaserin peatlands? A clarification of this point would be helpful.
The text on lines 193-195 correctly relates to permanent flooding of a ,landscape to create
coastal wetlands, but in Table 7.8 this category is located under "Seasonally flooded
Hilary Kennedy
agricultural land", can it be "seasonally or permanently". Also "Aquaculture" the final
column the 2 should be a superscript.
I think the implications of including this text this constitutes a significant step forward in the
Hilary Kennedy
IPCC Guidelines.

Accepted

the text "be considered natural" is added to the sentence

Accepted

Clarified that N2O from flooded lands is estimated as"indirect N2O emissions" from other land use types.

Accepted

Accepted

We have added an explanation to the text. "Constructedseawater canals are not considered because there areinsufficient data to derive an emission factor and because
the water in seawater canals is assumed to have salinity
greater than 18 ppt and therefore assumed to have zero
emissions following guidance in the 2013 Wetland
Supplement. "Accepted

Added reference to relevant table in Wetlands supplement

Accepted

We cannot change Ramsar categories, but we havecorrected the superscript and added a note that guidancefor permanently flooded wetlands are also included in the2013 wetland supplement.

Noted

Thank you

CommenVolume
t ID

2638

6178

4

4

Chapter

7

7

From line

211

232

To lineComment

291

Box 7,1 seems to give a good presentation of how to, in relevant cases, factor out
emissions. However, the box contains a decision tree, figure 7.2. The first order draft also
included a decision tree named figure 7.2 and it seems the new 7.2 is a shorter version of
the first tree. The original 7.2 was, in my opinion , quite instructive, but certainly also a bit Tormod Scheicomplex. It is, however, important that the new 7.2 could be seen as equally instructive as
the old (or better!). The new 7.2 may be a too simplified version of the original decision
tree. This should be looked into.

The methodology has been revised to improvetransparency by first providing guidance on estimating total
emissions from flooded land (consistent with the MLP) andthen how to factor out emissions from pre flooding sources,
Accepted with M
as requested in the mandate provided by the IPCC Plenary(to “develop consistent methodologies that take into
account factoring out of emissions and removals that would
otherwise occur in the absence of the flooded area”).

I think this means unmanaged wetlands that have been expanded by dam construction?
Please be clear how 'unmanaged wetlands' fit as a subsection of 'land converted toflooded lands'

The methodology has been revised to improvetransparency by first providing guidance on estimating total
emissions from flooded land (consistent with the MLP) andthen how to factor out emissions from pre flooding sources,
Accepted with M
as requested in the mandate provided by the IPCC Plenary(to “develop consistent methodologies that take into
account factoring out of emissions and removals that would
otherwise occur in the absence of the flooded area”).

232

390

4

7

233

234

8468

4

7

233

235

392

4

7

240

244

6180

4

7

243

243

722

4

7

246

246

8470

4

7

325

347

724

4

7

328

328

8472

4

7

328

331

6182

4

7

334

334

ExpertCarolyn Maxwell

I disagree. If a peatland is flooded by the impoundment of surface water behind a dam
the submerged peat will continue to decompose and release GHGs to the the waterPaul Glaser
column and ultimately the atmosphere. The best example for this process are fromreservoirs along the lower Nelson River in Manitoba, Canada. As a result GHG emissions
from submerged peatlands will not decrease after impoundment
Flooding….. Therefore reduces natural CH4 emissions. How is this? Because theoverlying water column is oxic and CH4 is converted to CO2? Initially the flux of CH4 may
Hilary Kennedy
be reduced, but once steady state resumed there could be a CH4 flux related to previously
unflooded land??
: I recommend shortening and thereby clarifying this overly long sentence.
Paul Glaser

I think this means unmanaged land that has been inundated by dam construction? Please
Carolyn Maxwellbe clear how 'unmanaged land' relates to 'land converted to flooded land'

Response

Author's Note

Accepted

We have altered the text to clarify that flooding wetlands willchange wetlands into flooded land, thereby decreasing CH4
fluxes from wetlands.

NotedThis statement was not clear. See new sections on
factoring out emissions from unmanaged lands.

AcceptedWill be taken care of in the revised text

The methodology has been revised to improvetransparency by first providing guidance on estimating total
emissions from flooded land (consistent with the MLP) andthen how to factor out emissions from pre flooding sources,
Accepted with M
as requested in the mandate provided by the IPCC Plenary(to “develop consistent methodologies that take into
account factoring out of emissions and removals that would
otherwise occur in the absence of the flooded area”).

Figure 2 (Wouldn't it be figure 7.2?)
Aflooded,j,I It is confusing that this equation deals with reservoirs that are >20 years old
and yet this term is "Area of land that is newly flooded". Lines 318 to 320 I read asindicating that equation 7.10 did not include any prior emissions and as the reservoir is>20 years, with no areal extent change, why is EFCh4age>20,j . Aflooded j.i. included inthis equation? Newly flooded are is for reservoirs <20 years and included in eq 7.13?

Irineu Bianchini Jr.

Accepted

Corrected

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Equations have been modified as a result of othercomments. Nomenclature has been clarified.

As mentioned, Equations 7.10 and 7.14 does not consider formations of N2O emissions.

Irineu Bianchini Jr.

Noted

Table 7.7 and general text in Section 7.3 explains why N2Oemissions are not considered.

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Reference madeCarolyn Maxwell

Noted

This term has been replaced.

The first integral j=1 to 6, could a reference be made to Table 7.9 be made were theclimate zones are enumerated?
Should this definition be the area of land that was flooded by creation of the reservoir?
(could the word 'newly' in this definition cause confusion with "land converted to flooded
land" rather than "flooded land remaining as flooding land"?)CommenVolume
t ID

8692

4

Chapter

7

From line

346

To lineComment

346

The decision to ignore emissions from the portion of the reservoir that was formerly part of
the natural river is mistaken. Since hydroelectric dams are normally built where a river isdescending rapids or a relatively steep gradient (in order to maximize power output), thewater in the natural river would not be stratified and would have little methane emission.
When the same area is converted into a lotic environment in a reservoir the water in thispart of the reservoir can stratify and emit significant amounts of methane. In addition, one
Philip Fearnside
has the question of defining what is the natural river area. In Amazonia the rivers havevery large annual variation in streamflow between the high and low water periods, creatinga large seasonally flooded area. In CDM carbon projects in Brazil this seasonally flooded
area has been considered to be part of the natural river rather than part of the land area
flooded by reservoirs, thus creating a downward bias in emissions estimates (Fearnside,
2013, 2015).

394

4

7

351

353

2636

4

7

355

356

8474

4

7

356

358

8596

4

7

365

Expert

It would be a good idea to clarify the usage of "downstream" with respect to vertical GHG
fluxes in a reservoir. This term is defined in the Glossary but perhaps a citation here (orthe first time "downstream" appears in the text) would be helpful. The term can be
Paul Glaser
confusing since not all reservoirs have outlet streams. A clarification would also be helpful
to explain the counter intuitive statement that downstream emissions will be zero if a water
sample is extracted from the upper oxic portion of the water column
It is here stated that " ----- a compiler can improve estimates of CH4
emissions from these systems by multiplying default CH4 emission factors (from Table
Tormod Schei
7.8) by a factor ---- " it is unclear to me if table 7.8 is meant here. The table 7.8, being
shown on line 179 is presenting Ramsar Classes, not default CH4 emission factors --- ?
Can "mean annual" be added to chlorophyll concentration?
Hilary Kennedy

Response

Author's Note

Accepted

An uncertainty discussion that includes the uncertainty ofriver area estimates has been added.

Accepteda new sentence was added in the line 126 to better explain
what downstream emission means.

Accepted

Table 7.8 replaced by Table 7.9

Accepted

yes, added
Box 7.2 explains clearly why C sedimentation cannot be
estimated at the Tier 1 level. For the development of higher
Tier methodologies for carbon accumulation in reservoirs,
only the portion of the carbon permanently buried inreservoir sediments that would not have been stored
elsewhere in the hydrological network (including the coastal
ocean) could potentially be considered as an offset toreservoir greenhouse gas emissions.

385

The permanent C sedimentation attributable to the existence of a reservoir should befactored into the change in C circulation caused by a reservoir. This can be done by using
Elizabeth Sikar
the above-background downstream emission of CH4-C as a tracer of the C that would
have been “stored elsewhere in the biological network (including oceans)” if the reservoir
didn’t exist.

Rejected

Acceptedreworded to clarify

Accepted

A sentence has been added in line with the comment.

8688

4

7

402

405

The statement that degassing emissions can be measured “directly … where the waterfrom the reservoir is exposed to atmospheric pressure” is not accurate. Althoughmeasurements can be made at that point by means of floating chambers, which arenecessarily placed at some distance below the outlet because of turbulence, thesemeasurements produce gross underestimates of degassing emissions (see Fearnside,
2016; Fearnside & Pueyo, 2012). In fact, this affects some of the sources cited for thedefault values (e.g., Table 7.10). Because of the sudden release of pressure as water
Philip Fearnside
emerges from the turbines, a substantial part of the emission occurs before it can bemeasured using floating chambers. The method based on difference in concentrations
mentioned in this passage is the best way to capture degassing emissions. It should be
noted that the methane concentrations in the reservoir at the depth of the turbines are
generally underestimated (by about half) due to loss of gas in classical Ruttner bottles, butthat an alternative method exists (see Fearnside, 2016; Fearnside & Pueyo, 2012;
Kemenes et al., 2011).

396

4

7

408

410

I would recommend also inserting a statement about the strong dependence of methane
ebullition on changes in atmospheric pressure (which was first noted fromlakes/reservoirs).

3148

4

7

412

412

Verify bibliographic citation format

3150

4

7

443

444

Verify bibliographic citation format of table 7.9

Paul Glaser
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted
Accepted

CommenVolume
t ID
8598
4

8690

4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

7

445

445

(kg CH4 ha-1 yr-1) rather than (KG CH4 HA-1 YR-1)
Elizabeth Sikar
The 0.09 median value for all reservoirs (Table 7.10) should be replaced with values foreach climatic zone, as was done for emission factors in Table 7.9. Because thepreponderance of references cited are for non-tropical reservoirs, the higher emissions oftropical reservoirs will effectively be ignored by adopting the median for all reservoirs as asingle default value. In fact, using a median instead of a mean is inappropriate and should
Philip Fearnside
be substituted with mean values for each climatic zone. Medians would be appropriate fornormal distributions, but methane emissions are characterized by having many low values
and a few extremely high values. By using a median in this case one biases the result
downward by ignoring the fact that the very high values are a real part of the system –notoutliers that can be written off as measurement errors.

7

445

445

8728

4

7

445

445

3152

4

7

445

446

8476

4

7

445

446

726

4

7

462

464

728

4

7

475

478

Expert

The estimation of downstream emissions based on a ratio with reservoir-surface
emissions is not the best choice. The total emitted by the reservoir surface is heavily
influenced by the area of the reservoir, whereas the downstream emission is more closely
tied to the volume of flow, especially the amount passing through the turbines. The
difference can be seen in the contrast between the Tucurui and Balbina dams in Brazilian
Philip Fearnside
Amazonia. Both have reservoirs of almost the same area, but the flow volume and thedownstream emission are many times larger at Tucuruí. See data in Kemenes et al.
(2011, 2016). The installed capacity of the turbines could be used as a proxy forstreamflow, since installed capacity is readily available for hydroelectric dams. Kemenes
et al. (2016, p. 6) found a close relationship of downstream methane emission to installedcapacity (r2 = 0.997).
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Verify bibliographic citation format of table 7.10
Antonio
Can Header of Table 7.10 incorporate lower case lettering for Ha, Yr and Rd?
Hilary Kennedy
Eutrophic reservoirs may receive allochthonous organic carbon from treated and/or
untreated wastewater that is converted to CH4 within the reservoirs Deemer et al. 2016). Irineu Bianchini Jr.
This process occurs only in the eutrophic reservoir? Please, explain better.
Equation 7.11 - What is the bibliographic reference of this equation? (In particular, this is
Irineu Bianchini Jr.
an important information).

Response

Author's Note

Accepted

Rejected

The literature data do not support separating Rd by climatezone (i.e. no statistically significant difference among
climate zones). Estimating downstream emissions using
the mean Rd value derived from the literature systematicallyoverestimates downstream emissions (see new Annex
Figure); whereas estimates derived from the median Rd
value agree well with measured downstream emissions.

Rejected

Although we don't disagree with the methodology proposedby the reviewer there is the limitation of the activity data.
Installed capacity data is available only for hydropower
reservoirs and they represent only a fraction of the total
number of reservoirs worldwide.

Accepted
Acceptedok

Accepted

Clarified with additional text and modification to avoid theuse of "Reservoir", and to be as broad as possible.

Accepted

citation added

6188

4

7

519

635

It is not clear to me how intermittent inundation (e.g. for canals) should be applied throughthis section of the report. Does this section assume permanent inundation? Should the Efs Carolyn Maxwell
be pro-rated for the proportion of the year that the wetland is inundated?

Accepted

Added text to say variation in inundation should beincorporated at Tier 2 and 3 if this is an important factor acountry to consider. "If CH4 emissions from otherconstructed waterbodies are a key category, then it is goodpractice for the compiler to develop country-specificemission factors with application of a Tier 2 method ordevelop a country specific method with a Tier 3 approach to
reduce overall uncertainty, incorporating variations ininundation regimes due to inter-annual variation in waterlevels or management.

8478

4

7

521

532

Is it possible to provide a definition for when a water body is constructed it is classified asa reservoir or an "other constructed water body" used for water storage?

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Accepted. Classification decision tree now included.

730

4

7

539

539

What does this footnote refer to?

Irineu Bianchini Jr.

Noted

8480

4

7

548

548

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

8482

4

7

549

549

use "other constructed water bodies"use "other constructed water bodies". For definition of type "w" can Table 7.12 bereferenced. At Tier 1 no values for climate zone, can this be indicated. It is also valid forthe other definitions in this equation.

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

This footnote refers to the 2013 Wetland Supplement.
Retained.
ponds and channels replaced
Added reference to Table 7.12 as requested and explicitly
indicated that "At Tier 1, emission factors are notdisaggregated by climate zone or trophic status."

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

8484

4

7

556

556

Is there any guidance that equation 7.12 could be used for different "other waterbodies",
some at Tier 1 and some at Tier 2? Could there be consistent data for a specific type of"other waterbody" that allows Tier 2 calc, but not for the other 2?

768

4

7

561

561

I suggest adding 'water level' as a modifier

Sarian Kosten

Accepted

4130

4

7

569

569

In which way should compilers consider within-year and between-year variations inemissions?

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

8486

4

7

576

582

Is there any guidance on the minimum size of waterbody to be included in this category. Is
this according to the countries ability to identify such features. Are there any
Hilary Kennedy
techniques/tools to aid countries in identifying these features? As there must be acontinuum of waterbody area, is any guidance given on minimum size or percent of areal
coverage for the features to be included?

770

4

7

589

589

Likely typo in Baker-Blocker reference (says 1997 should be 1977)

3154

4

7

589

590

Verify bibliographic citation format of table 7.12

605

Large ebullition events can be highly episodic in time and space because of their strong
dependence on climatically driven drops in atmospheric pressure. Perhaps it would be
wise to acknowledge a level of uncertainty when reporting such time averaged estimates
due to the probability of excluding such large but episodically occurring ebullition events

398

400

4

4

7

7

604

620

Sarian Kosten
Poot-Delgado Carlos
AntonioPaul Glaser

Accepted

Accepted

Author's Note
We have added comments to confirm that Compilers could
use different tiers. "Compilers could use different tiers for
subcategories within the Other constructed waterbodies
category, depending on the importance of different
waterbodies and the availability of activity data. "We have added water level. "In addition, it may be possible
to incorporate additional modifiers such as soil type (e.g.
mineral versus organic); water flow rate; inter-annual andseasonal variation in water levels;"
Text has been improved. ""Compilers may also consider
use of models that incorporate within-year and betweenyear variation in emissions as a function of climatic or landmanagement variability, water level variability or
maintenance activities such as dredging and the duration of
periodic drainage when sediments are exposed to air."Guidance based on Ramsar convention has been added.
However, this will be determined by data availability tocompilers. "The Ramsar Convention provides guidance on
mapping of wetlands (Annex III) which can be used todetermine the area of other constructive water bodies. The
minimum recommended scale of mapping is 1:5000 (50m x
50m or 0.25 ha) which could be used appropriate data are
available. "Accepted

Noted

623

A more precise estimate of total surface area of drainage ditches can be derived from ananalysis of remote sensing imagery of sufficiently high spatial resolution (e.g. aerial
photographs). This fact could be included in the text.

Paul Glaser

Accepted

Sarian Kosten

Accepted

ponds - The first two sentences have been deleted as they
were not relevant to the Activity section.
We have added a comment on aerial photography to thetext. "Additional activity data required to apply a Tier 3
approach are likely to include information on waterbody
distribution from remotely sensed imagery (which fordrainage ditches could include high resolution aerial
photography), waterbody type, nutrient status, flow rates,
vegetation and other factors as described above. "We have removed the link (which was to yield estimates)
and incorporated alternative text and reference. There isinsufficient data to establish a global production-area
relationship. "For area of aquaculture ponds, estimates ofarea may be available from remote sensing imagery(Ottinger et al., 2017) or national databases."

772

4

7

623

623

the provided link links to information on production. I could not find data on area here.
Areal extensions can be found (for some countries) at:
http://www.fao.org/fishery/countryprofiles/search/en but this is suggested to be used inTier 2. I suggest to remove the link or incorporate an approximate production area
relationship

3156

4

7

634

635

Verify bibliographic citation format

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted

8864

4

7

636

636

Land Converted to Flooded Land - Do inventories need to account for sea level rise?

MINGMING WANG

Noted

649

Basically, the existence of above ground biomass has been recognized here, but inequation 7.13 it is not considered (perhaps it is my greatest constraint in relation to thisdocument). The Equation 7.13 only recognizes emissions from the soil organic carbon(SOC).

As per IPCC GL standards, inventories do not account for
sea level rise.

Irineu Bianchini Jr.

Accepted

Text modified to better explain the use of SOC proxy forCO2 surge estimation

732

4

7

648

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

3158

4

7

655

667

Verify bibliographic citation format

8488

4

7

661

662

402

4

7

674

678

Isn't this valid for flooded land remaining flooded land and should be indicated earlier.
This entire paragraph seems to contradict the text above that states the highest GHG
emissions occurs immediately after the submergence of a landscape unit by constructionof dams. An explanation for ignoring this potentially massive flux is not provided since alarge initial value for the fluxes will shift the 20-year average upward.

734

4

7

681

683

ExpertPoot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Hilary Kennedy
Paul Glaser“Therefore, the Tier 1 methodologies developed in this chapter are based on soil organiccarbon stock as an indicator of the overall carbon stock of the system that integrates theimpact of land cover and land use in the pre-flooded conditions”. According to the above, I
think this premise is incomplete; there are many studies that have measured the C-labileof the flooded biomass. Even without considering any specific resource of the plant (i.e.,leaves, branches, litter, etc.), it is possible to comprise some percentage of abovegroundbiomass carbon in Equation 7.13, at least for the most representative plant typologies. On
the other hand, considering 30 cm of soil depth I find excessive. I suppose that selecting Irineu Bianchini Jr.
only the SOC to do the emissions calculation is a very large oversimplification that
underestimates the emitted carbon from the degradation of aboveground biomass,
especially in the early years of reservoir formation. From the above, it seems that this
aspect (consideration of above ground biomass) should only be considered if the
proposed mathematical model is used (i.e., Tiers 2 and 3). Thus, Equation 7.13 should
contain (as considered for the soil, parameter Ø; Line 723) a parameter that considers the
predominant vegetal typologies.
The theoretical basis is well presented (e.g., Annex 7.1) and then a very simplified model
was proposed. There are several studies that subsidize this issue (degradation of labile
Irineu Bianchini Jr.
fractions of plant resources). Annex 7.1 explains very well how emissions occur (using the
G-res model), but does not justify the choices to propose Equation 7.13.
Is it reasonable to expect that large pieces of woody biomass will be completely
mineralized within a year s time within the drawdown area of a reservoir after conversion?
Paul Glaser
Woody biomass generally breaks down much more slowly than that of non-lignified
biomass in aerobic environments and is generally considered to be essentially inert underanoxic conditions.
Consideration of the carbon contained in up to 30 cm of soil depth is exaggerated,
Irineu Bianchini Jr.
considering that several studies show that only in a few centimetres reaction activities
occur, having as function the deep strata the storage of the organic matter.
Should only the C stock value in Table 2.3 be used (wetlands figure) or should a weighedvalue between soil types be used. To this also if the water body is made on organic soils. Steen Gyldenkærne
Which C stock should be used here? 400 t C per ha?

Response
Accepted

Accepted with M Text was modified with reference to adding new categories
Accepted

Text has been modified accordingly

Accepted with M

Text modified to better explain the use of SOC proxy forCO2 surge estimation

Accepted with M

Text modified to better explain the use of SOC proxy forCO2 surge estimation

Accepted

Sentence deleted

Accepted with M

Text modified to better explain the use of SOC proxy forCO2 surge estimation

Accepted with M

The use of Table 2.6 for peatland SOC stock estimation
has been better explained
Use of Table 2.6 2013 WS for peatland SOC stocks is now
better explained

736

4

7

689

692

404

4

7

691

692

738

4

7

694

694

2624

4

7

712

712

8490

4

7

712

714

Table 2.3 is default values for mineral soils only.

Hilary Kennedy

Noted

8492

4

7

715

715

use "reservoirs" rather than "waterbodies" to avoid confusion with "other constructedwaterbodies".

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

8494

4

7

716

716

Table 7.11 only has 6 climate zones.

Hilary Kennedy

Noted

406
2626
4132

4
4
4

7
7
7

730
730
730

730
730
730

Paul Glaser
Steen Gyldenkærne
Andrea TILCHE

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

8496

4

7

730

731

Please define "Nb" in the 3rd column heading. What is an Nb Reservoir?.
In Table 7.13, please indicate number as "N" and not as "Nb"
What does "Nb reservoir" in the table column heading mean?
In the header can lower case be used where appropriate and Yr not Y. Is Nb= number?
Other Tables have it written in full (7.10) or as No. (7.12)
Does this approach consider CO2 solubility in the water column? CO2 is a highly soluble
gas with complex equilibria in freshwaters because of its multiple dissolved species andpotential sources and sinks. A word of caution would be advisable here with regard tousing this approach.

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

408

4

7

743

748

Paul Glaser

Author's Note

Rejected

Description of aggregated climate zone described in details
section A7.1.2.1 point 5
Change madeMeans Number, fixed

The Emissions Factors are ultimately derived from models
on direct estimates of CO2 fluxes, which inherently takes
into account solubility.

CommenVolumet ID
4134
4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

7

748

748

Sentence is not complete
Is the use of the G-res model indicative or compulsory? Perhaps it is better to suggest its
use more emphatically for a possible shortening of users' time (thus, in principle, it would
not be necessary to spend time in developing alternative models).
Is the guidance in 7.3.2.1 for waterbodies/impoundments in addition to reservoirs?

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

Irineu Bianchini Jr.

Noted

Hilary Kennedy

Noted

Sentence will be rewritten
The G-res model is not mentioned here, nor is itcompulsory. The compilers may choose what model to use
if adopting Tier 3. No changes were made in the text.
No, this section is for reservoirs.

740

4

7

757

761

8498

4

7

785

796

774

4

7

786

786

Here drawdown is mentioned, but in eq. 7.13 and 7.14 it is not clear to me how thedrawdown area is included. Does the A in these equations refer to the maximum area?
The emission factors do not seem to include published estimates of (considerable)
drawdown zone emissions. Refs: Yang L, Lu F, Wang X, Duan X, Song W, Sun B, Chen
S, Zhang Q, Hou P, Zheng F. 2012. Surface methane emissions from different land use
types during various water levels in three major drawdown areas of the Three Gorges
Reservoir. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 117.
Serça D, Deshmukh C, Pighini S, Oudone P, Vongkhamsao A, Guédant P, Rode W,
Sarian Kosten
Godon A, Chanudet V, Descloux S. 2016. Nam Theun 2 Reservoir four years aftercommissioning: significance of drawdown methane emissions and other pathways. Hydroé
cologie Appliquée. 19:119-146.
Jin H, Yoon TK, Lee S-H, Kang H, Im J, Park J-H. 2016. Enhanced greenhouse gas
emission from exposed sediments along a hydroelectric reservoir during an extreme
drought event. Environmental Research Letters. 11:124003.
Kosten S, van den Berg S, Mendonça R, Paranaíba JR, Roland F, Sobek S, Van Den
Hoek J, Barros N. 2018. Extreme drought boosts CO2 and CH4 emissions from reservoir
drawdown areas. Inland waters.1-12.

8500

4

7

802

803

coastal wetlands guidance is for salt production and aquaculture, guidance relates toextracted soil and not emissions from the water body.

Hilary Kennedy

Noted

8502

4

7

813

835

So, newly flooded would be used when the areal extent of an existing reservoir, that is lessHilary Kennedy
than 20 ye old, is increased?

As stated there are no data to provide CO2 emission
factors from the waterbody with conversion of coastal
wetlands to aquaculture ponds.

NotedThis term has been replaced.
We have briefly reminded readers at the beginning of thissection that N2O emissions from flooded lands are
estimated as indirect emissions from other land-use types.

The sentence on lines 786-787 was deleted. Emission fromthe drawdown zones are considered similar per unit area tothe emissions from the water surface and are therefore
included when estimating greenhouse gas emission by
Accepted with M
multiplying the water surface emission by the maximum
reservoir area. The database only includes the emission
from water surface, which is similar per unit area to theemission from drawdown zones.

742

4

7

821

821

As mentioned, Equations 7.10 and 7.14 does not consider formations of N2O emissions.

Irineu Bianchini Jr.

Noted

2108
8600
6184

4
4
4

7
7
7

828
828
845

828
828
845

Shanshan Yang
Elizabeth Sikar
Carolyn Maxwell

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

6186

4

7

851

851

It should be ‘<20’ instead of ‘>20’ in the explanation of EFCH4 age<20,j“< 20”rather than “> 20”
Should this read "choice OF emission factors"?
It is not clear to me how the reader should apply this information. Should they apply theaverage, or choose a number that suits from within the CI bands?

Carolyn Maxwell

Noted

3160

4

7

892

897

Verify bibliographic citation format

3162

4

7

929

930

Verify bibliographic citation format

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

410

4

7

933

934

Please change "are strongly stimulated" to "require." Methanogens are obligate
anaerobes! They require anaerobic conditions to metabolize and produce methane.
Paul Glaser
Methanogenesis only occurs under anaerobic conditions although methanogens cansurvive in an anoxic environment by either finding anoxic microsites or remaining dormant.

3164

4

7

937

937

Verify bibliographic citation format

3166

4

7

942

947

Verify bibliographic citation format

3168

4

7

952

952

Verify bibliographic citation format

8504

4

7

969

969

emission to emissions

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Hilary Kennedy

yes
CI is used to propagate uncertainty. The table has beenrevised for increase clarity.

Accepted
Accepted

Accepted

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

Text have been corrected and clarified.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

3170

7

989

991

Verify bibliographic citation format

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted

4

4136

4

7

993

993

What does it mean that "salinity is considered to improve the estimation of emissions"? Is
Andrea TILCHE
it differentiating situations of different salinity that improves?

Accepted

8506

4

7

993

994

What is meant by "salinity is considered to improve estimation of emissions from coastal
aquaculture". In the 2013 supplement, no guidance is given for methane emissions
associated with aquaculture.

Accepted

3172

4

7

1009

1009

Verify bibliographic citation format

3174

4

7

1038

1065

Verify bibliographic citation format

8508

4

7

1078

1093

8602

4

7

1079

1090

412

744

4

4

7

7

1085

1089

1087

1103

2628

4

7

1095

1103

8510

4

7

1103

8604

4

7

8606

4

6190

Can units in headings use lower case where appropriate? Equation A3 CO2diff the diffneeds to be at same level of subscript.
(mg C m-2 d-1) rather than (MG C M-2 D-1)

Hilary Kennedy

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted
Accepted

Elizabeth Sikar

Accepted(Equation A3). There are 2 points: i) another time, just SOC was considered; ii) There are
Irineu Bianchini Jr.
some differences in relation to G-res equations (please verify the G-res technicaldocumentation).
What does G-res stand for. In not needed, then delete.

Sulphides in seawater supress methanogenesis. This
explanation has been included. "estimation of emissions
from coastal aquaculture ponds (Tier 1) is improved byconsideration of salinity of the water as sulphides inseawater supress methanogenesis (Poffenbarger et al.,2011)"We have improved the text: estimation of emissions fromcoastal aquaculture ponds (Tier 1) is improved byconsideration of salinity of the water as sulphides inseawater supress methanogenesis (Poffenbarger et al.,2011)

Accepted

Hilary Kennedy

How does the equation for ebullition fluxes take into account episodic bubbling events
linked to changes in atmospheric pressure? The subscript for pcAlittoral implies that thisPaul Glaser
factor is limited to the littoral zone, whereas the definition assumes it is averaged over theentire reservoir surface.

Author's Note

Noted

Episodic events are integrated in the whole data set to theextent represented by observations but not considered
specifically. As described in the text the representativity is apart of the uncertainty. Ebullition is averaged over the wholearea and the pcAlittoral part in the relationship indicatesthat the area of shallow water is positively related with thewhole system average ebullition.

Accepted

Equation coefficient corrected.
G-res is just a name of the model used (stands for GHG
Reservoir Tool) and has no specific meaning. The name isneeded for the method descriptions. The units in thesubtitles have been changed.
Unit corrected.
Tfactor is a temperature factor (in C) that corrects for the
non-linearity in the temperature response of CH4 emission.
The Tfactor value is estimated for each reservoir andtherefore no single numerical value can be reported.

Accepted

1103

Steen Gyldenkærne
In the the above equations please change from upper case letters to small letters "M-2" to"m-2" etc.
Is the supposed to be a ?
Hilary Kennedy

1103

1103

What is Temperature factor (Tfactor)? What is the numerical value of Tfactor?

Elizabeth Sikar

Noted

7

1107

1107

Elizabeth Sikar

Accepted

4

7

1108

1109

Carolyn Maxwell

Accepted

8512
8514

4
4

7
7

1108
1115

1109
1115

(0-30 cm depth) rather than (0-30 cm)
I do not understand what it means by "Ares is cumulative radiance and reservoir area".
Line 1096 defines Ares as total surface area
definition of Ares needs editing
capacity of >0.1 then units need editing

Hilary Kennedy
Hilary Kennedy

Accepted
Accepted

text corrected
The unit was changed to km3

8516

4

7

1125

1126

Can there be an indication of which IPCC climate zones were combined (omitted) to make
Hilary Kennedy
the 6 zones used in this chapter. I see this is in Table A2, can this be placed earlier

Rejected

we decided to keep the text in the Annex to not make thetext longer

8518

4

7

1134

1152

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Indices corrected and text added after equations A5.

414

4

7

1135

1135

Paul Glaser

Accepted

text added in the last column at Table1

6192
746

4
4

7
7

1137
1145

1137
1151

Carolyn Maxwell
Irineu Bianchini Jr.

Accepted
Accepteddone

Can the terms in A4 and A5 be made consistent with the text and all defined, with units.
Please define the column heading (N rows) at the far right of Table A1. It is not selfexplanatory.
formatting: unneeded carriage return
It is necessary to call Equations A4 and A5 to put them into context.

Noted

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

6194

4

7

1147

1147

6196

4

7

1151

3176

4

7

416

4

748
2630

Response

Author's Note

Does dAge mean change in age of reservoir? Prefer use delta symbol or include explainer Carolyn Maxwell

Accepted

Changed in text

1151

Does dAge mean change in age of reservoir? Prefer use delta symbol or include explainer Carolyn Maxwell

Accepted

Changed in text

1153

1177

Verify bibliographic citation format

7

1154

1154

4
4

7
7

1183
1192

1183
1192

Please change "below" to "downgradient" to avoid ambiguity. Interpreted literally thefeature "below" a reservoir is the underlying rock or sediment, which can also be a local
source of methane.
Table A3 not A5.
Table A2. Please move the lines "Polar" above "Boreal"

3178

4

7

1238

1251

Verify bibliographic citation format

750

4

7

1253

1253

752

4

7

1255

1255

3180

4

7

1265

1292

Verify bibliographic citation format

Accepted with M

Accepted
Rejected
Accepted

It is necessary to further specify the references: IPCC 2006 and FAO 2017 (they are notincluded in the list of references).
Please make sure this is the table you want to quote; from what I have seen, Table 2.6
deals with soil organic carbon fuel consumption.

ExpertPoot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted

Paul Glaser

Accepteddone

Irineu Bianchini Jr.
Steen Gyldenkærne
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted
Accepted

OK, fixed, but it is Table A4 instead of A5 (not A3)
Change madeIrineu Bianchini Jr.

Accepted

References updated

Irineu Bianchini Jr.

Noted

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

The reference is correct. Use of Table 2.6 2013 WS for
peatland SOC stock estimation is now better explained

Accepted

754

4

7

1271

1272

This feeling of lack of information (i.e., how individual terrestrial organic carbon pools
contribute to the post-flooding CO2 surge) may be due to the researchers' practice ofseeing the carbon emissions from the results mainly from measures of C-flows and notfrom the results related with plant decomposition (i.e., in this case, the mineralization).
There are many scientific articles related with decay of plant resources in aquatic medium,and under different situations (e.g., anaerobiosis or aerobiosis condition, different
Irineu Bianchini Jr.
temperatures, etc.), that could be assessed to quantify post-flooding CO2 and CH4 surge.
There is sufficient carbon data (at least for large plant formations) to meet Tier 1
application requirements. However, the proposal (G-res) is more linked to the choice of
the IPCC that chose carbon flow determinations methods rather than flow descriptions
through processes that lead to emissions, where emissions are described as a function of
the basic conditioning factors that guide them (e.g., trophic condition, temperature, etc.).

8520
756
8608

4
4
4

7
7
7

1272
1292
1336

1272
1292
1336

yr for y
There is no section 7.3.2 and equation 7.13.
"downstream from the reservoir” instead of “below the reservoir”.

3182

4

7

1339

1340

Verify bibliographic citation format of table A.3

3184

4

7

1341

1342

Verify bibliographic citation format of table A.4

3186

4

7

1371

1387

Verify bibliographic citation format

Hilary Kennedy
Irineu Bianchini Jr.
Elizabeth Sikar
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

776

4

7

1587

1587

Reference needs revision. Radboud University is the publisher, not the name of a book:Kosten S, Weideveld S, Stepina T, Fritz C. 2018. Mid-term report: Monitoring Greenhouse
Sarian Kosten
gas emissions from ditches in the Netherlands. Nijmegen: Institute for Water and Wetland
Research - Radboud University.

4138

4

8

98

98

Some words are missing "from such as Nowak etc"

3188

4

8

98

100

Verify bibliographic citation format

3190

4

8

106

113

Verify bibliographic citation format

Andrea TILCHE
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted

The use of SOC stocks as a proxy for all five C pools has
been better explained

Yes, the text refers to section 7.3.2 - not section A7.3.2
Done

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

Accepted
Accepted with
Modification

Editorial; Text has been revised.

Accepted

Editorial - TSU

Accepted

Editorial - TSU

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

It is recommended that IPCC provides more guidance on how to account for urban forest,
such as trees and parks in urban areas mangrove on coast lines etc. Urban forestry is a
MINGMING WANG
popular climate action and has considerable roles to play in reducing GHG emissions
which should be better quantified with better guidance from IPCC.

8868

4

8

106

114

4140

4

8

119

119

4142

4

8

129

129

I think that the guidance should be clearer i.e. equation 2.7 is found in chapter 2 of thisvolume or volume 4.
There should be a full stop before countries

3192

4

8

161

162

Verify bibliographic citation format of table 8.1

4146

4

8

162

162

Table 8.2 - there is no explanation why there are no standard deviation values fortemperate broad species class.

3194

4

8

162

163

Verify bibliographic citation format of table 8.2

3196

4

8

178

179

Verify bibliographic citation format

3198

4

8

196

199

Verify bibliographic citation format

ExpertAndrea TILCHE

Accepted

Andrea TILCHE
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted
Accepted

Editorial - TSU

Accepted with
Modification

It was not possible to access the data for temperate (broad
species) as per Novak personal communication after
contacting him. It was therefore decided to delete the datafrom the table.

Accepted

Editorial - TSU

Accepted

Editorial - TSU

Accepted

Editorial - TSU

Accepted with
Modification

General guidance from Chapter 2 is referenced in the text in
relation to the equation to apply for estimating the carbon
stock changes for land converted to settlement. References
to other land use Chapters are included in the text in
relation to the default carbon factors to apply according to
the different Tiers. A superscript has been added in
Updated-Table 8.4 referencing to a footnote explaining thatthe land use categories listed in the above-mentioned table
are the most commonly converted to settlements; for theremaining land-use categories refer to the relevant chaptersin Volume 4.

Accepted

Editorial - TSU

Accepted with
Modification

The word "account" has been deleted.

Noted

No action can be taken because comment is out of scopeof 2019 Refinement

Andrea TILCHE
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

8866

4

8

207

207

3200

4

8

263

264

Verify bibliographic citation format of table 8.4

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

4144

4

8

276

276

I do not understand the use of the word "account"

Andrea TILCHE

49general

3598
8000

4
4

10
10

26
27

26
27

4254

4

10

64

95

4256
4258

4
4

10
10

100
142

139
197

7800

4

10

145

194

Author's Note
Text has been revised to include "In the case of parks andurban trees, estimation methods are provided below. For
settlement areas stocked with trees with forest-like
conditions, refer to the estimation methods in the Forest
Land Chapters (4)."Reference to specific location in Volume 4, Chapter 2 hasbeen added to the text.
Editorial

Land Converted to Settlements section seems poorly defined compared to other sections.
MINGMING WANG
This emission source can be considerable due to the increasing urbanisation andexpansion of cities, and therefore it is recommended to be refined.

8870

Response

There is still little guidance on how to account for the large carbon fluxes associated withunmanaged or "wild" lands that nevertheless have an anthropogenic influence, e.g.
MINGMING WANG
methane release from permafrost, emissions from tropical forests due to changing
temperatures/ rainfall, and the carbon stored and sequestered in coastal ecosystems or socalled "blue carbon".
Adrian Liep: The correct name is Adrian LEIP.
Hans-Dieter Haenel
Rolando Barahona Rosales is the right spelling of the author
Francisco Avina
In the content table, second order titles are sometimes in capitals and sometimes not.
Andrea TILCHE
Consistency needed.
Replace 'TABLE' and 'table' by 'Table' in titles
Andrea TILCHE
Consistency needed in titles; replace 'equation' by 'Equation'
Andrea TILCHE
All equations should be capitalized, including lettering, and spaces removed (for example,
Cortney Itlechange "equation" to "Equation" and "10. 22a" to "10.22A")

Accepted with
Modification

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

2320

10

4

From line

220

To lineComment

220

Section 10.1 Introduction - It would be really helpful for compilers to refer to the E-learning
course which has been specifically developed by FAO to support developing countries in
the preparation of the national GHG inventory for the agriculture sector. Many of the leadauthors and IPCC itself have been involved in the review of the e-learning. Key issues - it Rocio Danica Condor
is free access available course to guide compilers that need to star compiling a tier 1 GHG Golec
inventory with 2006 IPCC GL, in two languages and provides with a series of exercises to
let users apply knowledge and inform on the methodological improvements between the
different versions of the IPCC Guidelines.
Bamikolé Jacques
Kouazounde

Accepted

francesco nicolatubiello

Accepted with
Modification

8432

4

10

263

268

This section defines Livestock species and categories. But, the difference between
livestock species and livestock categories is not clear

924

4

10

270

270

Kindly identify the FAO data as the FAOSTAT Production database(http://www.fao.org/faostat )274

Accepted with
Modification

A brief guidance has been provided

274

A suggestion could be made to communicate/share this documentation with the national
statistical agency and/or the other sources from which the data was obtained. For national
statistical agencies to be better aware of the needs of inventory compilers it would be very
useful to receive this type of information and, if not yet in place, explore if this can be partof a more official feedback mechanism. Background: a main outcome of the work by theJessica Chan
Conference of European Statisticians on climate change-related statistics is therecommendation for national statistical agencies and agencies responsible for inventory
compilation to work more closely together to ensure that official statistics better meet theneeds of this specific community, see
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/publications/2014/CES_CC_Recommendations.pdf

Accepted with
Modification

See response to comment 924.

4434

4

10

272

274

4

10

272

In line 265 we have replaced "categories" by "species". In
the next sentence we added "for each species" after theword "categories"
We have provided a brief summary of potentially valuable
sites for activity data, explanations related to the collectionof activity data and for explanations to application of theguidelines in the livestock characterisation section.

A suggestion could be made to communicate/share this documentation with the national
statistical agency and/or the other sources from which the data was obtained. For national
statistical agencies to be better aware of the needs of inventory compilers it would be very
useful to receive this type of information and, if not yet in place, explore if this can be partof a more official feedback mechanism. Background: a main outcome of the work by the
Andrea TILCHE
Conference of European Statisticians on climate change-related statistics is therecommendation for national statistical agencies and agencies responsible for inventory
compilation to work more closely together to ensure that official statistics better meet theneeds of this specific community, see
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/publications/2014/CES_CC_Recommendation
s.pdf

270

1934

See response to comment 924.

Clarification text has been added

270

272

Accepted with
Modification

Accepted

10

10

Author's Note

See response to comment 924.

4

4General comment related to the above. Considering that, throughout Vol 4, FAOSTAT andother FAO statistics are regularly mentioned as a useful alternative to activity data whennational information is missing, it may help to insert a Table summarizing all the available
FAOSTA and other FAO data sources. To this end, kindly consider the IPCC (2015) reportfrancesco nicola(https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/mtdocs/pdfiles/1411_FAO-IPCCtubielloIFAD_Rome_AFOLU.pdf ), which identifies exactly that list in support of National Inventory
compilation. It may likewise be useful to mention that in particular, FAOSTAT and FRA
statistics are collected from member countries, as part of the official international reporting
process from countries to FAO.
The text mentions the importance of documenting any adjustments to the original form ofhet population data. The transformation to arrive at annual average populations are
Andrea TILCHE
discussed at some length, but other transformations (for example adjustments to matchthe subcategories used in the inventory compilation) are not mentioned.

Response

Accepted with
Modification

926

4436

ExpertCommenVolume
t ID

2198

4

Chapter

10

From line

272

To lineComment

274

A suggestion could be made to communicate/share this documentation with the national
statistical agency and/or the other sources from which the data was obtained. For national
statistical agencies to be better aware of the needs of inventory compilers it would be very
useful to receive this type of information and, if not yet in place, explore if this can be partof a more official feedback mechanism. Background: a main outcome of the work by the
Julian Chow
Conference of European Statisticians on climate change-related statistics is therecommendation for national statistical agencies and agencies responsible for inventory
compilation to work more closely together to ensure that official statistics better meet theneeds of this specific community, see
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/publications/2014/CES_CC_Recommendation
s.pdf

2062

4

10

301

306

1158

4

10

305

305

4260

4

10

307

310

8872

4

10

311

311

ExpertI would suggest replacing the two sentences that begin at line 302 with the following text
"The definition of livestock categories should aim to create representative productivity
classes. In most situations, it will be adequate to define livestock categories thatdifferentiate between livestock species and production objectives (e.g. milk, meat, eggs).
However, in some countries, low and high productivity systems may be clearly identified
Nicholas Hutchings
within one or more of these categories.". This would make the section more generally
applicable, since it would then describe the principles that should determine the definitionof appropriate livestock categories. It would also remove the need to refer to a "Tier B"
methodology, since it would be good inventory practice to use livestock categories thatallow an accurate representation of the livestock population. Finally, it would avoid having
a Tier 1B methodology but no explicitly named Tier 1A methodology.
francesco nicola
Please refer to a Tier as an ''approach'' or a ''method'' for instance, not as a ''system.''tubiello
This paragraph is confusing, needs rephrasing
Andrea TILCHE
More types of Livestock Productivity Classes (High or Low Productivity Systems) add new
MINGMING WANG
burden for countries/cities as they are unlikely to have such data. It'd be helpful to also
provide the default data for each region or country if local data is not available.

4282

4

10

311

363

8434

4

10

312

346

930

4

10

315

315

4186
4262

4
4

10
10

320
320

320
320

The distinction between developing and developed systems is appreciated but it is not offrancesco nicola
generic application. Low productivity may as well apply to a range of ''organic'' farming
tubiello
systems in place in many developed countries.
This section on the classification of high and low productivity systems could be benefited
from some quantitative indications, maybe ranges of animal herd numbers which could beconsidered as 'large scale' or 'small scale'. Maybe a clear statement of what differentiates Andrea TILCHE
a Tier 1, Tier 1B (which is also somehow enhanced characterisation of population) andTier 2This section is related to cattle. But on line 328, it said that Dairy buffalo may be
Bamikolé Jacques
categorized in a similar manner to dairy cows. I suggest to create a section for buffalo or
Kouazounde
move this sentence after 346.
Kindly edit this sentence as follows: ''This definition corresponds to the FAO dairy cow
francesco nicola
population in livestock statistics (http://www.fao.org/fiesta).’’tubiello
Change "and either be" to ", either"
Andrea TILCHE
Replace ';' by '.' after 'export. Replace 'either' by 'can'.
Andrea TILCHE

4264

4

10

322

322

Add 'farms' after '(herd size)'

Andrea TILCHE

4266

4

10

323

323

Remove final 's' from 'represents'

Andrea TILCHE

4268

4

10

324

327

Too long sentence that becomes unclear; needs rephrasing

Andrea TILCHE

1160

4

10

311

311

Response

Author's Note

Noted

See response to comment 924.

Accepted with
Modification

The authors have not used this exact text, but appreciate
the reviewers contribution which has been taken into
consideration in refining the text of the section. The authors
accept to maintain Tier 1 as it was in the 2006 Guidelines
but add an option (Tier 1a), when data are available, inorder to give countries the option to consider productivity
classes and better track transitions and changes of theiragricultural systems and associated emissions.   

Accepted
Accepted

Paragraph was rephrased

Rejected

The authors understand the reviewers concerns but
respectfully disagree as there has been no change to therequirements of countries to report under a Tier 1 approach.
The presence of T1 and T1a simply increase the options forcounties that don t have country specific EFs

Accepted

Accepted with
Modification

Definitions have been further refined and specifics havebeen added to the Tier 1 Emission Factor Tables. The
method is considered an advanced Tier 1 as it is region
specific and not country-specific.

Accepted with
Modification

The reference to dairy buffaloes has been moved to thebeginning of dairy cattle section.

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification

The reference to the website is not included as establishedby the TSU

Refences to size and scale were eliminated
The text of the definitions was changed.
The text of the definitions was changed.

CommenVolume
t ID
2498
4
4270
4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

10
10

325
329

355
329

Mingshan Su
Andrea TILCHE

Noted
Accepted

Was transferred to the soils group.
The text of the definitions was changed.

Rocio Danica Condor
Golec

Accepted with
Modification

The link to the website was not included as this are theeditorial specifications for this refinement work.

francesco nicolatubiello

Accepted with
Modification

See response to comment 924.

Andrea TILCHE

Noted

The text was modified

Andrea TILCHE
Andrea TILCHE

Accepted
Accepted

2322

4

10

330

331

932

4

10

330

331

4272

4

10

333

334

4274
4276

4
4

10
10

339
341

339
341

please check the units of variables in the formula
Replace 'an' by 'the' after 'estimating'
Please reformulate this in order to be consistent with Volume 1 Chapter 2: "Countryspecific data sources are preferred, but FAO data may also be used.". Proposal: Countryspecific data sources from official national statistics are preferred, in case there is noavailable data, an international source can be used (e.g. FAO). Please add footnote withlink to FAOSTAT
Please see comment to page 270 above. Kindly edit throughout this chapter to ensure
consistency of the message across different parts of this chapter, about ''the possibility to
use FAOSTAT statistics (http://www.fao.org/faostat) as an alternative source of activity
data when national statistics are missing.''Move 'The dairy cow category…. as other cattle' to line 315, where dairy cow category isdefinedReplace 'either' by 'can'
Add 'systems' after 'feedlot'

4278

4

10

342

342

Add 'farms and' after '(herd size)'

Andrea TILCHE

Rejected

4280

4

10

343

343

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

652

4

10

365

365

Remove final 's' from 'represents'
What is Crop (T) for e.g. silage which is cut a few times a year, is it total crop or averagecrop per cut?

Sanna Pitkänen

Noted

Belongs to another chapter.

394

Please consider adding a suggestion here for inventory compilers to follow as closely as
possible the livestock subcategories used in agricultural statistics. Currently different
livestock subcategories seem to be used by the two communities of inventory compilers
and agricultural statisticians. Bridging tables linking the different classifications ofsubcategories (if differences cannot be eliminated) would be helpful for compilation andvalidation practices by both communities, but this would require different classifications ofsubcategories to be compatible at least. Consistency needs to be ensured between
different data flows and indicator calculations in order to achieve a consistent livestock
Andrea TILCHE
population characterisation. It would also increase the efficiency of compilation andvalidation of data on livestock. Background: the need for harmonisation of agricultural
input data, among which predominantly livestock data, was signalled at a workshop
bringing together EU inventory compilers and EU agricultural statisticians to explore datasynergies in November 2017. See especially the report(http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2393397/8628078/Final+Workshop+report++CLIMA+WG+1+-+ESTAT+WG+AES.pdf/487d5e1c-fcda-4c56-b022-3fba867e24f5) andfor more background the presentations (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/agrienvironmental-indicators/more-information).

Rejected

Out of the scope of this refinement process - nonethelesspartially addressed in response to comment 924

394

Please consider adding a suggestion here for inventory compilers to follow as closely as
possible the livestock subcategories used in agricultural statistics. Currently different
livestock subcategories seem to be used by the two communities of inventory compilers
and agricultural statisticians. Bridging tables linking the different classifications ofsubcategories (if differences cannot be eliminated) would be helpful for compilation andJessica Chanvalidation practices by both communities, but this would require different classifications ofsubcategories to be compatible at least. Consistency needs to be ensured between
different data flows and indicator calculations in order to achieve a consistent livestock
population characterisation. It would also increase the efficiency of compilation andvalidation of data on livestock.

Rejected

Out of the scope for the 2019 refinement- nonethelesspartially addressed in response to comment 924

4438

1936

4

4

10

10

377

377

The text of the definition has changed and no references tofarms or scales are included.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

2200

4

10

377

394

3202

4

10

402

417

4284

4

10

415

415

From line

To line

4286

4

10

416

416

8620

4

10

436

444

8622

4

10

451

456

8624

4

10

471

473

8626

4

10

471

473

634

4

10

477

477

4288

4

10

484

484

8436

4

10

497

497

2064

4

10

500

502

4290
4292

4
4

10
10

502
514

502
514

4294

4

10

514

521

Comment

ExpertPlease consider adding a suggestion here for inventory compilers to follow as closely as
possible the livestock subcategories used in agricultural statistics. Currently different
livestock subcategories seem to be used by the two communities of inventory compilers
and agricultural statisticians. Bridging tables linking the different classifications ofsubcategories (if differences cannot be eliminated) would be helpful for compilation andJulian Chowvalidation practices by both communities, but this would require different classifications ofsubcategories to be compatible at least. Consistency needs to be ensured between
different data flows and indicator calculations in order to achieve a consistent livestock
population characterisation. It would also increase the efficiency of compilation andvalidation of data on livestock.
Poot-Delgado Carlos
It is suggested the use of the initial letter in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm
Antonio
Remove '; and'
Andrea TILCHE
Specify what 'DC' stands for and the difference between DE (term that parties are familiar
Andrea TILCHEwith) and DC
Please emphasize that slaughtering weights can be utilized in live weight estimations if
slaughtering ages and growth curves are also available.
Please add a sentence emphasizing that mature weights of bulls are 1.5 times higher as
cows in the same genotype. A reference for this: Table 9, p.1443, in Doren, P.E., Baker,
J.F., Long, C.R. and Cartwright, T.C. 1989. Estimating parameters of growth curves ofbulls. Journal of Animal Science. 67: 1432–1445.
Johnson (1986) is missing in the references.
Please specify the temperature range intended, i.e. starting from what temperature therelationship described in Equation 10.2. is applicable? How could one access thereference behind this relationship? Via IPCC archives? How about countries with coolsummers? Or should this be used when animals have an outdoor shelter as well?
Equation 10.2 COEFFICIENT FOR CALCULATING NET ENERGY FOR
MAINTENANCE.: It is unclear how this formula should be used in practice. Does thismean that whenever temperature is below 20 this formula should be used? What aboutcountries that have even cool summers? Please also clarify if this formula needs to be
used for animals that have some kind of shelter when they are outside.

Response

Author's Note

Rejected

Out of the scope of this refinement process - nonethelesspartially addressed in response to comment 924

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

There are arguments to use DC as Digestibility coefficient,to avoid confusion with the term digestible energy but theauthors understand that compilers are used to the notation
DE.
There is already a description of the use of slaughter
weights in the text.

Jouni Nousiainen

Rejected

Jouni Nousiainen

Accepted

Jouni Nousiainen

Accepted

Should be added to the reference list.

Jouni Nousiainen

Rejected

No action can be taken because comment is out of scopeof 2019 Refinement.

Sanna Pitkänen

Accepted

Out of the scope of this refinement process.

Remove 'a' before 'greater'

Andrea TILCHE

Rejected

What about growing females that give birth in a year?

Bamikolé Jacques
Kouazounde

Accepted

My understanding is that the rumen function (and therefore enteric methane emissions)develops at a rate that is dependent on the contribution of solid (non-suckled milk) feed tothe diet. Since Calves pre-weaning is a livestock subcategory, it will in any case be
Nicholas Hutchings
necessary for a country to determine a. the weaning age and b. the diet composition preweaning. It would be more helpful to have a title 'Solid feeding of pre-weaned calves' andthen some guidance on how to handle the transition to full rumen function.
Remove one 'l' from 'typical'
Andrea TILCHE
Add 'of' between 'digestibility' and 'feed'
Andrea TILCHE
The paragraph states that lower digestibility leads to lower feed intake; intuitively, one
would think that lower digestibility would lead to higher feed intake to obtain the energy
Andrea TILCHE
requirements. Maybe some further explanation of the mechanism and/or some references
would help to understand the reasoning in this paragraphAccepted

No action can be taken because comment is out of scopeof 2019 Refinement.
We have deleted the reference to only mature to include
also growing females

Paragraph was amended

Accepted
Accepted
Rejected

The fact is that low digestibility reduces consumption
compared to diets of high digestibility as low digestibility
reduces the velocity of passage through the rumen.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

2324

4

10

546

546

5006

4

10

550

550

2110

4

10

570

580

4188

4

10

608

609

650

4

10

621

621

8628

4

10

637

649

8630

4

10

637

649

6094

4

10

702

705

4296

4

10

704

5018

4

10 Annex 10725

805

5020

4

10 Annex 10752

768

4298

4

10

757

8438

4

10

759

761

What about growing females that give birth in a year?

4300

4

10

827

827

4190

4

10

829

4192
4194

4
4

10
10

4196

4

10

2326

4

10

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

Rocio Danica Condor
Golec

Accepted

A sentence for clarification has been added.

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

Shanshan Yang

Rejected

Andrea TILCHE

Rejected

Sanna Pitkänen

Rejected

Jouni Nousiainen

Rejected

Calculation examples for a bull and a heifer would be useful.

Jouni Nousiainen

Rejected

In Equation 10.10 shouldn't the denominator be the number of days between birth andweaning rather than 365?

Donna Giltrap

Rejected

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

Claus Rösemann

Noted

TABLE 10.2 - Cattle and other ruminants. For transparency, it would be really helpful forcompilers to get some more information on why values (Feedlot animals fed with > 85%
concentrate or high-grain diet; Pasture / mixed-diet fed animals) are different from thosereported in Table 10.2 from 2006 IPCC GL as explanation has been provided for poultry.
a part of the sentence is missing (compared to IPCC 2006):…are used to estimate feedintake-", which is"- the amount of energy..."Please complete the units for the Equation
It is mentioned that Cfi can be increased by 15% for intact males. It would be good withguidelines on when this should be done.
FracLeach is mentioned to be 0.32 but in table 11.3 it is 0.236.
Does the Equation 10.6. mean that different mature weight values will be used forfemales, castrates and bulls - in addition to the difference created by the coefficientdiffering from 1 for these cattle subgroups? This is an important issue because of thegreat difference in mature weights between sexes.

Close brackets in the equation title
As far as I can see this is a derivation of an EF only for adult female milk-goats. What iswith all the young and growing goats? They probably have a much lower EF and areincluded in total goat numbers from statistics. So this EF would overestimate goatemissions...

Table numbers and cited values in the text do (often) not correspond with the values in theClaus Rösemanntables (Table 10.B2-17 (text) = Table 10B2-1?)

Accepted

Correct brackets in the footnote of the table: 'AFRC (1993)' instead of '(AFRC 1993)'

Accepted

Insert 'and' before 'either'

Andrea TILCHE
Bamikolé Jacques
Kouazounde
Andrea TILCHE

829

Nema should be Nemf

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

830
856

830
856

Table 10.9 should be 10.8B
Table 10.9 should be 10.8B

Andrea TILCHE
Andrea TILCHE

Accepted
Accepted902

903

It would be good with guidelines when the simplified method should be used for checking
Andrea TILCHE
or when it is an alternative method974

It would be helpful to clarify which is the difference between "Tier 1a A simplified approachthat relies on default emission factors either drawn from the literature or calculated using
the more detailed Tier 2 methodology"(par. 960-961) and "Tier 2 A more complex
approach that requires detailed country-specific data on gross energy intake and methane Rocio Danica Condor
conversion factors for specific livestock categories" (par. 972-973) . Why in Tier 1 there is Golec
reference to tier 2?. This was also an issue in 2006 IPCC GL. In addition, can Tier 1b beclarified - what is something intermediate as an approach. It can help to provide any
example.

959

Rejected
Accepted

The units are all there.
No action can be taken because comment is out of scopeof 2019 Refinement.
Transferred to soils chapter
No action can be taken because comment is out of scopeof 2019 Refinement.
No action can be taken because comment is out of scopeof 2019 Refinement.
This equation is carried forward from 2006 guidelines so it
is outside the scope of our mandate. No action can betaken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement.

Will be taken into consideration in producing the final draft.

No action can be taken because comment is out of scopeof 2019 Refinement.
The authors also found and corrected the same error in thefootnote to table 10.8B

Accepted with
Modification

Some additional clarification has been added to identify thatthe complete tier 2 is the preferred method, and thesimplified Tier 2 should mainly be used as a verification

Accepted with
Modification

Definitions/References of Tier 1a and Tier 1b methods has
been revised. The values of EF for cattle and buffaloes
were calculated based on the equations provided under tier2 approach within 2006/2019 GL. However, EF values ofother livestock categories were taken from literature..

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

7976

4

10

991

1276

7796

4

10

1003

1003

7798

4

10

1004

1004

3600

4

10

1006

1027

5008

4

10

1009

1009

5010

4

10

From line

1011

To line

1011

2066

4

10

1023

1099

3602

4

10

1039

1040

3604

4

10

1039

1040

3606

4

10

1039

1040

3608

4

10

1039

1040

3610

4

10

1039

1040

5012

4

10

1039

1040

5014

4

10

1039

1040

5016

4

10

1039

1040

5022

4

10

1042

1043

5024

4

10

1050

1050

5026

4

10

1069

1069

Comment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

Francisco Avina

Noted

Refers to "Annex 10A.1a", but there is no Annex 10.A.1a. Should be "Annex 10A.1"
Refers to "Table 10A.1b at the end of this section" but there is no table 10A.1b.Assuming
this was intended to be "Annex 10B.1"?
Formatting of foot note is incorrect with the "a" at the beginning of the foot note text.
not only the emission factors for sheep and swine vary for low and high productivity
systems, the Efs for horses and goats too.

Cortney Itle

Accepted

The values have been examined. However, the EFs for
cattle/buffaloes produced within 2019GL were maintained
as the EF values were calculated based on an extensive
data review by the IPCC expert panel. The results of thisanalysis suggesting a general increase in emission factors
is consistent with Wolf et al. (2017).
The references have been revised.

Cortney Itle

Accepted

The references have been revised and corrected

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

has been corrected

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

Only swine, sheep and goats vary by productivity system

In Annex 10A.1 I can find no information explaining the Efs of Table 10.10

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

The reference to Annex table has been removed. As theannex reports information/data related to supplemental
information developed for Cattle and Buffaloes

Accepted with
Modification

The table 10.11A and Table 10.11B were combined and all
Values related to low- and high-productivity systems werereported in one single table 10.11

Accepted with
Modification

A reference for the updated value was added (derived from
Swainson et al 2016).

Rejected

The 2006 GL for Sheep High Productivity Systems was 8,
not 5. this was addressed in comment 3602.

Accepted

The values of the 2006 IPCC GL was reported in the table

Accepted

The values of the 2006 IPCC GL was reported in the table

Accepted
Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification

The correction has been madeA reference for the updated value was added (derived from
Swainson et al 2016).
The values on EFs reported in 2006GL presented in table
10.10, no changes/recalculations were made in 2019GL

Accepted

the reference to the footnote 2 was provided in the table

Accepted

The correction has been madeI suggest to check Wolf 2017. Revised methane emissions factors for livestock. I could
not upload the paper. DOI 10.1186/s13021-017-0084-y

The separation of Tier 1 into an A and B form, with separate versions of Table 10.11, is aretrograde step as it reduces clarity in an already complex chapter. It should not be
Nicholas Hutchings
beyond the wit of man to incorporate the low/high productivity emission factors into theTier 1 emission factor table.
Why change the EF for sheep in high productivity systems from 8 in IPCC (2006) to 9 kg
CH4 head-1 yr-1 in SOD? The reference quoted in both cases is Crutzen et al. (1986),
where Table 1 clearly says 8 for developed countries (which in this context is the same as Hans-Dieter Haenel"high productive systems")! So go back to original value of Crutzen et al (1986) or give
another reference!
Why change the EF for sheep in high productivity systems from 5 in IPCC (2006) to 9 kg
CH4 head-1 yr-1 in SOD? The reference quoted in both cases is Crutzen et al. (1986),
Hans-Dieter Haenel
where Table 1 clearly says 5! So go back to original value of Crutzen et al (1986) or give
another reference!
The EF provided for horses in high productivity systems is 18 kg CH4 head-1 yr-1, whichis in accordance with the reference quoted (Crutzen et al., 1986). However, Crutzen et al.
give this number for a horse of 550 kg (see pg. 276 in Crutzen et al. 1986). This horse
Hans-Dieter Haenel
weight was also given in IPCC (2006). Why simply change the horse weight from those
550 kg to 377 kg in the SOD without adjusting the EF? Conclusion: Animal weight and EF
are not consistent. So go back to the data set provided in Crutzen et al (1986), i.e. 18/550
or provided another reference!
Given the errors and inconsistencies found in Table 10.10 for sheep, goats and horses,
Hans-Dieter Haenel
the numbers given in that table for the other animal categories should be checked
carefully for possible inconsistences with the references quoted!
Footnote 2: What does this footnote refer to?
Hans-Dieter Haenel
Why did the Sheep EF for high productivity systems changed from 8 to 9? I can't see that
Claus Rösemannthe source (Crutzen et al. 1986) has changed.
Horse EF for high productivity Systems was kept (18) but Liveweight was strongly reduced
Claus Rösemannfrom 550 kg to 377 kg. Why? No Information in Annex 10A.1.
Table footnotes 1 and 2: The number 1 is two times in the table (heading and other (e.g.,
Claus Rösemannbison), number 2 I can't find in the table.
The link to the Equations (10.21, 20.22. and 10.23) is wrong as the equation numbers
Claus Rösemannhave changed.
I think for the EF(T) (EFT in equation 10.19A) the values from Table 10.10 are also
Claus Rösemannpermitted, not only the cattle values from Table 10.11A as indicated here
I think for the EF(T) (EFT in equation 10.19A) the values from Table 10.10 are also
Claus Rösemannpermitted, not only the cattle values from Table 10.11B as indicated here

Accepted
Accepted

The link to the table(s) has been removed. The 2006 IPCC
GL didn't present any reference to the table either
The link to the table(s) has been removed. The 2006 IPCC
GL didn't present any reference to the table either

CommenVolume
t ID

2576

2578

2328

1168

4

4

4

4

Chapter

10

10

10

10

From line

1092

1092

1092

1092

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

1092

Table 10.11 A
This is a general problem with Ym for high yielding dairy cattle which has to be corrected
where needed. The Ym in Table 10.12 for high producing cows (>8500 kg) is wrong.
Therefore the default value for Dairy cattle for North America need to be corrected. Seelines below.

Steen Gyldenkærne

Accepted with
Modification

See response to comment 2580, the value 5.7 isconsidered to be representative of the methane conversion
rates for North America and the value of 135 is consistent
with measurements from the summary paper consulted.
Changes to the emission factor have been applied, but notdue to the Ym, instead they are due to the lack ofconsideration of the dry period in the calculation and arevision to the body weight to bring them more in line withliterature values and those reported in the US and Canada
NIRs.

1092

Table 10.11 A
I don't know where you have the milk statistics for dairy cattle from or what it means.
Definitely it has to be production and not delivered to dairies. The division into regions isalways a problem. When downloading European data for 2016 from EUROSTATSteen Gyldenkærne
(http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database) you will get an average milk production for
EU28 on 7000 litter, for EU15 Western Europe 7500 litter, for Eastern Europe (EU13) you
get a production of 5800 litter, for the Balkan only you get af production of 3.500 kg.
Maybe a further update is needed. Also for other regions

Accepted with
Modification

The values on milk yield have been examined and updated,the values of EUROSTAT (weighted average for 15EU
countries for 2010-2016) have been used1092

In 2006 IPCC GL, EF for buffalo of 300 kg was 55 KG CH4 HEAD-1 YR-1 (Table 10.10).
Now with 2019 IPCC information of EF with tier 2 approach has been provided for buffalo
in Table 10.11. In particular, for western Europe buffalo has a value of 82 KG CH4 HEAD1 YR-1. An example and verification of this values is available for Mediterranean buffalo
Rocio Danica Condor
which in the National Inventory Report from Italy in 2018
Golec
(https://unfccc.int/documents/65681) following tier 2 approach reported in
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731108002292. In the notes: "Includes mature females,mature males, growing animals and calves". - It would be helpful to specify that also
milking buffaloes are included as specify also for dairy cattle - it is an mean average of thedifferent species including those milking ones.

Accepted with
Modification

A footnote has been added to Table 10.11. The footnote
specifies which sub-categories are considered under
Buffalo livestock category and which EFs correspond toeach subcategory

1092

Comparing EF values against their average milk production values, it appears that thevalues listed for ''Tier1a'' are simply a linear interpolation of the high and low productivity
values derived as functions of the milk production. This is true for Latin America and Asia,
francesco nicola
and to a lesser extent for Africa (I did not check others). If this is correct, is there a reason
tubiello
for not doing this more systematically, i.e., indicate the ''Tier 1a'' values always as a proper
linear interpolation of the tier 1b values, instead of proposing values that may be close tothis but not quite?

Noted

A clear definitions have been provided for tier 1a and tier1b. For the reviewer's information, Tier 1 methods have notbeen changed, instead the supplemental method has been
added to provide countries with greater options as a result,from this point, Tier 1 and Tier 1a will be used in 2019refinement. In the case of dairy cow emission factors, milk
production does dominate the calculation of the emission
factor, however all have been derived using the Tier 2parameters outlined in Annex 10A.1 and there arevariations in a variety of different parameters in thecalculations.

Accepted

The data have been examined and updated, the values on
milk yield per cow were taken from EUROSTAT (weighted
average for 15EU countries for 2010-2016) have been used

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted

The citation format has been checked and centralised
according the general rule provided by TSU using endnote
referencing software.

Accepted

The #husbandry# has been removed from the text

3612

4

10

1092

1093

The Tier 1 EF for dairy cows in Western Europe is given as 115 kg CH4 head-1 yr-1. This
seems to be somewhat low, because, according to emission reporting 2018 for 2016, theHans-Dieter Haenel
EFs reported by Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic Denmark, France, Germany,
Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland and United Kingdom range from about 121 to about 146
kg CH4 head-1 yr-1.

3204

4

10

1092

1093

Verify bibliographic citation format of table 10.11A

1162

4

10

1092

1093

Table 10.11A. Repeating the term ''husbandry'' (not defined in these GLs; if needed insert francesco nicola
in glossary) after each animal category is not necessary. Suggest to delete throughout.
tubiello

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

1164

10

1170

2330

1166

4

4

4

4

10

10

10

From line

1092

1092

1096

1097

To lineResponse

Author's Note

Noted

The definition of the FAO was consulted, the definition
given in the 2019GL is consistent with definition of the FAO/ http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/thematicsitemap/theme/spi/scpi-home/managingecosystems/management-of-grasslands-andrangelands/grasslands-what/en/

1098

General comment on the use in this chapter of Tier 1 and Tier 2. How would you call a EF
that has been nationally adjusted to be more relevant to a given country, but still for using francesco nicolatubiello
it within the Tier 1 equations for enteric fermentation? Would not his ne a Tier 2 solution
within the inventory? Than what is your proposed ''Tier 2'' approach?

NotedTier 1 and tier 1a (more advanced tier 1, based on low- andhigh-productivity systems) approaches were established in
2019GL. Averaged regional data were used to estimate
CH4 EFs, VS and NEx by using the equations reported
under tier 2 approach. Tier 2 approach assumes using
country-specific data for the development of the emission
factor, the Tier 1a approach does not use country specificdata for the emission factor development, but uses default
values. More detailed discussion on the difference between
Tier 1 and Tier 2 methods can be found in Volume 1.

1096

TABLE 10.11B - "Emission factors should be derived on the basis of the characteristics ofthe cattle and feed of the animals and compilers should not base their decision of anemission factor entirely on regional characteristics" - It would be really helpful to clarify or
modify this paragraph to help and guide compilers. There has been many cases in which
Rocio Danica Condor
compilers from developing countries does not find themselves with defaults values, if that
Golec
is the case with the values that are propose here. It would be better also to suggest
provide suggestions on how to cope with this problem. For example, one last option could
be to move directly to tier 2 approach in order to capture and better represent the emission
factor with national circumstances.

Accepted with
Modification

A brief guidance has been provided

1098

GENERAL Comment on Ch. 10. I would advise against developing separate Tier 1a andTier 1b approaches, as there is only one Tier 1. What is suggested instead is to keep theoriginal terminology and merge Table 10.11A into 10.11B (and similar operations beyond
cattle). This can be easily done by providing ''Tier 1a'' coefficients alongside those for highfrancesco nicola
and low productive systems, under the column 'productivity system'' and calling it
something like ''default with no differentiation'', ''no differentiation'', ''average'' etc. This can tubiellobe done easily as this is also referred to average milk production. The text throughout Ch.
10 can then be simplified accordingly, avoiding splitting Tier 1 into two, unnecessarily.
Also, splitting Tier 1 into two suggests there is a better and worse Tier 1, which in my viewis unacceptable.

Accepted with
Modification

A revision to the Tier method developed in 2019 refinement
was made. The Tier 1 method remains the same asprevious guidelines and uses the approach to estimate
GHG emissions, which requires only AD and EF. However,
the Tier 1a method - was presented as a supplemental
approach to help countries that have differences in
production systems to represent these systems and create
more accurate estimates and capture change in theirlivestock emission profile over time without moving to a fullTier 2 approach.

1093

Comment
Table 10.11A. Oceania. Footnote 5 on '''rangelands''. Is this definition consistent withthose of FAO (permanent meadows and pastures) and the use of the same term in otherparts of these GLs?

Expertfrancesco nicolatubiello

CommenVolume
t ID

2580

4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

Rejected

As stated in the text surrounding the Table 10.12, it is goodpractice for countries to develop Yms based on theirnational research, as Denmark has done. Inevitablyinteractions between feed, herd characteristics and practice
can have an impact on Ym and truly representative
estimates can only be developed from country specificresearch. The recent study by Cottle and Eckard (2018)
demonstrates that estimated methane conversion rates areassociated with regions. However, it cannot be denied
either, that the methane emission rate decreases withimproved feed quality and the associated increases in
productivity. Both process based models and empiricalregression studies have demonstrated these trends. Table
10.12 is intended to capture this trend and provide bounds
around the productivity/feed quality and methane
conversion relationship. The values put in the Table arebased on consultation of the three synthesis papers cited in
the Table. In the second order draft, the raw data for thesestudies was not reanalysed and decisions values used in
the table were on the information provided in those papers.
The reviewer's comment that the values taken from these
papers contain data biased by methane inhibitor studies is
inaccurate. The values cited from the papers contain thevalues from control experiments only in cases where there
are methane inhibitors. Control studies are considered to be
representative of typical country feeding and breed
characteristics. The three papers, cover a great extent of
the available literature on dairy emissions globally, thoughstudies do overlap. The lowest Ym from these summaries is
the Niu et al study which cited the Ym for the US as 5.4. In
the analysis used to determine the values put in second
order draft, it was considered that the values from theRejected

For sheep, Ym values are based on the dry matter intake
rather than the physiological stage of the animal, as intake
was found to be a stronger determinant. Table 10.13
provides a Ym value for sheep with a daily dry matter intake
of between 0.6 and 0.8 kg DM/day. Lower and higher
values, based on dry matter intakes outside of this range
were noted in the text (see lines 1158 to 1160 in the SOD).  
For cattle data on Ym are reported in Table 10.12, the Yms
are based on diet consumed by animals , indicative
indicators (i.e. quality of diet and DC) are provided for dairy
and non-dairy cattle diets. As it was already noted above,
diets are considered more stronger determinants for Ym
rates than physiological stage of animal.

Accepted

The citation format has been checked and centralised
according the general rule provided by TSU using endnote
referencing software.

Table 10.12 The Ym for high producing dairy cows of 5.7 is an underestimate as generalvalue for Ym for dairy cattle producing >8,500 kg milk. In Denmark we have an average
milk production of 9,300 litter and very good feeding data. Regardless of this, is it very
difficult or even impossible to get a Ym lower than 6.0 based on the feed available. The
Danish data are included in the reference Niu et al. 2018.

10

1121

1122

I don't know where the authors has the Ym of 5.7 and 6.3 from, but if I'm right are theytaken directly from the first reference; Appuhamy et al. 2016, , Table 1. Maybe the authors
has taken the value of 5.7 for North America and the value of 6.3 for Western Europe andincluded these in Table 10.12 without having analysed the data behind the figures. For
Western Europe a value of 6.3 could be fairly OK, but not the value of 5.7. If you dig
further in the references for North America, you will find that most of the used literature aretrials to document measures to decrease the CH4 emission. Of this is fatty acid one way,
however this is not done in practical farming. Also methane inhibitors such as Monensin oreven 3‐nitrooxypropanol which is know to depress the CH4 emission with 50-80% areused in the trials. The mean figures in Appuhamy et al. (2016) is therefore biased andSteen GyldenkærneSHOULD NOT be used as general figures.
Based on the information in Annex B.4 I cannot find the estimated values.
If the authors want to include methanogenic depressors in Table 10.12 it should be in a
separate line. For your information was the use of monensin banned in Europe around1996 and has newer been used in milk production. 3‐nitrooxypropanol has never been
approved.
As it seems that the Ym value of 5.7 has been used in the default value in Table 10.11A
for estimating the value of 135 kg CH4 for a milk production of 10,250 kg, this figure isrecommended to be revaluated. It could be split into with and without methanogenic
depressors with a comment that if a country use these substances they should split thedairy herd into two or more subcategories. I recommend that the authors enter the cited
literature and only use data without increased fat content, monensin and other CH4
depressors to verify the Ym.

624

4

10

1123

1136

3206

4

10

1123

1160

4302

4

10

1126

1128

4304

4

10

1138

1138

Although the milk-feeding lambs and calves have a methane conversion factor of 0 in thedraft，in fact, methane emissions and methane conversion factors in subsequentphysiological stages such as bred and young cattle, fattening sheep, etc. should still beconsidered because of the large animal population base. For example, in the Nordic
region, Jiao et al. (2014a, 2014b) obtained methane emissions and methane conversion
factors for Holstein cattle at 6, 12, 18 and 22 months old under typical local diet conditions Shenghui Han
through a semi-open respiratory calorimetry system. There are also relevant data on thetransformation factors of rumen fermented methane in dairy cows at different physiologicalstages in the typical culture mode in Asia (China). Correspondingly, the methane
conversion factor of different weight (physiological stage) mutton sheep should also be
considered.

Verify bibliographic citation format

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

The paragraph 'Though there is important variability…. to ruminant diets' is confusing andAndrea TILCHE
needs rephrasing
Replace 'studes' by 'studies'
Andrea TILCHE

Accepted
Acceptedcorrected

CommenVolume
t ID
8002
4
8004
4
4198
4
4306
4
4200
4
4308
4
8006
4
4202
4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

1138
1139
1146
1172
1186
1186
1186
1197

1138
1139
1146
1172
1186
1186
1186
1197

studies instead of "studes"interpretations instead of "interpretions"
There are no ranges presented in Table 10.12'Equation 10.24' should be 'equation 10.21A'
Equation 10.25 should be 10.21B'equation 10.25' should be 'equation 10.21b'equation 10.21B instead of "10.25"
Table 10.12 does not seem to be relevant here

Francisco Avina
Francisco Avina
Andrea TILCHE
Andrea TILCHE
Andrea TILCHE
Andrea TILCHE
Francisco Avina
Andrea TILCHE

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Rejectedcorrected
The revision has been madeClaus Rösemann

Rejected

5028

4

10

1205

1206

"the definition of the period… is described in Section 10.2." Section 10.2 is long, I could
not find this definition, please provide a more detailed reference

3208

4

10

1221

1231

Verify bibliographic citation format

7802
4310

4
4

10
10

1225
1229

1227
1229

7804

4

10

1229

1229

This paragraph should not be bulleted
Wrong sentence (need to separate in 2?)"level of feed intake chemical composition of feed;" should be separated into two bullets:"level of feed intake;" and "chemical composition of feed;"

3210

4

10

1233

1276

1172

4

10

1234

1234

4312

4

10

1248

1249

4314

4

10

1265

1265

1174

4

10

1265

1272

5030

4

10

1281

1281

4316
4318

4
4

10
10

1301
1302

1301
1302

Verify bibliographic citation format

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Cortney Itle
Andrea TILCHE

The correction has been madeThe correction has been madeThe correction has been madeThe correction has been madeThe reference provides link to the correct table
Out of scope of the current refinement, the comment refers
to greyed text. No action can be taken because comment isout of scope of 2019 Refinement.

Rejected

No bibliographic citation is provided

Accepted
Accepted

The revision has been madeThe revision has been madeCortney Itle

Accepted

The revision has been madePoot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted

The citation format has been checked and centralised
according the general rule provided by TSU using endnote
referencing software.

Accepted with
Modification

The text has been revised without discussion of theuncertainty as this was misleading.

Accepted

The revision has been provided

Accepted

The revision has been provided

Accepted

The text has been revised

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted
Accepted

The references to the tables and equations were verified
and changed as appropriate.

10% ''error''. How is the understanding of this term supposed to be, considering the
francesco nicola
glossary use of ''uncertainty''? Is this the same concept? Kindly ensure coherency withtubiello
definitions and terminology across the GLs.
Replace 'The Netherlands employ Tier 3 approach using a mechanistic model' by 'A
mechanistic model has been developed in the Netherlands' or something similar; theAndrea TILCHE
methods used by a country in the inventories could change, that is something
circumstantial and not relevant for guidelines which should always be valid
Remove 'currently', it is redundant
Andrea TILCHE
Suggestions on how mitigation measures and their quantifications in inventories appear tobe overly prescriptive, considering that in the end countries will act according to theirfrancesco nicola
national capabilities. Some of this should be provided I SBSTA-type submissions rather
tubiello
than discussed in the GLs. Are the ''should'' in this sentence suppose to indicate ''goodpractice'' or is this only a academic discussion with no direct bearing on the inventoryGLs?
references to tables 10.11, 10.12, 10.13 are not correct any more since the table numbers
Claus Rösemannhave changed compared to the first order draft and IPCC 2006 guidelines
Introduce 'on' after 'based'
Andrea TILCHE
Introduce 'on' after 'based'
Andrea TILCHE

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note
The reviewer is correct to note that methane emissions
factors are based on manure in storage in most cases, theexception being for pit storage, which is in housing.
Emission measurements are typically based on manure in
the storage and combine both volatile solids and bedding,so it is not possible based on current scientific literature to
separate the two emission sources. MCF factors and B0
with the exception of pit storage are based on the material
in the storage where anaerobic conditions are most extreme
and the vast majority of methane would be produced,
therefore while there is still significant uncertainty
associated with methane emission estimates, it is theauthors position that there is not a systematic error or
missed source. Pit storage can be estimated separatelyfrom external storage in the Tier 2 methodology.
Modifications have been made to the text of the discussionof MCF section

3694

4

10

1320

1756

The entire method describes CH4 emissions from storage and does not account for CH4
emissions from housing which should reduce Bo. In addition: VS contained in bedding
material is not considered.

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted with
Modification

4320

4

10

1323

1323

Replace 'In regions, particularly in developing countries production systems….' by 'In
some regions, particularly in developing countries, production systems…'

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

1176

4

10

1329

1329

As suggested for enteric fermentation, this reviewer would prefer a unified Tier 1
approach, with one table within which values are provided for both high and low
productivity systems. This avoids using a term ''average'' in the current ''Tier 1b'' table for
francesco nicola
manure management systems shares, and use it directly as the ''Tier 1a'' value whentubiello
more detailed information is missing. Also as noted elsewhere, kindly ensure that thepercent shares of manure management systems types always add up to exactly 100%, in
order to conserve mass as it flows from total excreted to total treated (including otheruses).

2332

4

10

1329

1342

It would be helpful if it is better specify what is Tier 1A and Tier 1B for manure
Rocio Danica Condor
management in between the paragraphs (1329-1342) and clear specification or difference
Golecwith Tier 2 if applicable.

5034

4

10

1329

1342

I am afraid the new 1A and 1B methodologies are at least Tier 2 methodologies. Tier 1
should be much more simple and should remain "population data * IPCC default EF"

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

Accepted

Accepted with
Modification

Consistent with the enteric fermentation and the nitrous
oxide section of the section of the guidelines, the Tier 1Aand Tier 1B approach has been modified for consistency. In
the Tier 1 of enteric fermentation and nitrous oxide, theTier 1 has been maintained consistent with the 2006
guidelines and a Tier 1A option has been added. In thecase of manure management methane, the Tier 1 method
has been modified to maintain consistency with the Tier 1
method for nitrous oxide. This is to assure that there isconsistency between manure N2O and manure CH4,
whereas in the 2006 guidelines, this was not the case.
Therefore there are changes to the Tier 1 method formanure methane. These points have been clarified in thedescription of changes in the mapping tables and also in
the text of the chapter.

As noted in comment 1176, the Tier 1 method for manuremethane has been modified to maintain consistency with
the Tier 1 method for nitrous oxide. This is to assure that
there is consistency between manure N2O and manure
CH4, whereas in the 2006 guidelines, this was not the case.
Therefore there are changes to the Tier 1 method formanure methane. However, the reviewer's comment isnoted and the choice of emission factors for the Tier 1
method has been reduced significantly, furthermore, theapplication of the method using the Tier 1A and Tier 1B
method has been simplified and better explained such that
there is only one additional equation from the 2006
Guidelines, that required to calculate volatile solids

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

2072

4

10

1333

1333

As far as I can see, the climate zones used in Annex 10A do are not the same as thosereferred to in Figure 3A.5.2 of Chapter 3 (IPCC, 2006) and in Table 10.14 b and C

Nicholas Hutchings

Accepted with
Modification

4204

4

10

1373

1381

Table and equation numbers need update

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

2334

4

10

1391

1391

Rocio Danica Condor
Golec

Accepted

Decision Trees are updated

5032
4322

4
4

10
10

1391
1392

1393
1392

Figure 10. 3 - for consistency it would be really helpful if the decision tree also captures
when to go for a tier1a or tier1b option. Referring also to EQUATION 10. 22A andEQUATION 10. 22B as they providing guidance for tier1a and tier1b, respectively.
in the decision tree Tier 1A and 1B are not addressed
New Tier 1A and Tier 1B do not appear in the figure

Claus RösemannAndrea TILCHE

Accepted
Accepted

4206

4

10

1405

1406

Table and equation numbers need update

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

5036

4

10

1405

1406

I can't find equation 10.23A, there is no Table 10.14 (only 10.14A - 10.14E). Approx. 20
pages of Tables and equations: This is NOT Tier 1!

Claus Rösemann

Rejected

Decision Trees are updated
Decision Trees are updated
The references to the tables and equations were verified
and changed as appropriate.
The references to tables and equations were verified andupdated as appropriate. The Tier 1 methodology for manuremethane has been aligned with the Tier 1 approach formanure management N2O which has not changed from the2006 guidelines. The two methods requires identicalinformation and no additional burden has been added to thecompilers, with the exception that they must align themethane calculations with their current N excretion
approach. Further we have significantly simplified thematerial that is required to implement this approach by
removing many choices of the manure management
systems from the current tables.

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

5038

4

10

1437

1607

I am sorry but I am not able to understand and follow through this tons of tables of this soClaus Rösemanncalled Tier 1 methodology …

Noted

4324

4

10

1448

1448

Tables numbers have to be updated

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

8008
4326
4208
4328

4
4
4
4

10
10
10
10

1448
1455
1457
1461

1448
1455
1457
1461

Francisco Avina
Andrea TILCHE
Andrea TILCHE
Andrea TILCHE

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

3688

4

10

1465

1487

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted with
Modification

3702
4330
4210
8010
4332

4
4
4
4
4

10
10
10
10
10

1468
1472
1473
1476
1478

1469
1472
1473
1476
1478

10.15 to instead "10.15to"
Add 'excretion' after 'volatile solid'
Change "dry matter input" to "dry matter intake"Update Table numbers
Why are there VS equations in a chapter the heading of which is: "Choice of emission
factors" (=Chapter 10.4.2)? In the context of equations 10.22A and 10.22B VS is not anemission factor nor a part of an emission factor.
In Equation 10.22C the variable TAM lacks the subscript (T).
Remove index P from the legend
Table 10.16 should be 10.14A
productivity to instead "productivy"
Remove ':' after 'systems'

Hans-Dieter Haenel
Andrea TILCHE
Andrea TILCHE
Francisco Avina
Andrea TILCHE

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

Author's Note
The reviewer has identified a typographical error in the
Tables as mentioned where the Tropical "Montane"category was missed. This was corrected, the Temperate
category was shortened to Temp due to space in the Table
and a footnote has been added. The Polar regions have not
had MCFs developed as we do not feel that there are
livestock populations in these regions.
The references to the tables and equations were verified
and changed as appropriate.

The Tier 1 methodology for manure methane has beenaligned with the Tier 1 approach for manure management
N2O which has not changed from the 2006 guidelines. The
two methods requires identical information and no
additional burden has been added to the compilers, with the
exception that they must align the methane calculations
with their current N excretion approach. Further we havesignificantly simplified the material that is required to
implement this approach by removing many choices of the
manure management systems from the current tables.
The references to the tables and equations were verified
and changed as appropriate.

Section titles were aligned with N2O sections, as is thecase with N2O excretion VS is a part of the EF calculation as it is integrated into the per head EF calculation.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To line

3704

4

10

1483

1484

4212
8012

4
4

10
10

1491
1494

1491
1494

934

4

10

1494

1494

940

4

10

1494

1494

4334
4336
4338

4
4
4

10
10
10

1495
1501
1507

1495
1501
1507

2068

4

10

1507

1511

4214

4

10

1510

1510

3212

4

10

1511

1511

3614

4

10

1512

1513

1178

4

10

1512

1513

1180

4

10

1527

1528

2336

4

10

1607

1607

4340

4

10

1619

1619

4216

4

10

1620

1623

3616

4

10

1636

1640

640

4

10

1639

1639

Comment

ExpertWhy brackets in Equation 10.22D while there are no brackets in the almost identical
Hans-Dieter Haenel
Equation 10.22C?
Table 10.16 should be 10.14A
Andrea TILCHE
footpage note 4: Organization instead of "Oganization" regarding about FAO
Francisco Avina
Footnote #4. It is unclear whether this is a note to the reviewer of this SOD or a regular
francesco nicolafootnote.
tubiello
Footnote #4. Kindly clarify in what sense the FAO 2017 citation is a database. It rather
appears to refer to the model GLEAM-i, not to a FAO statistical database in the same
francesco nicola
sense as, say, FAOSTAT. If this is a model and not a database, please consider
presenting it in a manner similar to how other models are being proposed in other parts of tubiellothese revised GLs, i.e., as tools for compilers --for instance the model for soil C presented
in Ch. 2.
Full stop needed after 'Guidelines'
Andrea TILCHE
Replace ',' by 'and' before 'swine'
Andrea TILCHE
Replace 'Tables' by 'tables'
Andrea TILCHE
I would expect the main differences between high and low productivity systems to be in VS
excretion and how the manure is managed (solid or liquid). It is possible that thedifferences in feed also result in different emissions per unit mass of VS but no evidence
Nicholas Hutchings
is cited for this. There is also no indication of the method used for estimating the different
emission factors for high and low productivity systems. In the absence of such evidence, I
cannot see that separate emission factors are justifiable.
It is mentioned that virtual all manure from these animals are managed in 'dry' manure
Andrea TILCHE
systems. It is not clear which animals this refers to. Certainly many intensively managed
systems use "wet" manure systems.
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Verify bibliographic citation format
Antonio
The VS excretion for Western Europe is given as 7.2 kg VS (kg animal mass)-1 day-1.
This seems to be somewhat low, because, according to emission reporting 2018 for 2016,
Hans-Dieter Haenel
the respective values reported by Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic Denmark, France,
Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland and United Kingdom average at 8.8 kg VS(kg animal mass)-1 day-1.
Table 10.14A already consolidates into one table both tier 1a and 1b coefficients. Hencefrancesco nicola
there is no reason for talking about Tier 1a and b. Simply call it Tier 1 and refer totubiellocoefficients that can be used depending on data availability.
Table 10.14B. Where are the corresponding coefficients for ''Tier 1a''?. Secondly as afrancesco nicola
curiosity, how is manure treated in the same management system (e.g., uncovered
tubiello
anaerobic lagoon) have a significantly different EF, simply depending on whether the
manure was excreted in low or high productivity systems?
TABLE 10.16A - There are footnotes which have not been DEER, REINDEER, RABBITS
Rocio Danica Condor- a, b and c, respectively. Please specify this :" Source: Calculated based the country
submission of CRF to UNFCCC" - I assume it is only then values that are referring only to Golec
developed countries since CRF is reported only by them. Better to make it clear.
Replace 'regimen' by 'regime'
Andrea TILCHE
Straw can in some cases also contribute VS to these systems. Therefore inventory
compilers should explore this.
Units of EF(T) are incorrect: As the r.h.s. of Eq. 10.23 is multiplied with VS, the l.h.s.
cannot be given in terms of "per mass unit of VS".
Please check Equation 10.23, formula does not give kgCH4/VS - not grams and not per
VSResponse

Author's Note

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

Rejected

The material is data that is used as input in the GLEAM
model, it is not model output, the best source is the model
description that has been developed that describes the
input data and the process of collecting that data.

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

Accepted with
Modification

We have provided a brief explanation of how the values
were derived. It is important for the reviewer to understandthat except in tables that are indicated values were derived
directly from information already contained in the IPCC
2006 guidelines. and as a consequence have simply
changed the unit, but not the actual proposed value.

Accepted

Text has been revised

Accepted

Accepted

The data on milk yield per cow have been revised, it
resulted to increase in VS value for dairy cattle of Western
EuropeAccepted

Accepted

Instructions on the application of emission factors for the
Tier 1 method have been added in the text.

Accepted with
Modification

The tables for minor animals have been revised andcombined.

Accepted

Andrea TILCHE

Rejected

Emission factors are based on measurements of complete
systems including bedding and therefore bedding should
not be included with current emission factors. Countries areencouraged to develop emission factors that separate
bedding and VS.

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

Equation was corrected

Sanna Pitkänen

Accepted

Equation was correctedCommenVolumet ID

Chapter

3618

4

10

1642

1642

4342

4

10

1649

1652

5040

4

10

1666

1666

4344
4346

4
4

10
10

1680
1686

1680
1686

3692

4

10

1687

1689

UE*GE: Dämmgen et al. (2011, see supporting document in Column F) have shown that
this term along with division by 18.45 is not correct.

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

3690

4

10

1690

1691

ASH: Dämmgen et al. (2011, see supporting document in Column F) have shown that it isHans-Dieter Haenel
not the ash content of the manure but the ash content of feed that must be taken into
account.

Accepted

5042

4

10

1690

1691

"ASH" means not the ash content of MANURE but the ash content of FEED (this is a notcorrected error from IPCC 2006 GL)

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

5044

4

10

1702

1703

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

2634

4

10

1706

1707

Nicholas Hutchings

Accepted

5046
5048

4
4

10
10

1707
1710

1707
1710

Claus Rösemann
Claus Rösemann

Accepted
Accepted

From line

To line

2070

4

10

1719

1719

5050

4

10

1719

1719

5052
5054

4
4

10
10

1726
1728

1726
1728

5056

4

10

1728

1729

7790
4348
7792
4352

4
4
4
4

10
10
10
10

1729
1730
1730
1730

1729
1730
1730
1733

5060

4

10

1730

1736

Comment

ExpertEq. 10.23 is not an emission factor equation but the equation for CH4 from a given type of
AWMS where the symbol EF on the left hand side is not appropriate. Note that also theHans-Dieter Haenel
units on the left hand side are not correct: Due to multiplication with VS on the right handside the left hand side cannot be in units "per kg VS".
When only part of the data used is country specific, would that still be considered as Tier
Andrea TILCHE
2? That should be clarified at the end of the paragraphI can't find equation 10.24, I can find 10.24A to 10.24H (and these are obviously not theClaus Rösemannequations needed at this point)
In equation 10.24A, DC should not be divided by 100
Andrea TILCHE
By definition, DC is a share, not a percent; remove 'in percent (e.g. 60%)'
Andrea TILCHE

There are no default Bo values provided in Table 10.17 but MCFs. I think in thisrefinement tables 10A4 through 10A9 are not existent anymore (or have a different
number)
The accompanying Excel spreadsheet would be a useful addition to the guidance forinventory compilers. However, it would require some additional work to introduce some
explanation and error checking.
Table 10.17 is the right table with the default MCFs, not Table 10.18
Table 10.22 has nothing to do with MCFs, I think again Table 10.17 is the correct one

Moving from a categorisation of MCFs according to mean air temperature to one based on
climatic zones may be justified (not least because it is a simplification). It does howevermean that determining the appropriate MCF(s) is more complex, since the climatic zones
Nicholas Hutchings
are dependent on several climatic variable instead of just one. It would help inventory
compilers if IPCC could provide some technical resources (e.g. Excel spreadsheet, shape
files suitable for GIS systems) to assist compilers to make the transition.
Please don't cite the "old" 2006 IPCC Guidelines (the same map (or is it updated?) is partof this refinement).
again a wrong reference. Annex 10A.4 has nothing to do with MCF calculation.
in Annex 10A.2 I cannot find an example on how to derive an MCF for a liquid system
the "simple spreadsheet model" is described in Annex 10.A.3 but there is no link to thischapter here. There is no help given how to integrate results from the spreadsheet modelin emission reporting (Reporting is for countries, the model is for individual farms)
The acronym "IPCC" should be capitlized
Introduce 'use' before 'a value'
The phrase "it is recommended to a value" should be "it is recommended to use a value"
Too long sentence that becomes unclear; needs rephrasing
For CH4 emissions from grazing a general Bo of 0.19 must be used, otherwise the MCF(0.45) reported in Table 17B (= 10.17) is not valid. It is very inconsequent to introduce
animal-specific default Bo values (Table 10.16B), valid for all MM systems except one(grazing)

Response

Author's Note

Accepted

Correction has been madeAccepted

Clarification was added

Accepted
Rejected
Accepted

Accepted with
Modification

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

Claus Rösemann
Claus Rösemann

Accepted
Accepted

Claus Rösemann

Accepted with
Modification

Cortney Itle
Andrea TILCHE
Cortney Itle
Andrea TILCHE

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

Claus Rösemann

Rejected

By definition DE is defined as a percentage
By definition DE is defined as a percentage
We changed the text to "the ash content of feed calculated
as a fraction of the dry matter feed intake (e.g., 0. 06 forsows: Dämmgen et al. 2011)."We changed the text to "the ash content of feed calculated
as a fraction of the dry matter feed intake (e.g., 0. 06 forsows: Dämmgen et al. 2011)."We changed the text to "the ash content of feed calculated
as a fraction of the dry matter feed intake (e.g., 0. 06 forsows: Dämmgen et al. 2011)."Additional text was added and reference is provided to
global data source for climate data

Additional text was provided to explain how to apply themodel at a national scale.

As noted in Annex 10B.6, data from field measurements
show that livestock type had no significant effect on both
MCF and CH4 per VS values for dung deposition onto
paddocks. Therefore, it is appropriate for a single B0 value
to be used. The MCF values for other manure storage
systems were derived from the IPCC 2006 approach taking
the MCF and B0 values from the Annex tables.

CommenVolumet ID
4350
4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

10

1731

1731

Replace 'Emission Factor' by 'emission factor'
The phrase "an analysis of 45 data showed" could be changed to "an analysis of 45 data
points showed""Table 17B" should be "Table 10.17"
It doesn't exist a Table 17B, there is not even a Table 10.17B. I think Table 10.17 is theright one.

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

Cortney Itle

Accepted

Cortney Itle

Accepted

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

7794

4

10

1732

1732

7816

4

10

1733

1733

5058

4

10

1733

1733

7818

4

10

1733

1735

2338

4

10

1752

1752

4218

4

10

1755

1756

Just to clarify - are the guidelines recommending the use of the same Bo regardless of the
Cortney Itle
animal type? This does not seem appropriate, given the definition of Bo and what it isintended to represent.

TABLE 10.16B - for transparency it would be helpful if references are included in thistables as a note.
The values for tropical climate in two cases are set to 0.59%, where it likely should havebeen 59%

Rocio Danica Condor
Golec

Accepted

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

636

4

10

1755

1756

TABLE 10.17 How is crust cover considered in practice? When is there a thick, dry crust?
What about open storages in a country where there are big changes in weather during the
Sanna Pitkänen
year and between years? Can a thick, dry crust to be expected only when there is a solid
roof above the storage?

638

4

10

1755

1756

Table 10.17 MCFs by climate zone is missing deep litter for other than cattle/swine

3214

4

10

1755

1756

Verify bibliographic citation format in footnote

2074

2076

4222

7814

4

4

4

4

10

10

10

10

1760

1760

1760

1760

1896

1896

1896

1896

For clarity, the derivation of equations could be moved to an annex

Rejected

Author's Note

As noted in Annex 10B.6, data from field measurements
show that livestock type had no significant effect on both
MCF and CH4 per VS values for dung deposition onto
paddocks. Therefore, it is appropriate for a single B0 value
to be used. The MCF values for other manure storage
systems were derived from the IPCC 2006 approach taking
the MCF and B0 values from the Annex tables.

Crusts are largely dependant on the housing and cleaning
approaches used in production. Production practices inwhich bedding is washed into the tank may increase crust
formation, whereas practices whey have little input ofbedding will generally not form thick crusts. Putting a roof
over the tank may aid in curst formation but is not essential.
To have an impact on gas emission the crust must becontinuous and stable, i.e. have a cohesive structure.

Noted

Sanna Pitkänen
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted

Nicholas Hutchings

Accepted

As a reply to review comment line 225 the detailed
equations are to be move to an annex. In the main text, they
will be replaced by a table that gives default MCF for themost common biogas digester technologies (to be checkedand completed by Hongmin)

NotedThis is an inconsistency between the UNECE and IPCC
methodology that could not be resolved during therefinement

Accepted

The procedure is to do as we have already mentioned in the
10.4.3Choice of activity data section. This sentence has
been added: "Therefore, if manure is managed in multiple
systems, it is good practice to report the respective CH4
emissions from each system (see N2O emissions frommultiple Manure Management systems). "Accepted

The detailed equations are to be moved to an annex. In themain text, they will be replaced by a table that gives default
MCF for the most common biogas digester technologies (tobe checked and completed by Hongmin).

The common reporting format has a code (5B2) entitled Anaerobic digestion at biogas
facilities. So should the methodology not be part of Volume 5 not Volume 4? Since
livestock manures are normally codigested with other substances of plant or animal origin,
Nicholas Hutchings
it is unclear how the emissions of methane from manure are to be distinguished fromthose resulting from the digestion of these other substances (e.g. straw, energy crops,
slaughterhouse waste).
The new methodology for methane emissions associated with biogas adds considerable
and relevant addition to the existing methodology. It also considers emissions after thedigestion of the manure. However, it does not describe how to deal with emissions from
Andrea TILCHE
the manure prior to treating it in the biogas digester. The manure may be stored in the
livestock house or in storages prior to biogas digestion and this will affect the amount of
VS as well as the methane emissions.
The calculation of emissions from digesters is very detailed and requires a large quantityof specific data. Emissions from digesters should be a fairly insignificant source ofemissions when compared to the overall emissions - spending a significant amount ofCortney Itletime and resources estimating this small portion of a national inventory seems out of
proportion to the impact to the inventory. In addition, the input data required by theequations are likely unavailable or difficult to obtain.

Accepted

CommenVolume
t ID

920

2582

4

4

Chapter

10

10From line

1760

1760

To lineComment

1896

The MCF for anaerobic digesters has to be calculated by the inventory expert. This is notin line with the Tier 2 approach used for all the other systems. The derivation of MCF isbased on a concept that qualifies for a Tier 3 approach. A lot of specific data are required
Michael Anderl(e.g. for CH4 used, produced or flared) that will not be available in most of the countries.
For Tier 2 we suggest elaborating specific default MCFs values for anaerobic digesters
that can be easily applied by inventory compilers.

1899

ExpertCH4 emissions from biogas digesters. I think that the model is incomplete as it is missing
the emission from excretion to delivery to the biogas digester. This amount can beconsiderable as many manure stores, such as slatted floors, will have storage of relatively
large amount of manure beneath the slats. Only in the case of scrabers are the storage
time close to zero in the barns but the scrabers who are delivering to an outdoor storagetank. For fully flattened floors the Danish average storage time for fatteners are HydraulicRetention Time 20 days (average storage time, so emptying after 40 days. Meaning that ina production cycle of 75 days the barn will be emptied twice. The CH4 emission depends,
among other, on the amount of inoculum and the biostrat availability. Consequently, themicroorganisms will degrade the most easiest part yielding high CH4 amounts in thefirst/weeks of storage. By not including this CH4 formation in the inventory an
Steen Gyldenkærne
underestimation of the CH4 emission from manure digested in digesters takes place.
Indicating that digestion of manure is a really good idea. Dynamid models for CH4
emission from manure is not in a mature state yet to include timesteps of shorter periods,
although implemented in the Danish inventory. But for precaution I recommend that theoverall model for manure management include a parameter for the loss before arriving thedigester, so that the overall model for digested manure is:

Response

Author's Note

Accepted

the detailed equations are to be moved to an annex. In themain text, they will be replaced by a table that gives default
MCF for the most common biogas digester technologies (tobe checked and completed by Hongmin)

Accepted

The procedure is to do as we have already mentioned in the
10.4.3Choice of activity data section. This sentence has
been added: "Therefore, if manure is managed in multiple
systems, it is good practice to report the respective CH4
emissions from each system (see N2O emissions frommultiple Manure Management systems). "CH4_emis = CH4_emis_barn + CH4_emis_digester_leak + CH4_emis_digestate
When times come it will be up to the individual countries to include the data. Otherwise wehave to wait until the next update of the guidelines, which will be a pity.
4354
4356
4220
8014
3622

4
4
4
4
4

10
10
10
10
10

1763
1793
1793
1793
1793

1763
1793
1793
1793
1893

3620

4

10

1829

1885

8016
3624
8018
4358

4
4
4
4

10
10
10
10

1855
1872
1873
1893

1855
1873
1873

5062

4

10

1893

1893

4360

4

10

1893

1894

Add ':' after 'following equation'
Andrea TILCHE
Replace 'elative' by 'relative'
Andrea TILCHE
Change "elative" to "relative"
Andrea TILCHE
relative instead of "elative"
Francisco Avina
A "r" is missing at the beginning of "elative".
Hans-Dieter Haenel(1) The equations for CH4 from anaerobic digestion (Equations 10.24B to 10.24H) aretaken from Rösemann et al. (2017). That should be mentioned. However, instead ofreferring to Rösemann et al. (2017) I suggest to refer to Haenel et al. (2018) [seehttps://www.thuenen.de/de/ak/arbeitsbereiche/emissionsinventare/] which is an updated
version of Rösemann et al. (2017) published in April 2018 where, however, the equations Hans-Dieter Haenel
for digestion remained unchanged. (2) I recommend to modify the wording of the lines
1829 to 1831 in order to make more clear that the difference υCH4, prod - υCH4, used - υ
CH4,flared in Eq. 10.24B of the IPCC 2019 SOD is nothing else than υCH4,leakage. In
order to do so in Haenel et al. (2018), there is a specific equation (Equation 3.68).
10.24G instead of "10.30A"
Francisco Avina
This sentence seems to be uncomplete.
Hans-Dieter Haenel
10.24H instead of "10.30B"
Francisco Avina
Remove one of the full stops after '1%'
Andrea TILCHE
Obviously the methodology for CH4 emissions from digesters was adopted from theGerman inventory. It was invented basically by H.-D. Haenel, so I recommend not to cite R
Claus Rösemannösemann et al. (2017) but Haenel et al. (2018) (=Thuenen-Report 57), which is the follow
up to Rösemann et al (2017)'However… IPCC guideline': grammar needs review
Andrea TILCHE

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

Accepted

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To line

5064

4

10

1893

1896

4224
8020

4
4

10
10

1894
1894

1894

5066

4

10

1914

1916

2340

4

10

1922

1929

4362
4226
5068

4
4
4

10
10
10

1923
1923
1923

1923
1923
1923

646

4

10

1925

1925

Comment
possible default values for Lprod are given but a default for muoffgas is missing.
(Germany uses 0.046, see Haenel et al. (2018), page 90)
Syntax
Table instead of "T able" (twice)
I don't see any difference in the two cited figures and don't think that the one in Annex
10a.2 is a "simplified version" of the other one.
It would be helpful for compilers to get information that is provided in the FAO WORLDPROGRAMME FOR THE CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE 2020 VOLUME 1 Programme,
concepts and definitions since Chapter 8 - Theme 15: Environment/greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions - this theme has been explicitly developed recommendations tostatistical offices to support countries in collecting data process for the agriculture sector,
including tier 2 approach. It is applicable for census but also for agricultural surveys. An
operational guidance is also under preparation all information available here:
http://www.fao.org/world-census-agriculture/wcarounds/wca2020/en/
Update Table number
Table 10.19 should be 10.18
wrong reference to Table 10.19. Table 10.18 is the correct Table
Chapter 10.4.3 says The borderline between dry and liquid can be drawn at 15% dry
matter content and Table 10.21 says the borderline is 20%.
"…, it is good practice...": Why is there no guidance on how to estimate those CH4
emissions? Such a guidance would clearly have to take into account that, in a system ofsubsequent storage types, the potential for CH4 emissions reduces from storage tostorage, depending on the retention time in each storage: While for slurry storage specific
MCFs could be estimated depending on retention time (using the respective EXCEL
spreadsheet), no approach is provided on how to combine those different MCFs to an
overall MCF.

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

Andrea TILCHE
Francisco Avina

Accepted
Accepted

We have added the default value into the anaerobic
digestion section

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

Rocio Danica Condor
Golec

AcceptedA brief description of sources of activity data andinformation useful to compilers has been included in
Section 10.2

Andrea TILCHE
Andrea TILCHE
Claus Rösemann

Accepted
Accepted
Acceptedchangedchangedchanged

Sanna Pitkänen

Accepted

We changed the footnote value to 15%

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted with
Modification

The procedure is to do as we have already mentioned in the
10.4.3Choice of activity data section. This sentence has
been added: "Therefore, if manure is managed in multiple
systems, it is good practice to report the respective CH4
emissions from each system (see N2O emissions frommultiple Manure Management systems). "Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

Changed to 'fur-bearing'

3700

4

10

1929

1929

4364

4

10

1937

1937

Replace '(fur-begin animals,' by '(fur-bearing animals)' in dry lot, remove the comma after'swine' in Liquid/Slurry and in Deep bedding. Animal types missing for Aerobic treatment.

francesco nicolatubiello

Noted

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

1182

4

10

1937

1938

MMS definitions. Are these the IPCC definitions or the EEA? Kindly edit the footnote toindicate that the source may have been the EEA, but also considering that IPCC
definitions must be self-consistent, hence pointing to an external source for more
information should not be a necessity. Also, have you checked with the FAO World
Census of Agriculture.

4366

4

10

1949

1952

Too long sentence, needs rephrasing. Additionally, what does 'updated N excretion….'
means? Updated compared to previous storage? The sentence is unclear.

3626

4

10

1985

1988

5070

4

10

1985

1988

3628

4

10

1991

1991

(1) It doesn't seem reasonable to me to consider emissions from co-fermented energy
crops or other organic substrates that are not animal manures (including bedding material)
as emissions from manure management. In addition there is no way in the current
Hans-Dieter Haenel
versions of the CRF Tables 3B(a)s1 and 3B(b) to properly include additional N sourcesthat are not animal manures. (2) A sentence or two should must be added to thisparagraph dealing with possible interference with the Waste Sector. (3) A paragraph on
co-digestion is missing in the chapter on CH4 from manure management!
If emissions from digestion of energy should be reported under 3.B Manure Management,
Claus Rösemannthe current CRF-tables will have to be adjusted. At the moment Germany reports such
emissions under 3.J
It must read "calculating" instead of "calculation".
Hans-Dieter Haenel

Editorial error

Definitions come from 2006 Guidelines. We understand it isclear that, unless stated otherwise, these definitions are still
IPCC definitions. Moreover, our footnote indicates that theircorresponding management system definition for EMEP
can be found in a table in the annex
The sentence is split into two parts as follows: 'The section
describes how to estimate the N2O produced, directly andindirectly, during the storage and treatment of manure
before it is applied to land or otherwise used for feed, fuel,or construction purposes. The approach is based on N
excretion, emission factors for N2O emissions, as well as
volatilization and leaching factors.'

Accepted

Please see response to Comment 7430

Accepted

Please see response to Comment 7430

Accepted

Changed to 'calculating'CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

3630

10

1184

1186

4

4

4

10

10

From line

2002

2008

2010

To lineComment

ExpertAccepted

2010

Again, the text herein implies that in fact there is no good reason to separate Tier 1 into afrancesco nicola
Tier 1a and b. Simply call it Tier 1 and provide separate coefficients (or coefficients
according to the two different levels of complexity) within the appropriate tables throughout tubiellothe relevant sections of Ch. 10.

Accepted

2011

General note on Tier 2 methods in CH. 10. The methodology is so complex that it isunclear how it is an intermediate approach between Tier 3 and Tier 1. The amount of workrequires is enormous--and increased under this revision--and the typology of activity data
so vast (with large uncertainties) that it is unclear in what sense this is not a Tier 3 --only francesco nicola
because there are some default coefficients? Considering the above, this appears to be a tubiellovery thin reason. To further back up this point, please consider the definition of Tier 2
provided in VOl 4 CH.1, Box 1.1. Consistency across chapters must obviously be
maximized.

4

10

2010

2011

4368

4

10

2012

2014

Tier 2 is explained as using country specific data for some (or all) variables; but could it be
Andrea TILCHE
specified which/how many variables have to be country specific to be considered Tier 2?

4228

4

10

2022

2022

5072

4

10

2040

2044

10

2046

The equations have been amended to include N from codigestates and a footnote has been added to Table 10.22
that the ranges of values for FracGASMS and
FracLEACHMS for anaerobic digesters apply also for codigestates.

Anaerobic digestion of manure (and co-digested feedstock as well) must be mentioned inHans-Dieter Haenel
these paragraphs if not integrated in Eq. 10.25A, maybe also in 10.4.

1188

4

Author's Note

2077

General on Tier 2 in Ch. 10. How are inventories compiled at Tier 2 following this chapter
supposed to be more accurate, at least in the component that they should be more
francesco nicola
precise, considering that the method requires a large range of input data, which are likely
tubiello
very uncertain, and whose uncertainty may propagate and perhaps increase significantly
considering the large number of equations provided.

5074

Response

2063

Change "the as" to "the same as"Andrea TILCHE
multiple systems:"...it is good practice to estimate N2O emissions from all systems." Howshould that be done? Concrete guidance is missing. Please include a guidance
Claus Rösemann(somewhere) how this is done correctly with the example of solid separation mentioned
here
equation 10.25A does not help in case of "multiple systems" (because for each T:
AWMS(T,S) must sum up to 1 ("fraction of total annual Nitrogen…"), see definition in line
2055-2057)

Claus Rösemann

Noted

Text was developed in Chapter 2 to discuss what defines a
Tier 2 and Tier 3 system and we recommend that thereviewer refer to that text. This approach to calculating
emission factors for enteric and manure management has
existed since the 1996 guidelines. Briefly, as it uses fixedand standardized equations with defined opportunities to
input country-specific data, this approach is considered Tier
2. When there are not standardized equation in whichcountry-specific values can be inserted, i.e. the equations
themselves or the parameters in the equations are countryspecific then the method may be classified as Tier 3.

Noted

The reviewer correctly notes that there is uncertainty withdata, fixed parameters and methods used in the Tier 2
approach. Nonetheless, the basis of the equations is anenergy estimate (for some animals) and the input to thoseequations will improve the estimate of energy requirementsof animals if that data is more accurate for a country.
Likewise, if VS estimates are country-specific for otheranimals accuracy will be improved. The Tier 1 EFs aredeveloped from the same equations but input is based onvery broad regional estimates. Inevitably by putting in moreaccurate country-specific data, the emission factors will becloser than the Tier 1 emission estimates. While
uncertainty, particularly in manure management emissions
is high, integrating more information into the equations thatis specific to the country will improve accuracy over Tier 1.

Accepted

The text was modified

Accepted

Added 'same'
A new paragraph 'N2O emissions from multiple Manure
Management systems' has been added to section 'Choiceof Emission Factors' (Tier 2) giving guidance of how toestimate N2O emissions from multiple systems.

Accepted

Accepted

For multiple systems, manure must be allocated to thedominant system as explained in a new paragraph 'N2O
emissions from multiple Manure Management systems' has
been added to section 'Choice of Emission Factors' (Tier 2)

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

4370

4

10

2047

2066

8022
4230
8024
5076

4
4
4
4

10
10
10
10

2064
2066
2066
2066

2064
2066
2066
2066

Equation 10.25A does not make sense if there is no equation 10.25B. Equation 10.25A
should correspond to Tier 1A, and therefore not considering P levels, and then an
additional equation 10.25B would be the one to be used in Tier 1B, considering P levels(that is the equation written now in the document). Alternatively, remove the 'A' from thename and clarify in the text that Tier 1A would not distinguish between P levels (which isalready done).
significantly instead of "significantly"
Change "the calculation" to "the calculation"
the calculation instead of "the calculation""N2O emissions" should be replaced by "CH4 emissions"

5078

4

10

2077

2077

4372
5080
4232
5082

4
4
4
4

10
10
10
10

2083
2083
2086
2086

From line

To lineExpertResponse

Author's Note

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

Equation number changed from 10.25A to 10.25.

Francisco Avina
Andrea TILCHE
Francisco Avina
Claus Rösemann

Noted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

I can't find a section 11.5.6 Consistency of nitrogen flows in Chapter 11

Claus Rösemann

Noted

2083
2083
2086
2086

Update equation number
wrong reference to Equation 10.32A. Equation 10.26A is the correct one
Table 10.24 should be 10.22
wrong reference to Table 10.24. Table 10.22 is the correct one

Andrea TILCHE
Claus RösemannAndrea TILCHE
Claus Rösemann

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

The equation how to estimate indirect N2O emissions due to leaching from manure
management is missing. Proposal: Since indirect leaching emissions are so difficult be
Claus Rösemannradical and say: Tier1 is to assume that no leaching occurs (This is conservative as more
N will be applicated in Chapter 11...).

Accepted

Checked
Added space
Added space
Changed N2O to CH4
Consistency of nitrogen flows' is one of several subsections in Section 11.5.6
Equation number updated
Equation number updated
Reference to Table updated
Reference to Table updated
The equation guiding for the estimation of N2O emissions
due to leaching from manure management was available
only under Tier 2 methodology and was shifted to Tier 2
methodology as default values for the leaching fraction areavailable. The reviewer's statement is incorrect that more N
will be applied, as leaching is included in the general N loss
parameter in the prior methodology and therefore was
missing a source of N2O.
Sentence changed

Accepted

Corrected

Accepted

Corrected

Accepted
Accepted

Corrected
Corrected
Staying consistent with usage of terminology in the IPCC
guidelines

5084

4

10

2103

2155

4374

4

10

2115

2115

3632

4

10

2125

2125

5086

4

10

2125

2125

4234
3634

4
4

10
10

2131
2131

2131
2131

3636

4

10

2140

2140

4236

4

10

2140

2206

5088

4

10

2152

2154

5090

4

10

2167

2170

5092

4

10

2176

2181

3640

4

10

2177

2181

4376

4

10

2177

2194

Comment

Sentence unfinishedAndrea TILCHE"… due to leaching of NH3 and NOx" is incorrect. It must read "… due to leaching from
Hans-Dieter Haenel
manure management".
Nleach-MMs is not due to leaching of NH3 and Nox (copy and paste mistake), it is due toClaus Rösemannleaching of N
Change "os" to "is"Andrea TILCHE
Replace "os" by "is".
Hans-Dieter Haenel
In my eyes, "volatilisation" is somewhat misleading. Why not write "deposition ofHans-Dieter Haenel
volatilized NH3-N and NOx-N"?
The methodologies for calculating indirect emission from ammonia volatilization andnitrate leaching are mentioned under Tier 1 and Tier 2 respectively, The are used in both Andrea TILCHE
tiers. So this should be mentioned irrespective of the tiers.
Be careful with mentioning the EF4-default of 0.01. There are also disaggregated defaults
Claus Rösemannof 0.015 and 0.005 in Table 11.3 at the moment...
In this case a simple new equation would be helpful: "Nvolatilization-MMS = NH3-N
Claus Rösemann
Emission from Manure Management + NO-N Emission from Manure Management".
Please point out that in this case FracGASMS is not needed.
Equation 10.28: There is practically no difference to Equation 10.26B, so the only reason
Claus Rösemannto name it Tier2 is the CS information on fraction of nitrogen loss. For this no extra
equation is neededWhy does Eq. 10.28, other than EQ. 10.26B, not depend on production level (P)? That
Hans-Dieter Haenel
seems to be inconsistent.
What is the difference between Equation 10.28 and Equation 10.26B (apart from thedifferentiation of P P levels)? It is confusing to have 2 equations specified for different
Tiers, which are the same. It would make sense to write the equations once and explain in Andrea TILCHE
the Tier levels which are the default values / country specific values we need to have toconsider it Tier 1 or Tier 2.

Accepted with
Modification

Rejected
Accepted

Guidance was given for Tier 1 only.

Accepted

No numeric values of EF4 are given, just the reference toTable 11.3

Accepted

Text adapted

Accepted

Guidance for N2O emissions from leaching in manure
management systems was kept for Tier 1 methodology only

Accepted

Guidance for N2O emissions from leaching in manure
management systems was kept for Tier 1 methodology only

Accepted

Guidance for N2O emissions from leaching in manure
management systems was kept for Tier 1 methodology only

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

5094

4

10

2196

2201

Equation 10.29 is missing at the Tier 1 methodology.

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

648

4

10

2205

2206

5096

4

10

2205

2206

3638

4

10

2206

2206

The value for EF5 is not consistent with the value given in Chapter 11, Table 11.3!

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

4378

4

10

2208

2214

Here more stress on what has a Tier 3 which makes it different from a Tier 2 is needed

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

5098

4

10

2246

2246

3642

4

10

2278

2285

5100

4

10

2278

2287

3646

4

10

2287

2287

5102

4

10

2287

2287

3644

4

10

2297

2308

3648

4

10

2324

2325

3650

4

10

2324

2325

5104

4

10

2324

2325

Default EF5 in chapter ‘Indirect N2O emissions from Manure Management’ is 0.0075 kg
Sanna Pitkänen
N2O-N (kg N leaching/runoff)-1 but in Updated table 11.3 it is 0.011.
Be careful with mentioning the EF5-default of 0.0075. At the moment EF5 in Table 11.3 isClaus Rösemann
0.011

Default TAM values: In Annex10A.1 and Annex10A.2, there are many weights for cattle
and buffalo. But where are the weights for other species (pigs, poultry, horses,...? In Table Claus Rösemann
10A.2-8 I find only weights for Deer, Reindeer, Rabbits, Fur animals and ostrich
Units of Nintake(T) given in line 2285 (annual intake) do not match the use of Nintake(T)Hans-Dieter Haenel
in Eq. 10.31, where the multiplication with 365 implies that Nintake(T) be daily intake.
Equation 10.31: if Nintake has the unit kg N per animal per year (as in line 2285) than theClaus Rösemannmultiplication with 365 in the equation is wrong
Footnote 5: Accounting for empty times, i.e. times between production cycles with animals
with a lifetime shorter than one year, is quite a tricky problem and urgently needs moreguidance or, at least, explanation than is provided in the footnote! If you get animal
numbers from a survey at one specific day X in the year and assume these animal
numbers to be constant throughout the year (implying that also the numbers of places
empty at day X are assumed to be constant throughout the year) then it canmathematically be shown that it would be incorrect to account additionally for empty times
in equations like Eq. 10.31. We had made that error in the German inventory over years
Hans-Dieter Haenel
and, after having found the solution, presented a specific explanatory slide at the In
Country Review in Germany in September 2016, see Slide no 2 in the presentation
mentioned in column F (see uploaded document). Additional explanations are given in
Chapter 3.1.2.2 in RÖSEMANN et al. 2017: Rösemann, C., Haenel H.-D., Dämmgen, U.,
Freibauer , A., Wulf, S., Eurich-Menden, B., Döhler, H., Osterburg, B.: Calculation of
gaseous and particulate emissions from German agriculture 1990 – 2015. Report on
methods and data (RMD). Submission 2017. Thünen Rep 46.
https://www.thuenen.de/de/ak/arbeitsbereiche/emissionsinventare/
Footnote 5 is not understandable for me. What is the intention? How should this beconsidered? I don't think that this footnote is needed. If periods are meant where theClaus Rösemannstable is empty (disinfection after slaughtering for example) than the footnote is wrong(see definition of AAP on page 10.11).
The way the terms in brackets are written is quite unusual. People not familiar with what is
intended by the two equations might misinterpret those terms in brackets. Mathematically Hans-Dieter Haenel
correct writing would be: (CP% / (100*6.25)).
Heading of Table 10.19: The units (given in brackets) must read "kg N …" instead of "kg
Hans-Dieter Haenel
VS …".
Table 10.19: Why are the numbers for dairy cows given with three decimals? The third
Hans-Dieter Haenel
decimal is not needed.
Table 10.19: Dairy Cattle in Middle East and Asia: How can it be that default N excretion
Claus Rösemannrates for the mean are lower / higher than both High and Low productivity default N
excretion (0.35/0.38/0.37 ; 0.52/0.51/0.49)?

Accepted
Accepted

Author's Note
Guidance for N2O emissions from leaching in manure
management systems was kept for Tier 1 methodology only
and removed from the Tier 2 section
No numeric values of EF5 are given, just the reference toTable 11.3
No numeric values of EF5 are given, just the reference toTable 11.3
No numeric values of EF5 are given, just the reference toTable 11.3
Sentence changed to 'To reduce uncertainty of theestimates, a Tier 3 method could be developed using
advanced or process-based models for volatilisation andnitrogen leaching and runoff based on actual
measurements.'

Accepted

Default values for all animals can be found in a Annex
Tables

Accepted

Modifications were made to the equation

Accepted

Modifications were made to the equation

Accepted

Modifications were made to the footnote

Rejected

the footnote was modified in response to a previous
comment that requested to modify - not delete - thisfootnote

Rejected

The equation structure was retained from the 2006 IPCC
guidelines

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

Changes were made on the Table

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

2342

4

10

2337

2337

TABLE 10.20A - for transparency, it would be helpful for compiler to get further information Rocio Danica Condor
or reference on how judgement of IPCC Expert Group was conducted or documented.
Golec

4380
4238

4
4

10
10

2359
2359

2359
2359

3652

4

10

2359

2360

3654

4

10

2385

2385

2584

4

10

2385

2398

3656

4

10

2387

2388

2586

4

10

2396

2409

ExpertRemove 'annual fraction'
Andrea TILCHE
It is not clear what "annual fraction of Annual nitrogen excretion" refers toAndrea TILCHE
This sentence is somewhat misleading as it does not mention that also the N losses from
Hans-Dieter Haenel
housing and storage have to be subtracted before it comes to the calculation of N2O(direct and indirect) from agricultural soils.
Birth weight of a piglet = 4.5 kg? In Germany the typical birth weight is only one third ofHans-Dieter Haenel
that, i.e. 1.5 kg. In addition: These two sentences are somehow incomplete and werepossibly intended to be one sentence only?
The average size of a piglet at birth is not 4 kg. It is 1.4-1.5 kg. Please correct the example
Steen Gyldenkærne
accordingly.
Table 10.20B seems to be ill-positioned as it presents (mean) results of the discussion
Hans-Dieter Haenel
following below that table. Table 10.20B should be positioned between line 2409 and2410.
I think you have to rewrite the example so it will not be a global common standard.
Weaning at 3 weeks is mainly taking place in North America and some European
countries as it demands two-climate barns, special feed and very often antibiotics. For me
the example should be targeted towards less intensive production and maybe giving
Steen Gyldenkærne
further explanation on pig breeding in different countries.

Response

Author's Note

Accepted

A new table was generated

Accepted
Accepted

Changes were made to text

Accepted

A clarifying footnote was inserted in the text

Accepted with
Modification

the section was modified and the comment is no longer
relevant.

Accepted with
Modification

the section was modified and the comment is no longer
relevant.

Accepted

Accepted

This section was modified

the section was modified and the comment is no longer
relevant.
Literature references were included in the text to exemplify
this situation

In line 2406 you write that the amount of piglets ranges from 22-25. The above mentioned
system will normally have 30-35 piglets.
4240

4

10

2425

2427

The unit for this variable is not mentioned. It is unclear how this should be calculated.

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted with
Modification

8632

4

10

2428

2431

Some variation do exist between pig strains in the nitrogen gain.

Jouni Nousiainen

Accepted

Table 10.20C Please correct the weight from 4 kg to 1.4 kg.
2588

4

10

2429

2429

4242

4

10

2431

2431

8634

4

10

2431

2431

3216

4

10

2442

2452

4244

4

10

2453

2463

3660

4

10

2454

2463

3658

4

10

2460

2461

5106

4

10

2462

2462

2590

4

10

2465

2465

Steen Gyldenkærne
As many production systems are based on 7-30/32 kg piglet production it is recommended
to include a line with N_gain for this stage to in the Table.
Ngain should often be calculated for animals within a range of weights. It is unclear which
Andrea TILCHE
weight within this range to use.
Shields et al. (1983) is missing in the references.
Jouni Nousiainen
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Verify bibliographic citation format
AntonioThis equation seems to be overly complicated. Why use percent egg production and not
Andrea TILCHE
just simply number of eggs produced per day?
The entire term concerning egg production seems to be ill-written. Or the explanations
given in lines 2462 and 2463 are incorrect. So I would expect the N content of eggs to begiven in units of kg N (or better g of N) per egg, see Table 10.20D. So it is unclear what
Negg really means. In addition, I do not understand the sense of having "egg production" Hans-Dieter Haenel
in % in the equation. In my eyes, it would be quite simple to get the amount of N retained
per day in eggs. It is: Number off eggs per laying hen per day * N content of an average
egg.
Units of Nretention and Nmaintenance must be the same, otherwise you have different
Hans-Dieter Haenel
units on the two sides of Eq. 10.33D, which would be incorrect.
I can't understand the meaning of "egg production". What is the meaning of 25 % percent
Claus Rösemannegg production?
Please add to the heading in Table 10.20D that it is layers, for clarification.
Steen Gyldenkærne

Accepted with
Modification

the section was modified and the comment is no longer
relevant.

Accepted

A column was added depicting average body weights for all
animal categories

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

This section was modified

Accepted

This section was modified

Accepted

This section was modified

Accepted

This section was modified

Accepted

This section was modified

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

3218

4

10

2467

2469

Verify bibliographic citation format

4246

4

10

2470

2471

5108

4

10

2470

2471

5110

4

10

2485

2485

4382

4

10

2492

2494

2592

4

10

2492

2494

5112

4

10

2492

2494

4248
3662

4
4

10
10

2493
2493

2493
2494

4384

4

10

2496

2525

5114

4

10

2507

2509

4386

4

10

2523

2525

This sentence is out of place
This sentence is incomplete ("dividing the results of…" by what?) equation 10.33B iswrong (copy/paste error). The correct equation here is 10.33D. The result of Equation
Claus Rösemann10.33D has already the unit kg per day (line 2460), so there is no further calculationneededwrong unit "(kg-1) day-1". correct is "kg day-1"
Claus RösemannThis parameter does not seem to be used in other equations, why is daily N retention
Andrea TILCHE
described here?
It is proposed to include the value N per gain in Table 10.20D for clarification so it covers
Steen Gyldenkærne
all poultry
This sentence is incomplete ("dividing the results of…" by what?) equation 10.33B iswrong (copy/paste error). The correct equation here is 10.33E.The result of Equation
Claus Rösemann10.33E has already the unit kg per day (line 2460), so there is no further calculationneededShould equation 10.33B be 10.33E?
Andrea TILCHE
See my comment on the lines 2287 to 2287 an Footnote 5.
Hans-Dieter Haenel
It is not clear whether the emission factor sections are inside the Tier 2 section or if they
are something apart. It should be more clearly specified what is acceptable as a Tier 1/2/3 Andrea TILCHE
also for the Efs
when emissions from anaerobic digesters are considered negligible, why there is an EF in
Table 10.21 (0.0006). For the other mentioned systems with negligible emissions the EF is Claus Rösemann
0 in Table 10.21
The paragraph says that FracLeachMS has to be developed under Tier 2; if there are nomeans to do it, what will the parties report? It is not clear if they have to ignore it or if they Andrea TILCHE
are forced to develop a Tier 2 approach.

7812

2344

4

4

10

10

2524

2525

ExpertPoot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Andrea TILCHE

Response

Author's Note

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

This section was modified

Accepted

This section was modified

Accepted
Accepted
Noted
Accepted with
Modification

More clarity has been developed around how default
emission factors refer to Tier1 and country specific to Tier
2. This is explained in Volume 1.

Accepted

We changed the text and deleted the term "anaerobic
digesters"

Accepted

Guidance for N2O emissions from leaching in manure
management systems was kept for Tier 1 methodology only

2531

The discussion of a manure treatment train is valid, but difficult to implement in a national
inventory when manure management system data are limited and treatment train data are
Cortney Itleeven more limited. This discussion is more applicable to farm-scale emission inventories
and not national emissions inventories.

Accepted

We acknowledge this very useful comment by the reviewer.
If multiple manure management systems are typicallyoccurring in a country, this approach can be used atnational scale under Tier 2. Countries lacking data on MMS
may continue reporting under Tier 1 methodology.

2525

TABLE 10.21B - There are footnotes which have not been DEER, REINDEER, RABBITS
Rocio Danica Condor- a, b and c, respectively. Please specify this :" Source: Calculated based the country
submission of CRF to UNFCCC" - I assume it is only then values that are referring only to Golec
developed countries since CRF is reported only by them. Better to make it clear.

Accepted with
Modification

The table 10.21B was modified

Accepted

5116

4

10

2525

2528

This example is mentioned here for the third time in Chapter 10. But nowhere is explained
Claus Rösemann
how in detail these "multiple systems" should be considered.

4250

4

10

2527

2527

Change "system" to "systems"

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

5118

4

10

2528

2531

This sentence is not understandable to me.

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

A new paragraph 'N2O emissions from multiple Manure
Management systems' has been added to section 'Choiceof Emission Factors' (Tier 2) giving guidance of how toestimate N2O emissions from multiple systems.
ChangedSentence has been shortened to 'For example, values
provided for dairy anaerobic lagoon systems should include
nitrogen losses that occur in the dairy barn and milking
parlour prior to the collection and treatment of manure, as
well as those that occur from the lagoon'

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

Table 10.21: (1) Column of EF3, units: Something is missing, cf. IPCC (2006), pg. 10.62
and seq. (2) "Anaerobic digester": Why isn't mentioned that storage of digestates is
included? The EF provided does not distinguish between gastight storage (no emissions)and non-gastight, i.e. open storage of digestates, with non-zero N2O emissions. In
addition, for open storage, the EF provided doesn't seem to account for the possible
development of a natural crust increasing N2O emissions (in case of liquid digestates,
which at least in Germany is the predominant case). Such a natural crust is likely to occur Hans-Dieter Haenel
in case of co-digestion of manure with energy crops (due to the greater amount of dry
matter in the digestates, ordinating from the energy crops). For Liquid/Slurry with natural
crust cover Table 10.21 provides an EF of 0.005, which is about an order of magnitude
higher than 0.006. Hence the emission factor of 0.0006 is an overestimate in case ofgastight storage of digestates and seems to be quite certainly an underestimate in case ofopen storage!

3664

4

10

2533

2534

4388

4

10

2587

2587

4390
5120
3668

4
4
4

10
10
10

2602
2602
2602

2602
2602
2602

3666

4

10

2605

2605

2594

4

10

2609

2609

4392

4

10

2617

2617

5122

4

10

2617

2617

3670

4

10

2617

2617

5124
3672
5126

4
4
4

10
10
10

2619
2619
2621

2619
2621
2621

5128

4

10

2622

2622

4394

4

10

2627

2627

3674

4

10

2627

2628

2596
3676
5130
3678
5132
3680
4252
5134

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

2632
2642
2643
2643
2663
2663
2663
2664

2643
2642
2643
2643
2663
2663
2664
2664

2598

4

10

2676

2676

2600

4

10

2676

2676

ExpertEquation number is 10.34, but there is afterwards 10.34b, c, … Please revise equation
Andrea TILCHE
numbers
Equation 10.34a does not exist
Andrea TILCHE
There is no equation 10.34a. The correct link is to equation 10.34b
Claus Rösemann
FracLossMS is calculated according to Eq. 10.34 B (not 10.34a).
Hans-Dieter Haenel
Ncodigestates: Is it, anywhere in the IPCC 2019 Refinement Chapters, made sure that theHans-Dieter Haenel
emissions from that co-digestion are properly accounted for? If so, insert a reference tothat place. If not, provide a methodology where appropriate and refer to it.
Probably error in Eq. 10.34B
Steen Gyldenkærne
Equation 10034a does not exist and equation10.34b is calculating FracLossMS;
Andrea TILCHE
clarification should be deleted
There is no equation 10.34a. The correct link is to equation 10.34b (copy / paste error)
Claus Rösemann
The sentence on where FracLossMS should be dropped (not least because the equation
Hans-Dieter Haenel
number is not correct).
wrong link to Table 10.24 (correct link is to Table 10.22)
Claus Rösemann
FracGASMS and FracLEACHSMS are given in Table 10.22 (not 10.24).
Hans-Dieter Haenel
wrong link to Table 10.24 (correct link is to Table 10.22)
Claus Rösemann
FracN2MS is not existent in Table 10.23. (FracN2MS is not equal to RN2_N2O in Table
Claus Rösemann10.23 !), so the link should go to equation 10.34C
Remove repeated 'nitrogen nitrogen'Andrea TILCHE
in line 2627 there is one "nitrogen" too many. As to "N2:N2O" in line 2628: Webb &Misselbrook 2004 surely meant N2O-N, even if they were not fully consequent to write so
Hans-Dieter Haenel
in the N2 paragraph in the right column of pg. 2168 in their paper. It wouldn't make sense
to compare N2 to N2O (instead of N2 to N2O-N) with respect to the fate of N.
Please check the text in the Eq and the explanation below.
Steen Gyldenkærne
In Eq. 10.34C, RN2_N2O is written RN2,N2O. This should be harmonized.
Hans-Dieter Haenel
the emission factor EF3(S) is not dimensionless
Claus Rösemann
The EF is not dimensionless, but has the units of kg/kg!
Hans-Dieter Haenel
wrong link to Table 10.25 (correct link is to Table 10.23)
Claus Rösemann
It is Table 10.23, not Table 10.25.
Hans-Dieter Haenel
Table and equation numbers need update
Andrea TILCHE
wrong link to equation 10.41C (correct link is to equation 10.34C)
Claus Rösemann
Please if possible use the same order of the columns as in other tables: dairy, non dairy,
Steen Gyldenkærne
swine, poultry, other animals
Please add to footnote 5 that the digestion of manure increase the pH of the digestate toapp. 8-8.2 (compared to manure 7.2). This will increase the NH3 emission tremendously

Steen Gyldenkærne

Response

Author's Note

Accepted with
Modification

EF3 units have been modified. The 0.0006 represents
average situation where slurry is stored part time in the gas
tight system and part-time in open storage. Countries thatdiffer from this average situation are encouraged to develop
country-specific Ef

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

Reference to Equation updated

Accepted

Please see response to Comment 7430

Noted

Error not explained. Equation seems correct.

Accepted

Reference to Equation 34A deleted

Accepted

Reference to Equation 34A deleted

Accepted

Reference to Equation 34A deleted

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

Reference to Table 10.22 corrected
Reference to Table 10.22 corrected
Reference to Table 10.22 corrected

Accepted

Done as proposed

Accepted

Double nitrogen deleted

Accepted

Second nitrogen deleted

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

See comment 3676
Equation corrected
Text changed
Text changed
Reference to Table 10.23 updated
Reference to Table 10.23 updated
Reference to Table 10.23 updated
Reference to Equation 10.34C updated

Accepted

Rejected

Recent literature research did not support this statement.
Emissions are strongly influenced by application technology
further to pH. Some discussion has been added in afootnote to the table

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment
Table 10.22: To me it is irreproducible how the values in the table have been derived(Annex 10 B.7 did not help). Many of the values look much too high to me compared with
EMEP 2016 Table 3.9 (where the Efs are given as a proportion of TAN)

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

Claus Rösemann

Noted

The values had been taken from the EMEP 2016 where
possible and a repeated detailed check confirmed that thisprocedure had been done correctly. However, EMEP did
not provide values for the whole table and additionalsources had to be included.

Sanna Pitkänen

AcceptedHans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

ChangedHans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

Please see response to Comment 7430
Reference to Table 10.18 updated

5136

4

10

2676

2677

644

4

10

2676

2677

3682

4

10

2678

2679

3708

4

10

2690

2691

5138

4

10

2692

2692

wrong link to Table 10.24 (correct link is to Table 10.21)

Claus Rösemann

Accepted with
Modification

Rocio Danica Condor
Golec

Accepted with
Modification

francesco nicolatubiello

Rejected

Andrea TILCHE
Francisco Avina
Claus Rösemann
Claus Rösemann

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

Claus Rösemann

Rejected

Reference to the section in Chapter 11 is given, where
additional explanation is given

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

Equation numbers updated in Figure 10.5

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Rejected

Quality of the figure has been checked.

Table 10.22. There is a comment 4 at the end of the table but there is not 4 in any of thetable’s cells.
Drop "3" from the units box.
If N2O due to N from energy crops is included in the N2O emissions from manure
management, it is not possible to obtain animal specific results as intended in Vol.4,
Chapter 10, Annex 10A.4, lines 417 - 423.

2346

4

10

2692

2696

Please a proposal for this section (between par. 2692-2694): Population data should becollected from official national statistics and cross-checked with other databases (e.g.
FAO data available in http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/?#home) to ensure that information
used in the inventory is complete and consistent.

936

4

10

2693

2693

Kindly consider the following edited statement on the FAO data: ''Because of thewidespread availability of national-level livestock statistics compiled and disseminated by
FAO via FAOSTAT (http://www.fao.org/ FAOSTAT)…''

4396
8026
5140
5142

4
4
4
4

10
10
10
10

2763
2771
2782
2785

2763
2771
2783
2785

5144

4

10

2788

2788

5146

4

10

2790

2792

5148

4

10

2804

2806

3220

4

10

2804

2806

Low quality of the figure

3684

4

10

2805

2806

Fig. 10.5: Check the numbering of the equations. E.g. Eq. 10.33 is said to be the equation
Hans-Dieter Haenel
for Nvolatilisation-MMS, but is the equation for N retention in the animal.

Accepted

Equation numbers updated in Figure 10.5

Accepted

Figure 10.5 has been adapted accounting for losses of N
from co-digestates in manure management system, in
accordance with the updated equations 10.25 and 10.26A
and B.

Table 10.24 not found; update table numbers
animals instead of "animals"
where can I find equation 10.A4-1? Aaah. In Annex 10A.4!
wrong link to Annex 10.A.3 (correct link is to Annex 10A.4)
equation 10.A3-7 is surely not the right one, equations 11.2 - 11.4 from Chapter 11? Arethey correct?
"so any application technique…" unfortunately there is no help given how to consider this.
A very simple way would be to return to IPCC 1996 methodology in Chapter 11: apply theEF1 to the amount of manure applied, corrected for the amount of NH3 and NOx emitted
during spreading.
Many (if not all) of the equations in Figure 10.5 are wrong (in Chapter 10 the highest
equation number is 10.34…

3686

4

10

2805

2806

Fig. 10.5: According to this figure, Ncodigestate comes from nowhere. But, in general,
Ncodigestate was stored before and will have produced N emissions from storage(emissions that are not accounted for in Fig. 10.5).

938

4

10

3158

3158

Kindly edit the reference to include location of publication, as well as link to the actual pdf: francesco nicola
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/gleam/docs/GLEAM_2.0_Model_description.pdf. tubielloHans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

The paragraph belongs to a section which is outside of themandate of the Refinement, however some discussion ofactivity data sources has been provided related to comment
924.
The paragraph belongs to a section which is outside of themandate of the Refinement, however some discussion ofactivity data sources has been provided related to comment
924.
Reference updated to Table 10.18
ChangedCommenVolume
t ID

2632

4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertSpread sheet for estimating CH4 emission from manure.
Please be aware of that the default temperatures and t1 and t2 are for continental climate
at 44 degrees northern and thus not applicable the major part of the world. Please writethat it is essential to correct t1 and t2 to local conditions. Furthermore could the model be
Steen Gyldenkærne
a little bit more complicated. As the solar radiation is the driver you will have a larger
impact on 44 ° than on 55°. Here we have a sinus wave with a lower slurry temperature insummer than air temperature and a higher slurry temperature in winter than air. ie
something between soil temperature and air temperature.

10

2602

4

11

All pages

2348

4

11

55

55

8874

4

11

56

56

626

4

11

74

74

628

4

11

74

74

4398

4

11

162

179

3222

4

11

179

183

2532

4

11

179

179

4400

4

11

4402

4

11

The refinement of this chapter is different from several other. E.g. Ch 10 can be read as
new version of the 2006 GL. Here is referred to the 1996 GL. I would suggest that CH 11
in its writing is in line with CH10 so with references to 2006 GL. So please, among others, Steen Gyldenkærne
delete E.g. references and models that the nitrogen fixation do not create N2O emission.
We know that already. And so on.
Section 11.1 Introduction - It would be really helpful for compilers to refer to the E-learning
course which has been specifically developed by FAO to support developing countries in
the preparation of the national GHG inventory for the agriculture sector. Many of the leadauthors and IPCC itself have been involved in the review of the e-learning. Key issues - it Rocio Danica Condor
is free access available course to guide compilers that need to star compiling a tier 1 GHG Golec
inventory with 2006 IPCC GL, in two languages and provides with a series of exercises to
let users apply knowledge and inform on the methodological improvements between the
different versions of the IPCC Guidelines.
N2O emission factors for urban landscapes (e.g., yards, parks, golf courses, recreational
fields) have not been provided.

MINGMING WANG

In the sentence of"following volatilisation of NH3 and NOx from managed soils and fromfossil fuel combustion and biomass burning", The indirect N2O emissions due to NH3 andNOx volatilising from fossil fuel combustion and burning of biomass as fuel should be
Shenghui Han
estimated in the energy sector, but no estimation there. Only the part of the indirect N2Oemissions due to NH3 and NOx emission from residues burning in the field is estimated inthis sector.
In the sentence of"following volatilisation of NH3 and NOx from managed soils and fromfossil fuel combustion and biomass burning", The indirect N2O emissions due to NH3 andNOx volatilising from fossil fuel combustion and burning of biomass as fuel should be
Shenghui Han
estimated in the energy sector, but no estimation there. Only the part of the indirect N2Oemissions due to NH3 and NOx emission from residues burning in the field is estimated inthis sector.
It is very confusing to have the text cut in the middle of a sentence to introduce 2-pageAndrea TILCHE
figures. Please consider to move these figures
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Verify bibliographic citation format
Antonio

Response

Author's Note
We agree with adding text to suggest that countries should
be encouraged to apply the model at their own
temperatures, indicating that these values are only
examples.

Rejected

We would not increase the complexity beyond what has
been put forward, though we considered it, precisely as has
been suggested. This approach is a significant
improvement over the previous method, going beyond this,would be approaching a Tier 3 model and too many
comments have been made with respect to the complexityof the method in this review of the Refinement.

Noted

Authors have harmonized the differences to the extent
possible across chapters based on this suggestion andother comments.

NotedThis should be an FAQ on the IPCC TSU web site.
Guidelines are not the appropriate place to discuss courses
and capacity building programs.

Accepted

The text was removed for '(e.g., urban landscapes)' in the
introduction. Emission factors that are specific to urban
landscapes can be addressed with higher tier methods.

Noted

Acknowledged but this is out of scope with approved tableof contents by the IPCC plenary

Noted

Acknowledged but this is out of scope with approved tableof contents by the IPCC plenary

Accepted

Performed, thank you

AcceptedThank you

The sentence '- - if developed country-specific emission factor --' seems to be incomplete. Muhammad Mohsin
Please check.
IQBAL

Accepted

186

This equation is not numbered

Andrea TILCHE

Noted

187

Remove the 's' from 'Equations 11.1'

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

The phrase, 'if developing country-specific emission factor'
has been replaced with 'by developing country-specificemission factor'
Acknowledged but this is out of scope with approved tableof contents by the IPCC plenary
Corrected

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertAccepted with
Modification

Accepted with
Modification

4404

4

11

187

197

The paragraph explains that the processes taking place in manure happen in cascade,however it does not mention synthetic fertilisers. Does this reasoning apply to to synthetic Andrea TILCHE
fertilisers as well? Please introduce some comments on that.

4934

4

11

187

197

It is correct that the mentioned processes occur in a sequence (and not simultaneously).
Unfortunately there is no guidance given how this should be considered in a Tier 2 method Claus Rösemann…

Response

Author's Note
The text has been changed to "According to Equation 11.1,
direct emissions of N2O from managed soils are calculated
in the Tier 1 approach on the basis of total N applied tosoils as synthetic and organic fertilisers and/or soil N
mineralisation."A reference was provided that reflects N flow through themanure management 'continuum' including practices that
affect direct and indirect N emissions from soils. The
impacts can be addressed with a Tier 3 method where thecompiler uses a more complex method that tracks N flows
rather than the simple EF approach based on total N input.
The corresponding text was therefore moved to the Tier 3
section.

…there is a very simple way to do this, which was used in the IPCC 1996 guidelines Tier 1
Claus Rösemannmethodology: develop an EF1 which is multiplied with the N left in the soil (= N applied NH3-N emitted - NOx-N emitted)

Noted

The text suggest the possibility to develop a Tier 2 method
to account for the N flow effect. A Tier 1 approach, based
on total N added, disregards this effect as developed in thisguidance. The authors of the 1996 guidelines who workedon the 2006 guidelines changed this approach because thedata underlying Tier 1 EF1 did not subtract the N emitted
from volatilization. That is to say, the EF was based on the
total N input, and subtracting this N led to a bias in thecalculation. It is not simple to derive an EF based on theflow and reducing the available N as losses occur due tovolatilization, leaching, plant and microbial uptake, because
most experiments are not conducting a full accounting of all
N flows. Most measurements of emissions relate thoselosses to the N inputs, and therefore we are constrained todeveloping EF values based on the N inputs. However,such impacts can be addressed at higher tier methods if
there are adequate data or models for this purpose.

Change "accounting" to "specifically accounting"

Andrea TILCHE

Rejected

216

The sentence with EF2 is a copy of that in line 231-232, please delete

Steen Gyldenkærne

217

223

I wonder under which circumstances it is allowed to use the default EF1 of 1 %. Eachcountry is able to disaggregate N Inputs to soil from synthetic fertilizers and other sources Claus Rösemann…

Accepted with
Modification

The suggestion does not improve the clarity of thestatement.

217

223

… and each country should know if it is located in a wet or dry climate… of course there
are countries with wet AND dry climates

4936

4

11

187

4148

4

11

196

2604

4

11

215

4944

4

11

4946

4

11

197

9034

4

11

217

223

3224

4

11

219

219

Claus Rösemann

The suggested EF1 values as stated totally ignores a very large and very reliable datasetof N2O from 250 automated chamber treatments from Australia. See Soil Research(2016) N2O in Soils special issue volume 54(5). This Australian information (also reflectedin the Australian inventory) confirms that < 1000 mm EF of 0.5% is a reasonable estimate.
Grace Peter
The majority of global datasets are from non-continuous data. The wet vs dry climate
differentiation is far too simplistic and does not take into account soil type which is a major
determinant. It would be preferable to include an EFs based on a < 600 mm data whichshows extremely low emissions in Mediterranean type soils/climate of 0.05% (see Barton
et al).
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Verify bibliographic citation format
Antonio

The sentence with EF2 has been deleted in lines 231-232.

NotedThis depends on the data available for disaggregating the N
input, and ultimately is a decision for the compiler

Accepted

The text was modified as "These alternative EF1 values
can be used by countries that are able to disaggregate theiractivity data by climate and/or fertiliser type."

Accepted with
Modification

Thank you for pointing out missing datasets. The databaseby Grace et al. (2016) was added to the analysis for EF1
determination but studies not fulfilling criteria set forinclusion were excluded. Disaggregation by soil type could
be part of a Tier 2 method. Furthermore the wet / dryclimate classification corresponds to that defined in the2006 IPCC guidelines.

Accepted

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

Accepted with
Modification

Ultimately, the compiler will have to make the decision andwill need to defend the choice, which is true not only for the
EF selection but the methodological Tier that is selected aswell. We cannot be prescriptive and must leave thisdecision to the compiler. Analysis of the data, of which the
majority (35%) were European studies, showed that, on
average, wet climates produced higher EF1 values. The
analysis without the Rochette et al. (2018) data didn't
significantly change the EF1 for synthetic fertilizer inputs inwet climates. Notwithstanding, the authors included in the
database additional data from wet climate sites.
Disaggregation by soil type could be part of a Tier 2
method.

4150

4

11

220

223

The major change in this chapter is the introduction of disaggregated N2O emissions
factors (EFs) of N inputs for wet and dry climates (Tables 11.1, 11.3). However, the use of
these disaggregated EFs are uncertain. It is said in line 223 that disaggregated emission
factor can be used where activity data allow, not that they should be used. This give scopefor subjective choices by inventory compilers (as possibly influenced by stakeholders).
The differentiated emission factors depending on climate is derived from a large dataset
as describe in the appendices. There is little doubt that EFs are lower in dry (e.g.
Mediterranean climates) as also shown by Cayuela et al. (2017). However, it is morequestionable, whether wet climates are necessarily associated with high emissions. One
Andrea TILCHE
of the key references in the report is Rochette et al. (2018), which analyses emissions
from agricultural soils in Canada. This study found a relationship between EF and rainfall;
however, this relation interacted greatly with soil type, and only fine textured soils showed
an increase in EF with increasing rainfall, whereas for coarse and medium textured soils
there was no increase. Recent results from wet conditions in Europe also show theseclear effects of soil types along with differences between fertilizer types (Bell et al., 2015;
Harty et al., 2016), and in these studies average EFs rarely exceeded the newrecommended EF of 1.7% for wet climates. It is therefore questionable whether this new
EF is generally applicable for the wet climates of Europe.

3226

4

11

228

228

Verify bibliographic citation format

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted

2606

4

11

231

232

Please add a new line after "Table 2.5", so that all sections start with EF1, the next with
EF2 and the third with EF3_PRP

Steen Gyldenkærne

Noted

4938

4

11

231

232

The nomenclature of table 2.5 wetland supplement does not fit with equation 11.1, so theClaus Rösemannsymbols in equation 11.1. have to be adjusted

4940

4

11

233

233

4942

4

11

235

236

8876

4

11

235

236

2608

4

11

237

237

2112

4

11

237

237

mistakable wording: please don't write "all animal types except 'sheep' and 'other'animals"; write "cattle, poultry and pigs"
mistakable wording: please don't write "all animal types except 'sheep' and 'other'animals"; write "cattle, poultry and pigs"
EF for flooded rice fields has ‘continuous flooding’ and 'with drainage’. As stated later inline 857-860, water management strongly affects N2O emissions from paddy rice fields.
More water management systems should be reflected in the refinement as there are awide variety of practices, and subsequently more variations in the EF. California ARB
studies on this could be considered.
The reference to footnote (1) is recommended to be moved to the heading"Disaggregation"

TABLE 11.1：Change "soil carbon1" to "soil organic carbon1, excluding N additions toand N minimalised in managed soils for flooded rice"

Noted

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

MINGMING WANG

Accepted with
Modification

Steen Gyldenkærne

Accepted

Shanshan Yang

Rejected

The sentence relating to the Wetlands supplements has
been deleted, following advice from another reviewer
comment.
The sentence relating to the Wetlands supplements has
been deleted, following advice from another reviewer
comment.

Explanation was added in Annex. The amount of data was
not enough to justify developing for further disaggregationof default factors for application at the global scale.

Adding "excluding N additions to and N minimalised inmanaged soils for flooded rice" complicates the text
unnecessarily. As detailed in Equation 11.1 the EF1FR isthe emission factor for N2O emissions from N inputs toflooded rice, hence the EF1 excludes flooded rice fields.
Exclusion of flooded rice from the analysis of the EF1 isalso clearly explained in Annex 11A.2

CommenVolume
t ID

3596

4

Chapter

11

From line

237

To lineComment

238

In Table 11.1 A, an absolute value is determined for N content of residues and dry matter
fractions of harvested in different product, while these values can change based on thecrop cultivar or cropping system (ex. for irrigated or rainfed lands). A results of theresearch in Iran shows that there is significant difference between 1000-grain weight, grain
yield and harvest index of two different wheat cultivars. The type of cultivar can affect thecrop residues and crop residues can affect soil organic carbon (Sadeghi and Bahrani,2009). Halvorson et al. (1999) showed that increased crop residue rates returned to soil in
Raheleh Malekian
semiarid dry land region of Central Great Plains, USA, accompanied by increased N rate
resulted in increased soil organic carbon levels which contribute to improved soil quality
and productivity, and increased efficiency of carbon sequestration into the soil (Halvorson
et al., 1999). In crop models, the input parameters can be a source of uncertainty (Wanget al., 2005), they should be considered in min and max range. Therefore, it is suggested
that an uncertainty range is considered for crop parameters and indexes based on
different cultivars and cropping system (ex. for irrigated or rainfed lands).
The new EFs in Table 11.1 also distinguish synthetic fertilizer and other N inputs for the
wet climates. Here synthetic fertilizers is said to include both synthetic and organic formsof N, whereas others among others include organic amendments. This leaves
uncertainties on how to categories manures, including slurries and digested manures,
where more than 50% would in mineral form and thus likely have a greater emission
factor, but which is not synthetic. Clarification is needed.
Disaggregation by climate: It should be made clear that this disaggregation should bemade by long term mean values and not individually for each year.
Disaggregation by climate: please include (world) maps showing the climate zones andareas where annual precipitation / potential evapotranspiration < 1 (why there is no link to
Figure 3.A.5.1. in Vol. 4 Ch.3 ? - or should this map not be used?) The same map (?) I
found in the Annex to Chapter 10, page 10.51
Disaggregation by climate: if only a small percentage of a country is dry (or wet) (say 15%): Is it allowed to use only the EF1 for wet conditions (for dry conditions)?

4152

4

11

237

238

4948

4

11

237

238

4950

4

11

237

238

4952

4

11

237

238

3228

4

11

237

238

Verify bibliographic citation format of table 11.1

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

AcceptedExpert-based judgment uncertainty (75%) was added for N
content of above-ground residues and N content of belowground residues.

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

Footnote 3 has been clarified by adding '...animal manures(e.g. slurries, digested manures)...' as examples of 'Other N
inputs'.

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

The following text, "based on long-term averages", wasadded to the footnote 3.

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

The following text was added to the footnote, "cf. Figure
3.A.5.1 in Chapter 3 of Vol. 4 provides a map subdividing
wet and dry climates based on these criteria".

Claus Rösemann

NotedThis would be a decision for the compiler.

Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

AcceptedThank you for identifying this error.

Nicholas Hutchings

Noted

2078

4

11

283

283

Some guidance would be useful (in an annex?) concerning how to partition N2Oemissions from manure (CFR 3D12a) from other material (e.g. anaerobic digestate fromenergy crops; CFR code 3D12c)

4406

4

11

325

330

Equation has some missing bracket. The specification 'Updated' in the equation title does
Andrea TILCHE
not exist in other equations of the SOD; please be coherent along the document

Accepted with
Modification

2498

4

11

325

355

please check the units of variables in the formula

Mingshan Su

Noted

4408

4

11

332

332

Rename R:S(T), calling it with a name without punctuation signs. Clarify in which thisconcept differs from RBG(T) from IPCC (2006) GL

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

2566

4

11

332

332

4954

4

11

351

352

4154

4

11

359

359

The final equation in 11.6 is incorrect. It should be
BGR(T)=Crop_T*R_AG(T)*R:S(T)*Area(T)*Frac_renew(T). This way the product of the
Donna Giltrap
first three terms is (crop harvest yield per ha)*(above ground residue)/(crop harvest
yield)*(below ground residue)/(above ground residue) = below ground residue per haFootnote 14 is wrong: FracRenew(T) lowers the N Emissions. So it makes no sense toargue with increasing N2O emissions. FracRenew(T) is needed because in years without Claus Rösemannrenewal of pastures, meadows, ... there are practically no crop residues.
Consider changing "can be" to "should be"

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted with
Modification

Accepted
Accepted

Acknowledged but this is out of scope with approved tableof contents by the IPCC plenary. This can be addressed ata Tier 2 or 3 level.
Thank you for pointing out the missing bracket. This is the
only equation that was updated in the Chapter, hence theonly one marked as such.
Units were carefully rechecked, and they were correct.
"R : S (T)" was replaced by "RS(T)". The word "shoot" wasmissing from the definition of RS(T). The definition was
updated as "ratio of below-ground root biomass to aboveground shoot biomass for crop T, kg d.m. (kg d.m.)-1"
RS is not a ratio of belowground residue to abovegroundresidue. It is the ratio of belowground root biomass toaboveground shoot biomass. The description was edited tomake this clearer.
Footnote 14 was changed as "This term is included in theequation to account for lower N release rates in grasslands
that are not replanted annually".
Thank you for the suggestion, we have made the suggestedchange.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Sanna Pitkänen

Noted

652

4

11

365

365

What is Crop (T) for e.g. silage which is cut a few times a year, is it total crop or averagecrop per cut?

4956

4

11

399

400

Table 11.1A: How should an inventory compiler deal with missing values in the table?
R:S(T) of rye -> generic grains, but peanuts???

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

2610

4

11

401

401

Last line in the table is missing the s.d. value

Steen Gyldenkærne

Rejected

4410

4

11

463

463

Start a new paragraph with the new title, and change title format

Andrea TILCHE

Accepted

656

Chapter 11.2.2 General remark: if a country is reporting NH3 and NOX emissions(CLRTAP), than the fractions FracGasF and FracGarM should NOT be used to calculate
indirect N2O-Emission from atmospheric deposition:

4958

4

11

463

4960

4

11

463

656

3230

4

11

487

490

2612

4

11

494

7726

4

11

505

506

630

4

11

514

516

632

4

11

571

573

4412

4

11

596

606

4962

4

11

598

606

Claus Rösemann... a formula to replace equation 11.9 in this case could be: N2O(ATD-N) = [E (NH3-N) + E(NO-N)] * EF4 ; E (NH3-N) = sum of NH3-N emissions from application of synthetic
Claus Rösemannfertilizers, application of managed animal manure, compost, … and from grazing; E (NON) = sum of ...
Poot-Delgado Carlos
It is suggested the use of the initial letter in capital letters or revise the grammatical norm
Antonio
Please remove the reference (18). It is not relevant here.
Steen Gyldenkærne
"FracLEACH-(H)" should be used instead of "FracLEACH" on Fig. 11.3 (on page 11.20) in
Kadir Aksakalorder to avoid confusion.
There is no estimation method on NH3 and Nox emission from residues burning in theShenghui Han
field
There is no estimation method on NH3 and Nox emission from residues burning in theShenghui Han
field
This paragraph is exactly the same as lines 187-197, please refer to it or recall it with aAndrea TILCHE
shortest summary

To do so it would be very helpful to include (alternative) EF4 in the guidebook which arereferring to the N IN the soil (and not to the N which is added to soil)...

Claus Rösemann

Noted

Noted

Noted
Accepted
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
Accepted with
Modification

Rejected

Author's Note
It is total annual crop yield as it is presented earlier in thesection 11.2 (and subsequent sections) when detailing FCR(see details below equation 11.1 "FCR = annual amount of
N in crop residues")
Clarification was brought in a footnote, as follows "d No
estimate is available. The most appropriate generic value
can be used, based on expert judgment, in absence ofmore specific figure."
The equations had no intercept, explaining why no s.d.
values were provided. This is similar to Table 11.2 in the2006 guidelines.
This would be a Tier 2 method, and the decision of thecompiler. Thus, CLRTAP was not included in this guidance.

This is grey text and therefore out of scope with approved
table of contents by the IPCC plenary.
This is grey text and therefore out of scope with approved
table of contents by the IPCC plenary.
Thank you, reference '18' was removed.
This is grey text and therefore out of scope with approved
table of contents by the IPCC plenary
Emissions of NH3 and NOx from residue burning are
addressed in another section of the report.
Emissions of NH3 and NOx from residue burning are
addressed in another section of the report.
The paragraph was shortened, with reference made to theearlier paragraph in Section 11.2.1.1
It is up to individual countries to develop higher Tiermethodology, including alternative EF and Frac values, toaccount for the N flow effect. A reference was provided in
Section 11.2.1.1 that reflects N flow through the manure
management 'continuum' including practices that affectdirect and indirect N emissions from soils. The impacts canbe addressed with a Tier 3 method where the compiler uses
a more complex method that tracks N flows rather than thesimple EF approach based on total N input. The
corresponding text was therefore moved to the Tier 3
section.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

4964

4

11

598

606

… without such default EFs in the guidebook most (all?) countries will not be able toaccount for changing NH3-emission rates from soils (because they do not have own
country specific EFs)

Claus Rösemann

Rejected

650
4966

4
4

11
11

621
621

621
623

FracLeach is mentioned to be 0.32 but in table 11.3 it is 0.236.
wrong FracLeach-(H) (0.32), In Table 11.3 FracLeach-(H) is 0.236.

Sanna Pitkänen
Claus Rösemann

Accepted
Accepted

Author's Note
It is up to individual countries to develop higher Tiermethodology, including alternative EF and Frac values, toaccount for the N flow effect. A reference was provided in
Section 11.2.1.1 that reflects N flow through the manure
management 'continuum' including practices that affectdirect and indirect N emissions from soils. The impacts canbe addressed with a Tier 3 method where the compiler uses
a more complex method that tracks N flows rather than thesimple EF approach based on total N input. The
corresponding text was therefore moved to the Tier 3
section.
Revised as suggested.
Revised as suggested.

Notes to Table 11.3. Is it possible that "Notes" on FracLEACH-(H) can be clarified further.
My experience with countries is that it is very difficult to estimate it. Especially fortemperate climates like in Europe where we have a surplus in winter and no leaching insummer. Fertilization takes place in spring over a short period. Which months should betaken into account for estimating FracLEACH-(H)

2614

4

11

651

651

Our detailed data says that leaching out of the root zone (EF5_g) is around 30-32% on
average, but highly variable according to soil type and that we have an average retentionof 40% of N leached out of the root zone not reaching the streams. Higher for sandy soils Steen Gyldenkærne
less for clay soils due to water transport in cracks. Denitrification in the soil is not taken
into account when estimating the indirect emission from leaching so although
FracLEACH-(H) is correctly estimated there will still be an overestimate of the N2O
emission from EF5_r and EF5_e because this part of the equation is not included.

Accepted with
Modification

FracLEACH-(H) was calculated mainly from annual data.
Thus both note and table were revised. Soil texture could
be addressed at the Tier 2 level.

Accepted with
Modification

The term 'Potential' was changed to 'reference'. A reference
was added for the compiler to obtain more information
about PET and pan evaporation, i.e., Allen, R.G., Pereiro,
L.S., Raes, D. and Smith, M. 1998. Cropevapotranspiration: Guidelines for computing crop
requirements. Irrigation and Drainage paper No. 56.
FAO,Rome.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0490e/x0490e04.htm.Contents.

If it is not possible to include this in the equations, then I would suggest that the notes
include several lines on this so countries do not automatically assume that these emission
are correct.

2114

4968

4970

4

4

4

11

11

11

651

651

651

651

TABLE 11-3： The meaning of EF5, which is defined as kg N2O-N per kg N lost frommanaged soils by leaching/runoff, is different from that of EF5g, EF5r or EF5e, each ofwhich is defined as kg N2O-N per kg N in the water. In this regard, it's necessary to add
description on how to incorporate the given values of the three components to the given
value of EF5 in the footnotes of this table or elsewhere. For the NOTES：And definition of Shanshan Yang
soil water-holding capacity and explanation on how to determine its value, because
inventory compilers may not be experts of soil science. For similar reason, add reference
citation for the texts immediately following "Explanations of potential and pan evaporation
are available in standard meteorological and agricultural texts".

652

Clarify: is potential evaporation = 0.5 * pan evaporation? It should be made clear that long
Claus Rösemannterm mean values should be used and not individual data for each year

Accepted

652

Definition of FracLeach-H: is it really intended to divide a year in dry and wet periods andto calculate leaching losses for each of these periods? In this chapter (11.2.2ff) and in the Claus Rösemannformula 11.10 it is not described how to deal with this!

Accepted with
Modification

The PET calculation has been revised as follows, ET0 =Kpan * Ep, where ET0: Reference evapotranspiration,
Kpan: pan evaporation coefficient, Ep: pan evaporation.
When Kpan is not available, reference evaporation can be
estimated as; ET0= 0.5 * Ep. Also, 'long-term mean' wasadded.
Text has been added explaining that 'long-term mean of
annual data should be used for estimating FracLEACH-(H)'.
Equation 11.10 is out of scope for refinement based on the
Table of Contents approved by the IPCC Plenary. Moredetailed FracLEACH-(H) values can be derived with higher
tier methods.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

4972

4

11

651

652

Definition of EF4: why do you use different definitions for wet climates ("rainfall > 0,5 * pan
Claus Rösemannevaporation" versus "ratio of annual precipitation : potential evaporation > 1")?

Noted

The EF4 values are for volatilization and subdivided by
IPCC climate zones. The FracGASF values are used inconjunction with the EF4 values to estimate the emissions.
However, the pan evaporation data are used for
FracLEACH-(H), i.e., leaching, along with the EF5 factor
value to estimate the indirect N2O emissions from leaching
and runoff. In addition the EF5 values are notdisaggregated by climate. The climate effect is addressedin the FracLEACH-(H) estimates, with no leaching in very
dry regions using the pan evaporation criteria, which isconsidered to be a better approximation of leachingpotential than the IPCC climate region criteria.

4974

4

11

651

652

FracgasF and FracgasM defaults are very confusing: IPCC 2006: 0,1 and 0,2; First orderdraft: 0,177 and 0,12; Now: 0,112 and 0,110 (why not FracgasF = FracgasM = 0,111?).

Accepted with
Modification

FracGASM was revised with explanation provided in Annex
11.A.8

Accepted with
Modification

FracGASM was revised with explanation provided in Annex
11.A.8

AcceptedAnnex 11A.2 was updated, and the text was clarified.

AcceptedAnnex 11A.2 was updated, and includes an analysis of the
response of the EF1 to varying fertiliser levels.

AcceptedAnnex 11A.2 was updated, and the text was clarified.

4976

4

11

651

652

4414

4

11

688

689

8554

4

11

668

745

4416

4

11

691

698

2534

Volume 4

Annex 11A.2697

698

2536

Volume 4

Annex 11A.2702

702

4978

4

11

707

708

4980

4

11

707

708

4418

4

11

727

727

4420

4

11

731

734

Claus Rösemann

I think new FracgasF and FracgasM defaults are wrong (at least for middle Europe). All
the following countries report CS values (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany,
Claus Rösemann
Netherlands, Switzerland, UK) and for each Country FracGASF is << 0.10 and FracGASF
is << FracGASM
Why are there 2 disaggregation levels? Are they mixed in the analysis. Please explain
Andrea TILCHE
In this Annex, provide information on possible non-linearity of emissions with N addition(see e.g. Shcherbak et al., 2014, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1322434111). Background: two of themeta-analysis studies used here specifically refer to such non-linearity in their abstracts,with Albanito et al. finding no such response, but Cayuela et al. reporting a clearly higher
emission factor for high-input systems. Inventory compilers would appreciate guidance on
Wilfried Winiwarter
whether or not such influences need to be considered relevant. This Annex provides
extremely useful and valuable analysis for a number of parameters. Investigating theinfluence of different fertilizer levels (or of excess N applied) would add to that, even if it
arguably might not have any influence on the central table of the whole chapter, Table
11.1.
It is not clear if all the data from the 1999 cases are studied together using both methods
or if some are analysed with one method and some with the other. In line 691, the authors
Andrea TILCHE
mention disaggregated emission factors: does disaggregation refer toorganic/synthetic/mixed or to the different climate regions?
'- - due to other sources of Nthan Ni' is suggested to be rewritten as '- - due to sources of Muhammad Mohsin
N other than Ni'.
IQBAL
The phrase '- - from a same reference with a same soil type - -'is suggested to be rewritten Muhammad Mohsin
as '- - from the same reference with the same soil type --'.
IQBAL
from Table A2-2 I calculate 82% with synthetic plus mixed fertiliser forms (and not 75 %),Claus Rösemann
it is not transparent how the aggregated EF1 was calculated.
My result from Table A2-2 for EF1 aggregated is: [(86 * 0.007) + (505 * 0.017) + (53*Claus Rösemann
0.005) + (138 * 0.005)] / (86 + 505 + 53 + 138) = 0.013, please explain the calculation
method you used to get 0.010
In table A2-1, what does a significance of A, B, C mean? And the position where they are
Andrea TILCHE
located within the cells?
The text says that EF1 was significantly higher when irrigation was practiced but then it
Andrea TILCHE
says that EF1 when irrigation is practices is close to dry climates. This seems
contradictory, please revise the text.

Noted
Noted

Will be considered, and addressed if necessary in the final
copy-edit work.
Will be considered, and addressed if necessary in the final
copy-edit work.

AcceptedAnnex 11A.2 was updated, and the methods were clarified.

AcceptedAnnex 11A.2 was updated, and the methods were clarified.

AcceptedAnnex 11A.2 was updated, and the text was clarified.

AcceptedAnnex 11A.2 was updated, and the text was clarified.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

4422

11

4

From line

744

To lineComment

Expert745

In the table title, rephrase 'Low and High uncertainties'; they are not 'uncertainties' but theextremes of an uncertainty range. Please explain the significance column. It would be
Andrea TILCHE
good to highlight the last disaggregation type (climate fertiliser type), which correspondswith the values indicated in Table 11.1 as default EF1, or somehow indicate that those are
the values retained

4424

4

11

766

778

The text only refers to the criteria 'flooding type'. Were other criteria taken into account, inparticular geographical location/climate? Please mention if this does not have any
Andrea TILCHE
influence on EFs or if not enough information was available in publications to include
those criteria in the analysis. Was only the arithmetic mean calculated for rice? Please
explain further the type of statistical analysis performed.

2538

Volume 4

Annex 11A.4802802What is artificial urine? May be elaborated in a sentence or two.

4426

4

11

809

Replace 'there is' by 'there are'

2568

4

11

809

814

816

Log-transformation results in biased estimation of the mean. Was any attempt made tobias-correct these mean values? Reference: Neyman and Scott, Annals of Mathematical
Statistics (1960) 31:643-655

Muhammad Mohsin
IQBAL
Andrea TILCHE

Donna Giltrap

TABLE A4-1：At the end of the footnotes for this table, add one more paragraph as "1
The uncertain range is given at the 95% confidence interval, and n denotes the number ofShanshan Yangobservations". Question: What does "this value for sheep urine in dry climates has beenretained" mean? Could it be stated more clearly ?
With data from Table 4-1 and a urine: dung ratio of 0.66:0.34 I calculate an EF3PRP,CPP
Claus Rösemann
for dry climates of 0.002 and not 0.003 as in Table 11.1….
…0.66 * 0.0033 + 0.34 * 0.0007 = 0.002416. If this calculation method is wrong, than theClaus Rösemanndescription in Annex11A.4 is not transparent enoughwording: "similar to". I think 1.9. % and 0.87 % are at the most in the "same order ofClaus Rösemannmagnitude" as 1.0 %, the value of EF1
Remove 'on' before 'conducted'
Andrea TILCHE

2116

4

11

837

837

4982

4

11

837

838

4984

4

11

837

838

4986

4

11

945

945

4428

4

11

949

949

4988

4

11

961

962

2540

Volume 4

Annex 11A.5962

963

4990

4

11

965

965

'Notwithstanding given the absence - -'. In this phrase, either the word 'Notwithstanding' or Muhammad Mohsin'given' is suggested to be retained, not both.
IQBAL
Wrong reference to Table A2-1. Table A2-2 is the correct Table
Claus Rösemann

4992

4

11

982

1003

Nowhere is illustrated that EF5 = EF5g + EF5r + EF5e (also not in updated Table 11.3)

Claus Rösemann

4430

4

11

983

1003

As for EF1FR, there is no mention of climate/location criteria; was not there enoughinformation, was it not considered relevant? Please mention.

Andrea TILCHE

2542

Volume 4

Annex 11A.6997

997

The word 'the' in 'to separate the different N sources - -' is suggested to be deleted.V

Muhammad Mohsin
IQBAL

The argumentation to use the same emission factors as EF1 to EF4 is weak (although I
support this decision)

Claus RösemannResponse

Author's Note

AcceptedAnnex 11A.2 was updated, and "Uncertainty range" wasadded to improve clarity.

Accepted with
Modification

Noted
Accepted

Accepted with
Modification

Accepted with
Modification

An explanation has been added based on the comment.
Only the flooding-type is considered because the amount ofavailable data was not adequate to evaluate other factors.
Also, flooding-type is known to be the most important factor
influencing the EF for rice fields.

Artificial urine is self-explanatory and may not needelaboration.
The text has been modified to clarify that the mean values
for excreta EF3 were calculated as arithmetic means. The
statistical analysis was restricted to assessing whether
there were significant differences between categories.
Therefore, there was no need to back-transform and bias
correct the data, as the means were not generated throughthis method.
The suggested footnote was added to Table A4.1. The
sentence referring to the 'value for sheep urine in dry
climates has been retained' was deleted, as it was
confusing and also unnecessary.

Accepted

The calculation has been modified.

Accepted

The calculation has been modified.

Accepted

The text has been revised as suggested.

Accepted

The rationale was re-considered but it seems sufficient
given the limited information available to derive an EF4
value.
This sentence has been modified, and the issue pointed out
Accepted with min this comment is addressed.
Accepted'EF5 = EF5g + EF5r + EF5e' was added in the footnote ofAccepted
Table 11.3 and Annex.
An explanation has been added based on the comment.
Only the flooding-type is considered because the amount ofavailable data was not adequate to evaluate other factors.
AcceptedAlso, flooding-type is known to be the most important factor
influencing the EF for rice fields.
Noted

Noted

Will be considered, and addressed if necessary in the final
copy-edit work.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Noted

4994

4

11

1001

1003

In Table 11.3 the same values should be used as here (here: 0.0055 + 0.0027 + 0.0023 =0.0105 (why rounded to 0.0110? Current EF5 (0.0075) has also 4 decimal places); Table Claus Rösemann11.3: 0.006 + 0.003 + 0.002 = 0.011)

4996

4

11

1008

1039

I have no idea how the tables A7-1 to A7-3 are leading to the FracGasf values in Table
11.3. Enhance transparency. Is it really appropriate to increase the old default (0.1) byadding some decimal places to 0.112?

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

2080

4

11

1008

1055

A paper describing the development of the emission factors for ammonia from synthetic
fertilisers has been submitted for publication.

Nicholas Hutchings

Noted

4432

4

11

1008

1079

Please rephrase the titles of these three sections; FracGASF, FracGASM and FracLEACH
Andrea TILCHE
are addressed to as 'emission factors'. Although we are referring to emission factors,
which is confusing in the GL terminology (corresponding EFs would be EF4 and EF5)

2544

Volume 4

Annex 11A.71010

1010'have been' is suggested to be changed to 'have been'.

2546

Volume 4

Annex 11A.71011

1011

The word 'the' in the phrase '- - for the different types - -' is suggested to be deleted.

2118

4

11

1015

1036

2082

4

11

1038

1038

4998

4

11

1062

1072

5000

4

11

1062

1072

5002

4

11

1062

1072

5004

4

11

1075

1079

Muhammad Mohsin
IQBAL
Muhammad Mohsin
IQBAL

TABLE A7-1, TABLE A7-2, TABLE A7-3：Add footnotes to each of the tables to provide
Shanshan Yang
the full names for AS, AN, CAN, AP, NP, NK, NPK, DAP, MAP, UAN.
Correct reference is EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2016.
Technical guidance to prepare national emission inventories. EEA Report No 21/2016.
doi:10.2800/247535. However, it would be preferable to refer to the permalink to the latest
Nicholas Hutchingsversion of the Guidebook (https://www.eea.europa.eu/ds_resolveuid/2B5XD6Z9OG) as
this would ensure that the reader would be informed of any future improvements orcorrections.
It is not transparent how FracGasM was calculated. To me it seems that for NH3 only data
Claus Rösemannfrom "excreta patches" in grassland were taken into account. Exceta patches are only aminor source in FracGASM!
Manure application data has not been considered (in contrast to the first order draft)? This
Claus Rösemannis by far the more important source for FracGasM!
In the first Order Draft concrete values from Cai et. al were presented (NH3 cattle excreta
Claus Rösemann
7.86%, sheep excreta...),please show the calculation methodology how 11% for
FracGasM was calculated from these values.
this text is not helpful to understand how FracLeach was calculated. I´m afraid that CAI &Claus Rösemann
AKIYAMA (2016) (only leaching from excreta patches but not from intentionally fertilized
crops) have a great weight in this.

Author's Note
The EF presented in the tables of the main text were
presented with 3 decimals. However authors provided 4
decimals in the Annex whenever they judged more
precision was necessary and justified based on theexperimental data.
We added more detailed information on how the emission
factors were derived. In this refinement document, allfactors were expressed with 2 decimals.
The approach in this refinement is based on the same NH3
database as this paper (Bowman et al., 2002, Pan et al.,2016). Nevertheless, un-published papers can no longer be
included in the Refinement because the literature cut-off
date has passed.

Accepted

Noted
Noted

Will be considered, and addressed if necessary in the final
copy-edit work.
Will be considered, and addressed if necessary in the final
copy-edit work.

Accepted

Footnotes have been added as suggested.

Accepted

The reference has been updated as suggested.

Accepted

The explanation of the FracGASM factor has been updated.

Accepted

The explanation of the FracGASM factor has been updated.

Accepted

The calculation method for FracGASM has been updated to
improve clarity.

Noted

Dataset for FracLEACH include all N source (chemicalfertiliser, manure, excreta patches). The list of papers were
provided in the Annex.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

Rejected

The proposed amendment is out of scope of the 2019
Refinement. The purpose of this guidance is to provide
advice on how to calculate emissions and removals, given
the approaches that have been specified. It is important that
we remain neutral with regard to the merits or drawbacks ofany given approach. Choices and decisions about the
selection of approaches are a matter for individual countries
and negotiations between them. It is inappropriate for us to
influence countries by expressing value judgements about
these choices and decisions. We have gone as far as wecan, by highlighting that choices made by different countries
could lead to non-counting or double-counting of emissions(please see three paragraphs included at end of Section
12.3.2).

4156

4

12

No guidance is provided to decide which of the three main approaches for assessing
emissions and removals related to HWPs should be used or why. The guidelines should
clearly explain the rationale for or against each of the approaches as it might strongly
affect emissions and removals. Countries will then most likely pick the approach thatminimizes their emissions depending on whether they are producers or consumers of
HWPs. In consequence, there might be a significant potential for failing to account for
Andrea TILCHE
significant amounts of emissions. In some cases, however, the choice of methodologies
will also lead to double counting of emissions and removals. Efforts should be made toquantify the potential error prior to publication of the document. Alternatively, if noplausible justification can be offered why these three approaches are indeed necessary, it
might be sensible to only offer one approach for accounting in Tiers 1 and 2, and request
justification for the application of more sophisticated Tier 3 approaches.

4158

4

12

No guidance is provided which of the three main approaches should be used or why. The
Andrea TILCHE
guidelines should explain the rationale for or against each of the approaches.

Rejected

No action can be taken because comment is out of scopeof 2019 Refinement

12

The following comments pertain to the SOD of the GHG inventory guidance. I wasn’t able
to download a new comment sheet, so I renamed the FOD comment sheet. However it
would not let me delete the comments I submitted on the FOD, so I deleted the line
numbers, and am starting here with new comments. My comments focus exclusively on
the sections pertaining to GHG reporting for bioenergy. My apologies for not having thetime to read the chapter more comprehensively. In my comments on the FOD, I observedthat sometimes the writing was not very clear. It’s been improved, thank you for that, but isstill unnecessarily for convoluted in places, and needs a LOT of work before it can be
Booth Mary
published. This part of the GHG guidance is extraordinarily complicated, with many
moving parts. One must hold a lot of information in one’s head about how the different
approaches work, both as an exporting country and an importing country, to fullycomprehend the implications of different approaches. Unfortunately it is still necessary inmany places to re-read paragraphs several times to determine their meaning. I suggest
finding a new editor at this point, who can go over every sentence with fresh eyes, andmake sure the document is written as simply as possible. I have a few specific editorialcomments, as well.

Accepted

The text has been further edited for clarity.

9004

4

1

1

3298

4

12

85

85

2358

4

12

86

138

3398

4

12

92

93

3544

4

12

107

107

Thank you for the opportunity to review this chapter. As an improvement on the 2006 GL I
hope the text is easy for an analyst with limited knowledge 1) to determine when to use
Tier 1, vs assuming instantaneous oxidation or Tier 2 or 3, 2) Where to find data for Tier 1
Kenneth Skog
estimates, 3) how to make a required uncertainty evaluation. As an improvement I hope it
improves on implementing the good practice criteria to neither over nor under estimate as
far as can be judged and reduces uncertainties as much as practicable.
Sections 12.1 and 12.2 are clear, concise and helpful - thank you. Typo in 12.2 heading
Stephen Wakelin
though: "Definitions".
It seems equation 12.4 is recommended rather than the 2006 GL methods for estimating
influx prior to 1961 or 1990. The HWP excel sheet is still on the 2006 GL web site. It
Kenneth Skog
uses the older method to estimate influx prior to 1961/1990. Can analysts still use theexcel sheet for Tier 1 estimates or is that no longer included in the guidance?
Correct typo in word "DEFINTIONS", should be "DEFINITIONS"
Ana Blondel

Noted

Accepted

Editorial

Accepted with
Modification

We have accepted the question and modified text
accordingly.

Accepted

Editorial

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

Ana Blondel

Accepted

The text has been amended in the light of the requested clari

Kenneth Skog
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio

Accepted

The text has been revised in the light of the comment.

Accepted

Editorial

Accepted with
Modification

Sentence inserted to provide cross-reference to further
explanation in Section 12.4.4.

Accepted with
Modification

Text has been amended for clarity.

The term "CO2 removals" has a particular meaning in the context of the HWP pool giventhat HWP do not directly sequester carbon from the atmosphere as noted in section
12.3.1 and should be better clarified at the beginning of the Chapter. Suggest to include amore clear clarification of this term in the context of HWP in Section 12.2 (Terms andDefinitions).

7548

4

12

107

183

In order to provide a more documented comment on the definition of this term and of the
HWP approaches, I had requested two literature references that unfortunately were neverprovided to me during the review period. These references were:Volume 4; Chapter 12; Year 2017; Title: The Contribution of the Material Wood Use to
Climate Protection - the WoodCarbonMonitorModel (de); Authors: Rüter, S.; Publisher:
Technische Universität München, Wissenschaftszentrum Weihenstephan for Ernährung,Landnutzung und Umwelt, Doctoral thesis; Request Date 03 Aug 2018 20:17
Volume 4; Chapter 12; Year 2006; Title: Stock changes or fluxes? Resolving
terminological confusion in the debate on land-use change and forestry; Authors: Cowie,
A., Pingoud, K. und Schlamadinger, B.; Publisher: Climate Policy; Request Date 03 Aug
2018 17:01

3396

4

12

110

110

Near the end of the report the word "reporting" seems to be used in place of "approach"

3232

4

12

110

124

Verify bibliographic citation format

2360

4

12

127

130

3300

4

12

137

138

It wasn’t easily understood what was meant by “methods that are ‘inventory-based’ and‘flux data-based’”. In section 12.4.4.2 the text used is ‘HWP stock inventory methods’,
which is a bit clearer. Perhaps the purpose of the text was to differentiate between
approaches that estimate net changes in HWP carbon stocks (e.g. stock-change andproduction) and approaches that estimate carbon flows and fluxes between HWP pools
Stephen Wakelin(e.g. atmospheric-flow and simple-decay). If so then suggest changing the text here and incorresponding sections to: (strikethrough is deleted text, red font is new text)“When considering methods to estimate CO2 emissions and removals from HWP, it ispossible to apply methods that are ‘inventory-based’ estimate changes in carbon stocks
in the HWP pool and ‘flux data-based’ estimate carbon fluxes from the HWP pool."
The flux method involves both measurement of production and trade amounts andKenneth Skog
modelling, Suggest you say … involve modelling in addition to measurement, ….

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note
We believe that a significant improvement in this updated
guidance has been to make a clear distinction between
approaches and methods. In terms of approach, the 'simple
decay' concept is identical to the production approach.
Hence, we are maintaining the 'simple decay' concept as an
approach by providing guidance for the production
approach. The distinction is only in terms of methods.

2362

4

12

151

154

The Simple Decay approach doesn't necessarily have the same system boundary as the
Production Approach - it was intended to apply to harvest directly rather than to semifinished HWPs.

Stephen Wakelin

Accepted with
Modification

The 2006 IPCC GL included some discussion of how to
combine variables under the 'simple decay' concept, but noexplicit guidance was provided on calculation methods. In
some places, guidance relevant to the 'simple decay'
concept in the 2006 IPCC GL is identical to that given for
the 'production' approach. It remains the case that there isno basis for providing exclusive methodological guidancefor calculations relevant for the 'simple decay' concept.
However, in the discussion of Tier 3 methods we haveamended the text so that it mentions the possibility ofapplying a country-specific method reflecting the 'simpledecay' concept.

2364

4

12

178

183

2366

4

12

201

201

3546
2368

4
4

12
12

206
213

206
213

3302

4

12

222

227

It could be stated explicitly that the only reason that inputs to the HWP pool count as CO2
Stephen Wakelin
removals is that the CO2 has been considered to be 'emitted' from the Forest pool.
Delete "and removals". E.g. Imported wood products would have emissions within theStephen Wakelin
consuming country, but not removals.
Delete repeated word "in"Ana Blondel
Stephen Wakelin
Add the word 'pool': i.e. "from the HWP pool…"
It seems you would want to say that the system boundaries have an impact on the dataand estimation methods required for estimation . I don't see the logic for the reverse. TSU Kenneth Skog
to check allocation.

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification
Accepted
Accepted

The text has been amended in the light of the comment.
The text has been amended for clarity.
Editorial
The text has been revised accordingly.

Accepted with
Modification

The text has been amended for clarity.

2370

4

12

223

223

Change text to explain that there are calculation methods based on changes in carbon
stocks or fluxes from HWP pools (rather than ‘inventory methods’ or ‘flux data methods’
which is not clear.

Stephen Wakelin

Accepted with
Modification

We acknowledge that the terminology related to HWP cansometimes be confusing. However, as authors, we areconstrained by the way terminology has been usedhistorically and/or in different contexts. Difficulties arise
because of the need to distinguish between HWP
approaches that are "pool-based" and "flux-based" on the
one hand, and calculation methods that are based on
direct measurement (inventory) of carbon stocks in HWP
pools and based on measurement or analysis of carbon
fluxes on the other hand. It is important to try to use
terminology to describe methods that is clearly different
from that used to describe the conceptual basis of HWP
approaches. Throughout the text, we have tried to use
terminology distinctly, improving it where possible (e.g. nowreferring to "direct inventory methods"). In the specific caseraised by the reviewer, we have removed references tocalculation methods because it is superfluous to thediscussion and we agree could be confusing.

3548

4

12

226

226

Fix typo in "boarders", should be "borders"

Ana Blondel

Accepted

Editorial

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

2372

12

228

228

A paragraph introducing the decision trees would be helpful - e.g. ! = IPCC default method
Stephen Wakelin
and data; 2 = IPCC method, country-specific data; 3 = country-specific method and data.

4

ExpertShould be"STEP 1: Check the availability of activity data on HWP in order to decide and clarify theAna Blondel
option of reporting or not reporting CO2 emissions and removals from HWP" instead of"STEP 1: Check the availability of activity data on HWP in order to clarify the option of notreporting CO2 emissions and removals from HWP"
Suggest replacing "..countries might need to decide not to report on HWP…" with
Stephen Wakelin"...countries cannot report on HWPs".
the 2006 IPCC Guidelines say " The HWP Contribution can be reported as zero if theinventory compiler judges that the annual change in carbon in HWP stocks is
insignificant.....The term ‘insignificant’ in this context means that the annual change incarbon in HWP stocks, using one of the measures of carbon change above, is less than
the size of any key category. Countries are encouraged to use the Tier 1 methods toestimate HWP variables to aid in judging if the annual change is insignificant. Parties that Kenneth Skog
wish to report HWP contribution to AFOLU where the focus is on carbon fluxes to andfrom the atmosphere may want to report HWP even where there is no significant stockchange. Is this guidance being replaced with "a decision may be taken not to estimate
CO2 emissions and removals from HWP because the magnitude .. is small." Is "small "being left up the judgement of the analyst? Please be explicit.
Do you mean "Check the availability of data on production and trade for the three default
Kenneth Skog
HWP categories…"
Section 12.4.1.1 should state explicitly on lines 311-312 that FAO data can be used forTier 1 estimates unless data does not appear for the country in the FAO database. If theanalyst has better data it can be used for Tier 2 estimates. If the analyst has heard some
informal assertions that their is a problem with the FAO data that should not basis jumping
to an assumption of instantaneous emissions. If they have a concern about the data they
Kenneth Skog
should talk to those in the country that prepare/ submit data to FAO and resolve if there
should be a change in the data already submitted to FAO. A Tier 1 estimate using FAO
data should be the default. If the resulting calculation gives a very low emission / removal
which is judged "insignificant" by some well defined criteria then they can reportinstantaneous emissions.
I don't understand how data can "match" a method. Do you mean the data meets theneed to make calculations required by a method. This sentence is not clear to me. Do
Kenneth Skog
you mean a Tier 3 method and data need to cover all the product flows covered by the
Tier 1 method? That it cannot leave out any flows our stock types? Please clarify
What does "meshes with " mean?
Kenneth Skog
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Verify bibliographic citation format
Antonio

Response

Author's Note

Rejected

The requested information is just a few lines below.

Accepted with
Modification

The text was revised in the light of the comment

Accepted with
Modification

The text has been amended for clarity.

Accepted with
Modification

The text has been edited for clarity and the meaning has
been changed.

Accepted with
Modification

The text has been revised for the sake of clarity.

Accepted

We changed text accordingly in the relevant section andelsewhere as proposed.

Accepted

The text has been revised for the sake of clarity.

3550

4

12

232

233

2374

4

12

235

236

3304

4

12

237

239

3306

4

12

240

240

3308

4

12

241

241

3310

4

12

256

256

3312

4

12

259

259

3234

4

12

274

283

3552

4

12

277

277

Should be "wood-removals” instead of "removals”

Ana Blondel

3314

4

12

288

288

This seems unnecessarily complex. Suggest you say " Definitions of wood productcommodities categories and data used to estimate CO2 emissions…"

Kenneth Skog

3316

4

12

289

289

above, not below.

Kenneth Skog

Rejected

2376

4

12

293

295

FAO data is freely available but there seems to correct errors in historic data - there aremany errors and inconsistencies.

Stephen Wakelin

Noted

3318

4

12

297

297

Suggest " intention to be used in end uses." I don't know what "used as material" means. Kenneth Skog

2378

4

12

301

301

It would be helpful to explain WHY sleepers are excluded and where they are reported
instead.

Stephen Wakelin

Noted
Accepted
Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification

Editorial
Editorial
Editorial
The sentence refers to the definitions provided which arelisted below the relevant statement.

The text has been amended for clarity.
The text has been amended for clarity.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To line

2380

4

12

311

316

3320

4

12

311

316

2382
9010

4
4

12
12

317
317

317
317

3322

4

12

325

330

Comment

ExpertBetter to say that FAOSTAT data on the three semi-finished products are adequate for
Stephen Wakelin
Tier 1 reporting - other data can be used for higher tiers, including 'other industrial
roundwood' if reliable data is available.
I think this needs to be more explicit to help an analyst use Step 1.1 on line 240 indetermining availability of data. I think you can say " The data for these above mentioned
aggregate HWP commodities (sawn wood, wood-base panels and paper and paperboard)that are needed to prepare Tier 1 estimates for the the production and stock change
Kenneth Skog
accounting approaches is publicly available in FAOSTAT (...). Additional trade data
(discussed later) from FAOSTAT is needed to make a Tier 1 estimate for the Atmosphericflow approach. Alternate or refined country data may be available for Tier 2 or 3 estimates.
FAO data on "Other industrial roundwood" appears to be unreliable ( ... ) and is notincluded as data to be used in Tier 1. ""Some commodities which are excluded...".
Stephen Wakelin
Should say “commodities THAT are excluded” (not “which”)
Booth Mary
This paragraph seems to begin discussion of data that is not needed to make a Tier 1
estimate. Are you saying that an analyst doing a Tier 1 estimate needs to assess this data
and report on it's uncertainties? Are you asking an analyst who has this data but does notuse it in an estimate to somehow use it to discuss uncertainty of tier estimate? If so thisparagraph is not clear enough to indicate how they should do that. Please do not requestthat they report on uncertainties in data they are not using unless you make it very clear
Kenneth Skog
how they include it in an uncertainty calculation. As I think about section 12.4.1.1 and ananalyst who is trying to do a Tier 1 or at most a Tier 2 estimate it would help them a lot toknow which parts of this section they need to read. For example they may not need toread this paragraph and much that follows. Should the material beginning with thisparagraph be labelled "Availability of data for Tier 2 and 3 estimates". I don't want a Tier 1
analyst to get overwhelmed and think they cannot make an estimate.

2384

4

12

347

351

(Some possible feedstock commodities are not included in the default method) - could
state that they can be included in higher Tiers.

3554

4

12

358

358

A comma seems to be missing after "charcoal" to improve the meaning of the sentence

Ana Blondel

2386

4

12

365

365

Why exclude telephone poles - they are highly unlikely to be peeled or sawn. Where arethey included?

Stephen Wakelin

2388

4

12

408

408

Replace "equals the assumption" with "is equivalent to the assumption'.

Stephen Wakelin

Author's Note

Accepted with
Modification

The text has been amended for clarity.

Accepted with
Modification

The text has been amended for clarity.

Accepted
Accepted

Accepted with
Modification

Stephen Wakelin

Rejected

Rejected

3324

4

12

408

408

This assumptions are not equal in the description of the flows that are offset. I suggest
you say "This "no change" assumption provides the same result in estimating net change
Kenneth Skog
to the atmosphere as assuming carbon in biomass harvested is oxidized in the removal
year. This is why not reporting CO2 emissions and removals from HWP may be referred
to as "instantaneous oxidation" (...)

2390

4

12

409

409

Missing word: "…immediately in the year…"

5192

4

12

413

415

2392

4

12

417

419

3326

4

12

418

418

3328

4

12

420

420

The work by the Monomet Institute (USA) is important for looking at carbon flux throughbiomass.
See also 235-236: Replace "countries might furthermore decide to apply.." with "…
countries must apply…".
The term “instantaneous oxidation” in this line should be replaced with “no net change incarbon stock” – see previous comment in relation to lines 401-402
This is very vague. Is it meant to be an alternative to the guidance in 2006 GL Section
12.1.1? What is small ,10% of forest flux? 1%? Can they choose a percent they want?
Can they choose this para and ignore 2006 GL 12.2.1?

Response

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

The text has been amended in the light of the comment.
See latest text in Sections 12.4.1 and 12.4.1.2 and to someextent Section 12.4.1.1.

We agree with the spirit of the comment, but this is not theplace to make this point. The possibility of using countryspecific feedstock categories is covered in the discussion ofTier 2/Tier 3 methods.
The sentence is a direct quote which is why the text
remains unchanged.
The text has been amended in the light of the comment.
The section has been amended in order to improve theclarity of the guidance.

Accepted with
Modification

The section has been amended in the light of the comment.
See latest text in Sections 12.4.1 and 12.4.1.2 and to someextent Section 12.4.1.1.

Stephen Wakelin

Accepted with
Modification

The section has been amended in order to improve theclarity of the guidance.

Stephen Dettman

Noted

Stephen Wakelin
Kenneth Skog
Kenneth Skog

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification

The text has been amended for clarity.
The text has been revised in the light of the comment.
The text has been revised in the light of the comment.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

3330

4

12

421

422

2394

4

12

423

423

3332
3334
3336

4
4
4

12
12
12

429
449
468

429
449
468

3556

4

12

468

468

3558
2396

4
4

12
12

486
494

486
494

From line

To lineComment

ExpertAre you saying a rough estimate of annual emissions are the magnitude of production ?
Or consumption ? Of the 3 main commodities of wood products? Or are you saying this is
Kenneth Skogan estimate of annual removals? Are you saying it could be between these two
possibilities? Please give some logic. What is an analyst considering a Tier 1 estimate
to take from this?
Add sentence: "this can then be used to provide justification for applying theStephen Wakelin
instantaneous oxidation approach".
should be 12.4.1.1 and 12.4.3
Kenneth Skog
12.4.2.1
Kenneth Skog
I did not find 12.3.2.2
Kenneth Skog
Should be "half-life of the particular HWP commodity in the HWP pool, in years" instead of
Ana Blondel"half-life of the HWP pool in years"
Fix typo in "cateogory", should be "category"Ana Blondel
Pluralise 'discard': "…historic and current discards from the HWP pool…"
Stephen Wakelin

Response

Author's Note

Accepted with
Modification

The text has been revised in the light of the comment.

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

Editorial

Accepted
Accepted

Editorial
Editorial

Rejected

The method included in the guidance is more robust given
the uncertainties surrounding historical production,
consumption and service lives of HWP. Hence we cannot
accept the proposed alternative method without stronger
supporting evidence. In addition, in the text of the chapter,
we have now elaborated the discussion to explain why
significant uncertainties can arise in applying historical data
(and indeed assumptions about historical consumption
levels) to 'spin up' FOD calculations. At the same time,
according to our text, we do not prevent inventory compilers
from using longer-run time series of wood production
statistics, but in these circumstance we consider it to begood practice for compilers to provide evidence to showthat increase in HWP production or consumption are
genuine, and not just due to better (more complete) data inmore recent years.

3338

4

12

502

502

2448

4

12

504

504

Is the 'U variable' approach to initialising the pools no longer good practice?

Stephen Wakelin

3340

4

12

505

509

The first sentence is grammatically incorrect and the second one incomprehensible.
Rewrite or delete.

Accepted with
Modification

Kenneth Skog

Accepted

2398

4

12

505

511

Paragraph needs to be rewritten - meaning is not clear.

Stephen Wakelin

Accepted513

In this section are you saying that no analyst should trust the data in FAOSTAT for years
prior to 1990 ? I think you should make it clear that for Tier 1 you recommend they use
data available from FAOSTAT (for whatever years are available) unless they have country
Fabiano Ximenes
specific information that indicates to them not to use data prior to 1990. Currently isseems you suggest that even in the absence of country specific info that they, based onyour comment, can reject data prior to 1990 with no further information.

4

12

505

Editorial
Editorial
Editorial

Accepted

I do not think the assumption of no net carbon change is the best judgement of C change
in a start year such as 1961 or 1990. The Eqn 12.4 estimate assumes inflow for every
year prior to the start year is the same as the start. This would imply that in the past withlower populations that inflow per capita was increasing. At a point in the past whenpopulation was half as much inflow per capita would have been 100% larger. This is not Kenneth Skog
the best judgement about the inflow prior to the start year. In later comments and a
support doc spreadsheet I propose an alternate equation to replace Eqn 12.4 to allow foralternate (I argue better) judgement about the levels of inflow for years prior to the start
year.

4804

The text has been revised in the light of the comment.

Accepted with
Modification

We have accepted the question and modified text
accordingly.
The paragraph has been revised in the light of thecomment.
The paragraph has been revised in the light of thecomment.

The paragraph has been revised in the light of thecomment.

CommenVolume
t ID

3342

4

Chapter

12

From line

515

To line521

Comment

ExpertIn a later comment and supporting doc I suggest replacing equation 12.4 with an equationthat allows for an assumption that the inflow prior to the start year decreases as you go
Kenneth Skog
year by year into the past. This will allow for an assumption other than the current one
that per capita inflow was increasing as you go further in the past (as population was
lower).

Response

Accepted with
Modification

Author's Note
The method included in the guidance is more robust given
the uncertainties surrounding historical production,
consumption and service lives of HWP. Hence we cannot
accept the proposed alternative method without stronger
supporting evidence. However, we have accepted thiscomment with modification in recognition that the
explanation needed to be better. We have included an
improved explanation of why we think it is good practice inmany situations to apply Equation 12.4 based on data for
the first 5 years since 1990. We have also clarified that
historical (e.g. 1960s) data can be used, but that it is thengood practice to demonstrate that changes in wood inflow
over time are the result of actual changes in wood
production and/or consumption, and not simply the result ofbetter reporting of data in later years.
See revised text in Section 12.4.2 (the four paragraphs
above Equation 12.4).
We feel our response constitutes acceptance of thiscomment with modification, rather than rejection. We hope
it is recognised that we have made considerable efforts toclarify the discussion in Section 12.4.2 and also explainedthat the use of older historical data is not completely
precluded by the guidance, but that methods involving suchdata would require adequate supporting evidence andjustification.

2400

4

12

527

527

Box 12.1 is useful - please retain.

Stephen Wakelin

NotedCommenVolume
t ID

3344

4

Chapter

12

From line

535

To lineComment

Expert537

I do not think it is good practice to use equation 12.4 to estimate a starting HWP C stock.
Good practice requires methods that neither over nor under estimate to the best that canbe judged (SOD Vol 1 Ch 3 lines 109-112). In the 2006 GL (pg 12.17, 12.18) and in the2003 GPG for LULUCF Kim Pingoud and I suggested our best judgement was that prior toa start year e.g. 1961 the inflow (production, imports and exports) would have been
progressively smaller at a rate determined by roundwood production back to 1950 and arate from 1950 back to 1900 determined by population growth and one-half rate of change
in of the industrial RW harvest per capita from 1950 to 1975. For the world as a whole thisrate of decrease prior to 1961 was 1.43% per year back to 1900. The 2006 GL indicatesrates (r) to use for major world regions (Table 12.3). In the supporting doc tab A I
compute HWP C stock in 1961 using SOD Eqn 12.4 (Influx(1961)/k) and the method
Kenneth Skog
recommended in the 2006 GL (Ch12 pg12.17, 12.18). The result is that SOD Eqn 12.4
gives a 1961 HWP C stock which is 96% higher than the 2006 GL method where we usean estimate of declining inflow going back to 1900. This means if we use the SOD Eqn
12.4 we will have emissions from the 1961 stock in 1962 and later years are 96% higher
than the estimate using the 2006 GL method. This is much more that an insignificant
difference even if the 2006 GL method has a decrease rate that is to large by a factor of 2.
I think our best judgement should involve some judgment about the rate at which inflow
was lower as we move year by year back from the start year. The best judgement Kim isin 2006 GL Table 12.3 (noted above). An alternate best judgement may be that per capita
inflow was constant prior to 1961 or 1990 or 1950 . That would mean a decrease rateprior to the start year determined by the rate of population growth.

Response

Accepted with
Modification

Author's Note
The method included in the guidance is more robust given
the uncertainties surrounding historical production,
consumption and service lives of HWP. Hence we cannot
accept the proposed alternative method without stronger
supporting evidence.
The authors consider that the method given in the guidance
is more consistent with neither overestimation nor
underestimation, given the risks associated with making
assumptions about historical inflow to the HWP pool.
However, we have accepted this comment with modificationin recognition that the explanation needed to be better. We
have included an improved explanation of why we think it isgood practice in many situations to apply Equation 12.4
based on data for the first 5 years since 1990. We havealso clarified that historical (e.g. 1960s) data can be used,
but that it is then good practice to demonstrate thatchanges in wood inflow over time are the result of actualchanges in wood production and/or consumption, and not
simply the result of better reporting of data in later years.
See revised text in Section 12.4.2 (the four paragraphs
above Equation 12.4).
We feel our response constitutes acceptance of thiscomment with modification, rather than rejection. We hope
it is recognised that we have made considerable efforts toclarify the discussion in Section 12.4.2 and also explainedthat the use of older historical data is not completely
precluded by the guidance, but that methods involving suchdata would require adequate supporting evidence andjustification.

CommenVolume
t ID

3346

4

Chapter

12

From line

535

To lineComment

537

I propose a modification to Eqn 12.4, shown as Eqn 5 under Tab B of the support doc
spreadsheet. This equation includes the effect, on start year HWP C stock (e.g. 1961) ofa decrease rate r on inflow prior to the start year. My suggested Eqn 12.4 (using
variables in SOD Eqn 12.4) is C(t0) = (Inflowave/ k) * [(e^k -1 )/(e^(k+r) -1)] where r is
the rate of decrease in Inflow each year prior to year t0. You could add a short appendix
explaining how the new equation (my Eqn 5) is obtained. I could could suggest a draft that
if you request (kenskog@gmail.com). I suggest you recommend as good practice to use
this revised equation . Here is some reasoning on choosing a default value for r for eachmajor world region starting w data in 2003 GPG LULUCF Appendix 3a table 3a.1.2. See
Tab C in the supporting doc. My Eqn 5 uses an r value which represents inflow change
into the distant past. If inflow per capita was relatively stable in the past then population
growth may be a proxy for inflow change into the past. To the extent that inflow per capita
was declining in the past, to use the population growth may under estimate the rate of
inflow decline into the past and result in an over estimate of current HWP C inventory andcurrent emissions from the HWP C pool. If we choose a population change rate from
Kenneth Skog
1961 back to 1900 we would ignore the rate of change for years prior to 1900. Since
population growth rates have been increasing including growth prior to 1900 would givelower average growth rate than one since 1900. The effect of inflows prior to 1900 on
current inventory will be less than inflow for more recent years. To include pollution
growth prior to 1900 back to 1850 or 1800 will decrease the likelihood that we would use
an average decline prior to 1961 that is too large (current inventory estimate andemissions are too low). This under estimation likelihood will be added to the underestimation likelihood due to our exclusion of declining inflow per capita. Therefore I
suggest using the r values shaded in green on Tab C of the supporting spreadsheet. Thisr average value will include relatively low world population growth from 1900 back to 1850
in the average to 1961. I think this judgement for r although it requires a number ofassumptions is likely to give an estimate of current HWP C inventory (e.g. 1960 or 1990)
that is closer to the actual ( a value that is lower without going to low) than using thecurrent equation 12.4 which is highly like to overestimate inventory and emissions. The
use of an r value in the recommended equation also allows for estimating the impact of
the uncertainty in r compared to the impact of other uncertainties.

2404
2402
7182

4
4
4

12
12
12

542
543
544

544
544
544

3348

4

12

549

550

Check EndNote for German 'und' instead of 'and'.
"The timing of emissions..". Is this relevant to HWP pool reporting?
Please replace "und" with "and"What does "to be considered for consistent implementation…" mean? Does the analyst
need to take some action other than identifying data and making a computation using
equation 12.5? If so what action is needed?

ExpertResponse

Accepted with
Modification

Author's Note
The method included in the guidance is more robust given
the uncertainties surrounding historical production,
consumption and service lives of HWP. Hence we cannot
accept the proposed alternative method without stronger
supporting evidence.
The authors consider that the method given in the guidance
is more consistent with neither overestimation nor
underestimation, given the risks associated with making
assumptions about historcal inflow to the HWP pool.
However, we have accepted this comment with modificationin recognition that the explanation needed to be better. We
have included an improved explanation of why we think it isgood practice in many situations to apply Equation 12.4
based on data for the first 5 years since 1990. We havealso clarified that historical (e.g. 1960s) data can be used,
but that it is then good practice to demonstrate thatchanges in wood inflow over time are the result of actualchanges in wood production and/or consumption, and not
simply the result of better reporting of data in later years.
See revised text in Section 12.4.2 (the four paragraphs
above Equation 12.4).
We feel our response constitutes acceptance of thiscomment with modification, rather than rejection. We hope
it is recognised that we have made considerable efforts toclarify the discussion in Section 12.4.2 and also explainedthat the use of older historical data is not completely
precluded by the guidance, but that methods involving suchdata would require adequate supporting evidence andjustification.

Stephen Wakelin
Stephen Wakelin
Paula Ollila

Accepted
Noted
Accepted

Editorial
Yes it is relevant.
Editorial

Kenneth Skog

Accepted with
Modification

We have clarified that this is achieved by applying Equation
12.5.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

Define the parameter InflowCl in equation 12.3 and provide guidance to calculate inflow
from the sum of wood harvested in the country minus exports plus imports. This will be
simpler and much more transparent then the complicated corrections in equation 12.5.

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

Kenneth Skog

Rejected

The comment appears to be based on wrong assumptions,as Equation 12.3 specifies how to derive the parameter“Inflow (i)” to be used in Equation 12.2, depending on which
pool-based approach is used (i.e. assuming the applicationof the stock-change or production approach). Equation 12.5
on the other hand, defines how to calculate “emissions andremovals of CO2 following the ‘atmospheric flow’
approach”. Hence, equation 12.3 is required for the
maintenance of the stock change and production
approaches, whilst equation 12.5 is required for the
maintenance of the atmospheric flow approach (equation
12.3 cannot be easily reworked to accommodate this). We,
the authors, are required to maintain all of the approaches
covered in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (i.e. including the
production approach, which would not work if inflow was
calculated as suggested by the comment), which is why
proposed changes suggested in the comment must be
regarded as out of scope.

Booth Mary

Accepted

The wording has been amended for clarity.

Stephen Wakelin
Booth MaryAna Blondel

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

Editorial
Editorial
The wording has been amended for clarity.

Stephen Dettman

Noted

We have included updated parameters where available.

Kenneth Skog
Stephen Wakelin

Accepted
Accepted

Stephen Wakelin

Rejected

Kenneth Skog
Kenneth Skog
Poot-Delgado Carlos
Antonio
Stephen Wakelin
Stephen Wakelin
Kenneth Skog

Accepted
Accepted

We revised text in the light of the comment.
We revised text accordingly.
This proposal is not appropriate as part of a discussion ofdefault method
Editorial
Editorial

Accepted

Editorial

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

We revised text accordingly.
Editorial
The wording has been amended for clarity.

Accepted

Editorial

Accepted
Accepted

Editorial
The reference to the table has been corrected.

Accepted with
Modification

We revised text in the light of the comment.

Accepted

Editorial

Rejected

This is not the section of the guidance to address thissubject. However, we have elaborated the discussion of theuse of historical data in the relevant Section 12.4.2.

3350

4

12

551

551

9012

4

12

558

568

2406
9014
3560

4
4
4

12
12
12

595
595
595

595
595
601

5194

4

12

601

601

3352
2408

4
4

12
12

604
608

605
608

2410

4

12

612

612

3354
3356

4
4

12
12

616
617

616
619

This is an important paragraph that is really hard to understand. Please simplify it. Also atline 565, should be “country’s” not “countries’”
Fix typo in "activity"
Typo 'activity data'.
This is an important paragraph that is really hard to understand. Please simplify it.
There is a strong need for more current data on default parameters for wood products. In
the US we continue to use the Department of Energy 1605 (b) documentation which isvery out of date.
the HWP pool is comprised of the three default…
delete 'also': i.e. "…biomass, default conversion factors…".
Could add that if actual proportions of coniferous to non-coniferous feedstocks areavailable, it would be good to recalculate the factors.
12.4.2.1 not foundSimplify

3236

4

12

621

624

Verify bibliographic citation format

2412
2414
3358

4
4
4

12
12
12

623
626
627

624
626
630

4830

4

12

634

635

3562
9016

4
4

12
12

727
744

727
744

9018

4

12

745

745

2416

4

12

763

763

7180

4

12

777

777

Is there any reason to include the subset option under (ii)?
"see below" - need to be more specific.
Simplify
In the Density column (Mg/Mg) there is a mix of comma and period for the "0.9" values Fabiano Ximenes
need to be consistent
Should be "feedstock in the manufacturing" instead of "feedstock the manufacturing"Ana Blondel
Refers to Table 12.3, but don’t you mean Table 12.2?
Booth Mary
It’s true that biomass fuel exports can be assumed to enter the atmosphere in the year ofreporting, but it’s not accurate to say that feedstocks for HWP do as well. Isn’t this just a Booth Mary
reporting convention? I think you should refine this statement to explain accordingly.
In this case I think it would be better to move and duplicate the adjective "country-specific'
Stephen Wakelin
to start (i) and (ii).
Please consider adding: It is also possible to use country-specific data before 1961 inorder to estimate the total existing HWP pool, if the data is considered to give a more
Paula Ollila
precise estimate of the HWP pool. It is considered that the products entering the pool prior
to 1900 would be insignificant (IPCC 2006)

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To line

3564

4

12

783

783

2418

4

12

789

789

3360

4

12

794

797

2420

4

12

796

796

This text in Section 12.4.3.2 "… is available in Section 12.4.3.2" is referring to itself andthe further guidance in question is provided in the next paragraphs. It should say instead "… is provided in this Section"
Missing word a: "…on a national level".
To clarify that this applies to Tier 2 methods I suggest - In order to more rigorously
implement the flux data method (equations 12.2, 12.4) when using country specific HWP
service life (an associated half life) please consider the following concepts to aid inrefining estimates.
Replace "apart from" with "in addition to".

2422

4

12

799

799

Delete "particular set i.e.a".

Stephen Wakelin

3362
2424

4
4

12
12

820
831

820
832

Kenneth Skog
Stephen Wakelin

5196

4

12

885

885

Stephen Dettman

Rejected

The text as written does not preclude the possibility ofdeveloping countries utilizing other categories of data.

3364

4

12

891

898

Suggest - likely to be replaced within 20 years for aesthetic or other reasons.
Suggest "...(based on products leaving the pool, rather than biological decay)…"This table implies HWP should be measured only at highly developed mills with modern
infrastructure. Developing countries may need to utilize other categories to reflect actualuse of harvested wood.
I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that if a country is using country specific
HLs for the production approach, then they have two options for identifying and applying
HL for amounts exported - 1) find out the HL used IN each country where they export
amounts and apply those HLs, or 2) use the default HLs in table 12.3 to apply to exports.
Please clarify.

Accepted
Accepted with
Modification
Accepted
Accepted

Kenneth Skog

Accepted

The wording has been amended for clarity.

It is difficult to conceive of a circumstance in which a
producing/exporting country has better information than the
consuming/importing country on the utilization of HWP in
that country.

Comment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

Ana Blondel

Accepted with
Modification

The sentence has been deleted because it is redundant.

Stephen Wakelin

Accepted

Editorial

Kenneth Skog

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been amended for clarity.

Stephen Wakelin

Editorial
The wording has been amended for clarity.

2426

4

12

894

898

"Furthermore…" This seems like an unnecessary restriction. If the exporting country has
a more detailed breakdown of products with estimated half lives, it would be a backward
step to revert to either an aggregate product half life or the Tier 1 default.

2428

4

12

903

903

Suggest: "In theory decay functions other than the one…".

Stephen Wakelin

Accepted

2430

4

12

904

906

This also applies to Tier 2.

Stephen Wakelin

Rejected

3366

4

12

909

909

3368

4

12

930

932

3566
3370

4
4

12
12

938
954

938
954

Do you mean 12.4.1.1
Kenneth Skog
Why would a country not identify a HL that is appropriate to apply to a particular
production or consumption amount? Is there a specific type of error that you think is likely Kenneth Skog
you want them to be aware of?
Ana Blondel
Suggest to replace "are e.g." by "include"
12.4.1.1
Kenneth Skog

3568

4

12

959

959

There is no “Section 12.5.2.1”. Remove “Section 12.5.2.1”.

Ana Blondel

3372
3374

4
4

12
12

960
965

961
968

Kenneth Skog
Kenneth Skog

2432

4

12

975

975

Stephen Wakelin

Noted

9006

4

12

980

1078

Booth Mary

Noted

3570

4

12

998

998

Ana Blondel

Rejected

Editorial

3376

4

12

1017

1017

Kenneth Skog

Rejected

This guidance does not deal with accounting.

3378

4

12

1021

1021

Uncertainties in an inventory method estimate?
If the non housing uses are relatively small in comparison why is Tier 1 not ok?
Could also include a section on biomass used for animal bedding, composting andlandscaping.
This new guidance is much needed and very helpful.
Should be "wood biomass burnt directly as fuel wood at a .... scale" instead of "woodbiomass burnt directly as fuel wood on a .... scale"different accounting approaches
It seem the first col title should be " Element of wood biomass in producing country". In
title suggest using accounting approaches rather than reporting approaches

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted with
Modification
Noted
Accepted

Kenneth Skog

Rejected

This guidance does not deal with accounting.

Stephen Wakelin

Rejected

Accepted
Accepted with
Modification

This does not apply to Tier 2 methods, because thediscussion is about decay functions other than FOD.
Editorial
The wording has been amended for clarity.
Editorial
Editorial
Editorial
No specific action requested
The wording has been amended for clarity.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To line

9008

4

12

1021

1021

2434
9020
2436

4
4
4

12
12
12

1027
1027
1034

1027
1027
1034

9022

4

12

1043

1050

9024

4

12

1051

1051

3572
4160

4
4

12
12

1056
1069

1056
1069

2438

4

12

1069

1069

3574

4

12

1069

1069

3380

4

12

1096

1096

Comment

Expert

The table does not properly represent that the distinction is about imported vs domestically
produced feedstocks. Where harvested wood biomass used directly as feedstocks orindustrial residues are imported, they are the responsibility of the consuming country
Booth Mary
under the stock-change approach. As long as biomass used for energy is separately
identifiable from unutilised harvest residues, the importing country can recognise the entryof biomass and subsequent loss by combustion including where these stages occur indifferent reporting periods.

3400

4

12

1100

1120

3576

4

12

1128

1129

2440

4

12

1131

1131

3578

4

12

1136

1136

Missing word 'of': "…implicit component of CO2...".
Stephen Wakelin
Booth Mary
Sentence appears to be missing “of”: “component OF emissions”
There is no carbon pool because it is not a semi-finished wood product.
Stephen Wakelin
Please strip this paragraph down to the studs and start over. It’s really confusing, the way
Booth Maryit’s written.
?? “consuming country reports FOR the CO2 emissions” – seems like word “for” is not
Booth Maryneeded here.
Ana Blondel
Should be "see Section 12.4" instead of "see Section 12.5"
Missing word 'of' in heading: "Treatment of non-CO2…"
Andrea TILCHE
Should be "Treatment of non-CO2 emissions… " instead of "Treatment non-CO2
Stephen Wakelin
emissions… "SyntaxAna Blondel
suggest " cannot be used without adjustment to estimate quantities of HWP sent toKenneth Skog
SWDS."
Why the focus on CO2 emissions? There can be net additions or net emissions in a given
year for HWP C to SWDS. It seems the title for 12.6.1 should be "Reporting carbon
additions and emissions for wood biomass in SWDS". Or at least at the beginning of the Kenneth Skog
section and throughout note that there can be net additions or net emissions of HWP tC in
SWDS for a given year.
Uncertainties with the AD should be mentioned in this introductory text.
Ana Blondel
Suggested text: "... with the methods, with the activity data as well as with emission
factors and parameters"
Suggest: "Decay models are used instead of just counting the inflow minus outflow from
Stephen Wakelin
the defined HWP pools because there are no extensive and reliable statistics on theactual discard flows…".
Should be "FOD function" instead of "FOD decay function"
Ana Blondel

2442

4

12

1136

1137

Should this be 'discard rate for products' rather than 'decay of products'?

Stephen Wakelin

3384

4

12

1139

1139

12.4.3.2

Kenneth Skog

Response

Author's Note

Rejected

The opinion expressed in the comment is incorrect. As thestock-change' approach is a pool-based approach that only
includes imported wood biomass that enters the HWP pool,
imported wood feedstock used for energy does not enter
the HWP pool, hence these are not attributed to theconsuming country under this approach. The purpose ofthis guidance is to provide advice on how to calculate
emissions and removals, given the approaches that havebeen specified. It is important that we remain neutral withregard to the merits or drawbacks of any given approach.
Choices and decisions about the selection of approaches
are a matter for individual countries and negotiations
between them. It is inappropriate for us to influence
countries by expressing value judgements about thesechoices and decisions. We have gone as far as we can, by
highlighting that choices made by different countries could
lead to non-counting or double-counting of emissions(please see three paragraphs included at end of Section
12.3.2). The statement made is consistent with a similar
one included in the 2006 GL.

Accepted
Accepted
Noted

Editorial
Editorial

Accepted

The text has been amended in the light of the comment.

Accepted

Editorial

Accepted
Accepted

Editorial
Editorial

Accepted

Editorial

Accepted
Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Accepted with
Modification

The text will be revised in line with the comment.
In the methods provided for estimating HWP in this report
the subsequent retention in SWDS are not taken into
account. This has now been clarified in section 12.6.1.

Accepted
Accepted with
Modification
Accepted
Accepted with
Modification
Accepted

The text has been amended in the light of the comment.
Editorial
Text has been amended for clarity.

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

3386

4

12

2444

4

2446

4

3382

4

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

1139

1141

The converse may also be true. Periods of slower growth may correspond to longer HL.
The assumed HL is intended be somewhere in between the fast and slow growthsituations. I don't think we an assume that a given HL automatically underestimatesemissions on average.

Kenneth Skog

Accepted with
Modification

The paragraph has been amended for clarity.

12

1143

1143

Delete 'instantaneous'.

Stephen Wakelin

12

1145

1145

Missing word 'the': "Due to the lack of…"

Stephen Wakelin

1152

As indicated in my previous comments I think the assumption that stock change is zero in
the start year which equals and assumption of constant influx in the past greatly overestimates the emissions from the HWP at the start time and for many years thereafter. I Kenneth Skog
suggest the alternate equation 12.4 I propose be use and that this para discuss
uncertainty in the r value indicating decrease in influx in years prior to the start year.

12

From line

1148

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted

Accepted with
Modification

The paragraph has been amended for clarity.
Editorial
The method included in the guidance is more robust given
the uncertainties surrounding historical production,
consumption and service lives of HWP. Hence we cannot
accept the proposed alternative method without stronger
supporting evidence.
The authors consider that the method given in the guidance
is more consistent with neither overestimation nor
underestimation, given the risks associated with making
assumptions about historcal inflow to the HWP pool.
However, we have accepted this comment with modificationin recognition that the explanation needed to be better. We
have included an improved explanation of why we think it isgood practice in many situations to apply Equation 12.4
based on data for the first 5 years since 1990. We havealso clarified that historical (e.g. 1960s) data can be used,
but that it is then good practice to demonstrate thatchanges in wood inflow over time are the result of actualchanges in wood production and/or consumption, and not
simply the result of better reporting of data in later years.
See revised text in Section 12.4.2 (the four paragraphs
above Equation 12.4).
We feel our response constitutes acceptance of thiscomment with modification, rather than rejection. We hope
it is recognised that we have made considerable efforts toclarify the discussion in Section 12.4.2 and also explainedthat the use of older historical data is not completely
precluded by the guidance, but that methods involving suchdata would require adequate supporting evidence andjustification.

2450

4

12

1167

1167

Suggest: "…inventory methods are difficult to implement…"

Stephen Wakelin

2452

4

12

1170

1170

Suggest "…only in countries where relevant time series statistics are available".

Stephen Wakelin

3388

4

12

1179

1179

Shift ")" to after "solid"

Kenneth Skog

Rejected

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted

The proposed amendment would change the meaning. The
point is not that a producing country might have difficulty inimplementing direct inventory methods for any HWP thatare exported (by implication, due to some technical issue).
Rather, it is impossible (or at least, very, very unlikely ) thata producing country could obtain the co-operation of acountry consuming its exported products (more likely
multiple countries), to carry out a survey or measurement of
the carbon stocks in the exported HWP.
Text has been amended for clarity.
Editorial

CommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To line

2454

4

12

1179

1180

3390

4

12

1195

1200

2456

4

12

1202

1202

3392

4

12

1209

1210

3580

4

12

1237

1238

3582

4

12

1244

1244

Are you suggesting a situation where a company ships pulp within the company from one
country to another and it is not reported as trade or is there another case. How big is this Stephen Wakelin
issue ?
You first state that uncertainty in reported values may be -25 to +5. This would mean
reported values may over estimate greatly or underestimate a little. In the next para you
Kenneth Skog
say all sources of uncertainty result in under reporting (lower values than reality ?), real
numbers are actually larger. These seem to contradict each other. What am I missing.
Please clarify.
Missing word "be": "…may not be correct…".
Stephen Wakelin
This is not a sufficient description of valuation methods to help a country use them.
Kenneth Skog
Please clarify/elaborate, add citations, or drop.
Should be "section 6.8 in Volume 1" instead of only "section 6.8"
Ana Blondel
Should be "described in Volume 1, section 6.6" instead of only "described in section 6.6"
Missing space between "from" and "HWP"
Ana Blondel

3394

4

12

1252

1252

suggest "… the same end uses for products that have similar durability."

9026

4

12

1285

1285

9028

4

12

1300

1300

9030

4

12

1304

1304

9032

4

12

1328

1328

2528

4

Annex 5A.1 1894

1894

2530

4

Annex 5A.2 3166

3166

7806

4

Annexes

91

91

942

4

Annexes

143

143

944

4

Annexes

143

143

642

4

Annexes

174

175

3706

4

Annexes

417

423

5150

4

Annexes

565

565

Comment

ExpertKenneth Skog

This sentence is not clear. Get rid of the word “negative” and instead explain WHY you
want it to be negative. In fact it would be helpful to move the explanation of the convention
Booth Maryof treating positive numbers as flux to the atmosphere and negative numbers as
sequestration higher in the document, *before* the equations where this convention isused.
need comma after “country,” a semi-colon is not correct.
Booth Mary“is thus to be” could be replaced by “is.” This is an example of unnecessarily fussy writing
Booth Mary
that obscures meaning. Unfortunately there is still a lot of this kind of writing in the
document.
“implicitly including the estimates of the reporting country” – included in WHAT estimates
Booth Mary
– of forest carbon? Be specific.
Muhammad Mohsin
The word 'therefore' seems to be redundant, suggested to be deleted.
IQBAL
Muhammad Mohsin'31 June 2017' needs to be changed to '30 June 2017'.
IQBAL
Replace first period "Annex.10B.1." with a space so it reads "Annex 10B.1."
Cortney Itle
Table 10 A.2-2. Kindly ensure that the percentage shares across each row add up to
100% of the manure excreted (i.e., the manure being distributed). This is often not thecase including for the ''average'' rows. In particular, sum of shares above one indicates nofrancesco nicolaconservation of mass. The balance to unity should perhaps be fixed by modifying ‘’other’’tubiello
whenever appropriate. Note that the original table in the 2006 IPCC GL also had cases
where the share exceeded 100%, which of course is a mistake as it implies noconservation of mass (N) as it flows through the reservoirs.
Table 10 A.2-2. Is there any uncertainty associated with such percentage shares figures?
Consider including information on uncertainty, perhaps in the text and in general terms in francesco nicola
cases—perhaps most-- when exact quantification is not possible. This comment applies to tubielloall tables in this appendix.
TABLE 10A.2-8 in Annex : Please check if EF for reindeer is correct when using
Sanna Pitkänen
parameters mentioned in the table (VS, Bo, MCF).
It is not possible to obtain animal specific results if N2O due to N from energy crops isincluded in the N2O emissions from manure management as is required in Vol.4, Chapter Hans-Dieter Haenel
10.5.6, lines 2690 + 2691.
Definition of N2OD,AM(T) is wrong: "manure management" has to be replaced byClaus Rösemann"manure nitrogen applied to cultivated soils"

Response

Author's Note

Rejected

The point is that such issues are not necessarily big, butthere is uncertainty associated with these statistics.

Accepted with
Modification

Text has been amended for clarity.

Accepted
Rejected

Editorial
The guidance just points out one way that country-specific
HL values can be checked.

Accepted

Editorial

Accepted

Editorial
The sentence as drafted is correct, highlighting theinfluence of market patterns and socio-economic influences
rather than the physical durability of products. See Section
12.4.3.2 for more information.

Rejected

Accepted

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

Text has been amended for clarity.

Accepted
Accepted

Changed to " 30 June 2017".

Accepted

Accepted

This section was modified

Accepted

Regional ranges have been provided in supplemental
material.

Accepted with
Modification

The information related to minor animal categories wasrefined.

Accepted

Please see response to Comment 7430

Accepted

ChangedCommenVolumet ID

Chapter

From line

To line5152

4

Annexes

567

567

3710
7808
7810

4
4
4

Annexes
Annexes
Annexes

620
626
629

620
626
629

3698

4

Annexes

876

877

7820

4

Annexes

916

916

3696

4

Annexes981

984

Comment
Definition of N2OI,AM(T) is wrong: "manure management" has to be replaced by "manure
nitrogen applied to cultivated soils"
Replace "animal" with "animals".
Change "Annex10B" to "Annex 10B"
Change "Annex10B.1" to "Annex 10B.1" and "Annex A.1" to "Annex 10A.1"

Are MCFs for s o l i d manure independent of retention time? Shouldn't the spreadsheet
be extended to include also a calculation procedure for solid manure MCFs?

Here and in other locations, B0 or Bo should be B with a subscript zeroEa has significant impact on the MCF result. Hence Ea must absolutely be fixed if
comparability between the results of different inventory compilers is to be ensured. This
also holds, more or less, for the other parameters of the f equation.

ExpertResponse

Author's Note

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

ChangedHans-Dieter Haenel
Cortney Itle
Cortney Itle

Accepted
Accepted
AcceptedHans-Dieter Haenel

Rejected

Cortney Itle

AcceptedHans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

The spreadsheet is based on interpretation of experimental
data and laboratory studies however there is no comparable
data or studies for solid systems The information provided
for shallow and deep pack could be considered a form ofretention time for solid manure, but no information isavailable for manure heaps.

The text was modified and the factor has been fixed in themodel.