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

6488

Volume4

Chapter

2

9814

4

2

2540

4

2

From line

To lineExpertResponse

Authors' note

Generally, for the guideline the Tier I method provides default emission
factors, and Tier 2 method enough the country to use country-specificemission factors and activity data with management activities welldefined, while under Tier 3 the country could develop their own
methodology to estimate emission factors, activity data e.g for moreaccuracy. I understand that the authors mean to provide good methods
for the estimation of country-specific emissions by adding some newscientific finds; however, in my point of view the Tier 2 method are too Guangcheng Chencomplicated while the Tier 3 methods are not well defined. The guideline
is different from scientific research and the methods applied should bewell developed and accepted. I would suggest a update in default
emission factor for Tier 1 method based on current research findings,
and a simplified methodology for Tier. If the authors consider the new
method or finding are important, probably they can be applied under
Tier 3 and described as Annex.

Noted

2070

For the purpose of readability and user-friendliness it would be better
not to abbreviate natural disturbances with ND. It seems to be a badparctice to introduce too many abbreviations of key terms which is not
typical for IPCC inventory guidelines, e.g. noone used KC in the text for
key categories.

Anke Herold

Noted

3591

Volume 4 chapter 2 with my comments

Klaus von Wilpert

Noted

Noted

For SOD, the current format will be used, but this may be reconsidered at alater drafting stage.
Titles will be revised in regard to the use of capital lettersgeneral1

Comment

7228

4

2

1

3591

Would be clearer to state at all instances where mineral soil and organic
soil are mentioned that organic soil is not refined, but treated in the
Dirk Nemitz
wetlands supplement (instead of adding an empty entry with reference
to the wetlands supplement to the end of each sub-chapter)

2902

4

2

35

38

Standardize small and large capitals.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

2904

4

2

47

49

Replace change to changes to be consistent with the other items.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

2906

4

2

51

51

Use subscript for Non-CO2.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

2912

4

2

74

74

Use subscript for CO2.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

2914

4

2

107

107

Replace CO2e/yr by CO2e.yr-1.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

2916

4

2

145

145

Replace from by due to.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

The box caption was changed as indicated.

9242

4

2

166

166

I suggest the following structural changes in this section: 1) Divide into
tier 2 and tier 3 subsections; 2)Nalin Srivastava

Accepted with
Modification

As text is to be revised this comment may not be relevant, check once text
is revised

The whole chapter points out the importance of allometric models andabout periodic inventory designs. Indirect it tells the reader that thismethodology is the first option. I perfectly agree and think this is asignificant improvement compared with to former guidelines

Hans Petersson

Noted

Joint for T2 and T3 methods

2.3.1.3 Row 167: [To be read in conjuction with 2306]

Hans Petersson

2302

4

2

166

section
2.3.1.3

2304

4

2

167

section
2313

The figure caption was changed as indicated.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

section
2.3.1.3

2.3.1.3 Row 167: [2306] Tier 2 is usually a national improvement of Tier
1. I would say that allometric models are Tier 3. Or are allometric only
considered Tier 3 when combined with a periodic inventory design?

Hans Petersson

Accepted

section
2.3.1.3
section
2.3.1.3

The use of allometric models: [to be read in conjuction with 2310, 2312,
Hans Petersson
2314 and 2316]
Well written chapter that guides the user. Could be improved by adding
Hans Petersson
guidance about:section
2.3.1.3·         Handling trees <1.3 m in height, shrubs and other vegetation? Isuggest a few sentences and a statement that the reporting of such
understory vegetation is optional

Hans Petersson

Accepted with
Modification

Add sentence on allometries used for nontrees. UNFCCC decisions specify
what must be reported, section 2.3.1.3 A

167

section
2.3.1.3·         State that allometric models are usually better than BEFs (e.g.
Petersson, H., Holm, S., Ståhl, G., Alger, D., Fridman, J., Lehtonen, A.,
Lundström, A., and Mäkipää, R. 2012. Individual tree biomass equations
or biomass expansion factors for assessment of carbon stock changes inliving biomass – a comparative study. For. Ecology and Management.
270: 78-84.)? Appropriate models are often lacking –still I consider it
Hans Petersson
better using allometric models than Tier 1 or Tier 2 (I am considering
allometric models as Tier 3). The model error has in some papers been
estimated to around 1% (and the remaining 99% from sampling error).
This indicates that a small bias in inappropriate models could probably
be neglected (e.g. Breidenbach et al. 2014; Ståhl et al. 2014both papers
are already sited later on in the chapter)

Accepted with
Modification

incorporate into introduction section

167

section
2.3.1.3·         How to identify problems arising from inter- and extrapolating
models? If a model developed for birches 0-40 cm in dbh is applied to an Hans Petersson
oak dbh 1 m then the predicted biomass may be infinite large…

Rejected

this information is already embedded within section on "use of allometricmodels"285

I wonder if a cross-reference should be made to Vol 1, Chap 6.11. This
chapter gives general advice on models and good practice fordocumentation and validation of models which is highly relevant toErik Næsset
allometric models (e.g. meta data that need to be reported when models
are developed). In fact, the generic guidance in Vol 1 seems to be moredetailed on general considerations for model development.

Rejected

Editorial

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted with
Modification

A text modification is needed. I suggest to include a sentence in the text (orin note), referring to the need of taking into account the main statisticalindicators in the model fitting

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

2306

4

2

167

2308

4

2

167

2310

4

2

167

2312

4

2

167

2314

2316

2162

4

4

4

2

2

2

168

2934

4

2

168

285

I think at least a paragraph on fitting allometric models should be
provided in the Refinement. Goodness of fit and other statisticalindicators should be also mentioned in the section, as least in a single
paragraph.

9244

4

2

168

168

This should be one level below 2.3.1.3 i.e. "2.3.1.3.1" and not "A"

2918

4

2

173

173

Supportive literature should be given to the footnote.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Authors' note

Noted

Rejected

The supporting literature is reported in the bibliography section. The
reference to the used literature in each paragraph is not in line with thecommon approach followed in the remaining volumes of the current
Guidelines

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted

The footnote text in FOD text is equal to the text suggested by thereviewer. So no further action is needed

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Accepted

the reference has been deleted

9246

4

2

173

173

Footnote 1: The term “allometric equation" is used also whenreferencing the mathematical descriptions of allometric models andrelationships. When are estimated from sample data and/or uncertainty
Nalin Srivastava
is involved, “model” is the correct term."
the parameters are estimated from sample data and/or uncertainty is
involved, “model” is the correct term.

9248

4

2

175

176

Insert a closing parenthesis: (e.g….Schepaschenko et al, 2017))

6490

4

2

176

179

It is a common sense that the destructive sampling is usually costly andlabour intensive, the reference “Malimbwi et al, 2016)” is not necessary Guangcheng Chen
here.

2920

4

2

178

178

Replace experimental design by sampling design.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

modify the text accordingly

73

4

2

181

181

Please describe DBH.

Mingshan Su

Accepted

The text will be modified to describe DBH when first mentioned and thenreferred to as DBH thereafter

182

Model forms presented near the end of box 2.1: perhaps present amodel on multiplicative form as well as fitting of such models via
logarithmic transformation for linearity seems to be a bit old fashion.
Thus y=a*x**b might be mentioned.

Erik Næsset

Accepted

Consider how best to express general equation for model, mention mostmodels are different forms, and modify the text accordingly

Noted

Important to explain in text that the eq is the mathematical expression of
the model and includes error term ; the text will be modified also to take
into account the comment 2156

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial- modify the text accordingly

2156

4

2

181

Nalin Srivastava

6524

4

2

181

182

Box 2.1. "Most often the basic form is a power equation: y = a + b*x^c…"
The most common form of allometric biomass equations is the Power
Function (Allometric Function) of the form Y = aX^b + e. Where Y is
Aaron Smithbiomass, a and b are parameters to be estimated, and e is the random
error. The natural-logarithm linearized form of the Power Function isln(Y) = ln(a) + b*ln(X) + ln(e).

6526

4

2

181

182

Box 2.1. "(e.g., tree height as function...)". Correction: "(e.g., tree height
Aaron Smith
as a function...)"Noted

The refence has been examined by the authors; the incorporation of theabovementioned reference is not needed, according to the authors, since
the allometric models and equations included in the paper are referring tostudies and papers already quoted in the current text

94

4

2

183

377

I also suggest using techniques for selection of sampling areas, use ofallometric equations and other factors, described in:
METZKER, T.; SPÓSITO, T.C.; BRITALDO, S.F.; AHUMADA, J.A. & GARCIA,
Q. Tropical Forest and Carbon Stock’s Valuation: A Monitoring Policy. In:
Lameed, G.A (ed.). Biodiversity Enrichment in a Diverse World. InTech, p. Thiago Metzker
171-194. 2012.
https://www.intechopen.com/books/biodiversity-enrichment-in-adiverse-world/tropical-forest-and-carbon-stock-s-valuation-amonitoring-policy

9250

4

2

183

183

This should be titled: "Tree-level allometric models" as I understand thisNalin Srivastava
only deals with the tree-level allometric models

Rejected

The title of the section is more general and the requested change is not
appropriate. Revision of Box on LiDAR (on adding re: stand level) will
suffice

6492

4

2

185

185

what is meta-data?

Guangcheng Chen

Noted

the explanation of the possible metadata useful in this process is out of thescope of the section

2922

4

2

186

186

Specify Figure 2.xxx

CARLOS SANQUETTA

9252

4

2

186

186

Cannot locate "Figure 2.xxx". It should be replaced with a specificreference to a figure.

Nalin Srivastava

2924

4

2

189

189

Specify height (total tree height or another)CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification

Editorial
Editorial
the text will be reworded

Comment
ID

2888

Volume4

Chapter

2

From line

194

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

195

The sentence starting with "Allometric models may be used within a
specified forest stratum.." may need further clarification, as it is not veryclear how the models may be used to correlate biomass estimates with
Valerio Avitabile
direct measurements. Are the direct measurements referring to plantparameters (e.g., dbh) or to destructive measurements? In the latter
case, what would be the use of such correlation?

Accepted with
Modification

the section is aimed to provide examples and information on the issue
raised by the comment

Rejected

the text will be modified though to explain better, the text is aimed tounderline that the validity range is key to the use of allometric models indeveloping EF's. Therefore the sentence cannot be deleted

99

4

2

198

213

the affirmation that allometries are influenced by individual's growing
conditions and have a limited domain of validity is also applicable toevery emission factor or parameter, even to the default factors in theguidelines, this also applies in relation to sample size and accuracy
assessment. Would this mean that allometric models have a different
treatment than emission factors/parameters? Shouldn't they be
CRISTINA GARCIA DIAZ
applicable as "average growing conditions" in regions/ecosystems?
The allometric models should have the same treatment that national EFs
used in the inventory, and its applicability should be assessed in a caseby case basis, without generalizing how an allometric model would apply
to different regions, management practices, etc. SUGGESTION: delete
these lines

2926

4

2

200

200

The term metadata should be standardized, because in other parts of the
CARLOS SANQUETTA
text the term meta-data also appears.

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

9254

4

2

201

201

Replace "limits" with "types"

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

the text will be reworded

9256

4

2

202

202

Not necessary to have this as an additional criterion (i.e. it is covered in
the first bullet)

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted with
Modification

merge into top bullet point

203

It would be good to explain why the range is relevant. Basically state whyinterpolation is better than extrapolation. Also present examples
Nasikoa Aguilarshowing how as size increase in some cases uncertainties are larges as
Amuchastegui
the sample size in that range is smaller?

Accepted with
Modification

change text to address issue - short text, either put words in line 203,change order, or add text to paragraph below

Accepted with
Modification

The text will be reworded

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted

The text will be reworded

9200

4

2

203

6528

4

2

204

204

I do not understand the term "Plant component range". Usually acomponent of a plant is a plant part such as a stem, branches, and leaves
Aaron Smithetc. The range of a plant component would be within the individual
plant, which I don't think is the intended meaning of the phrase.

9258

4

2

204

204

Not clear what is meant by this. Please clarify.

Nalin Srivastava

9260

4

2

207

207

Such as??

Nalin Srivastava

9262

4

2

210

210

Suggested rewording: "…to which external variables control the
distribution of biomass among components and the allometric
relationships."

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted with
Modification

The text reworded

6530

4

2

212

213

LOOK UP

Aaron Smith

Noted

???

9264

4

2

215

216

Accepted

The text will be revised accordingly

9266

4

2

217

217

Accepted with
Modification

Change the text

AcceptedWill add sentence

9202

4

2

220

224

(all other aspects being the same as the ones for which the model was
Nalin Srivastava
developed)
Suggested rewording: "…where there is a lack of species-specific models
Nalin Srivastava
for a large proportion of trees."
This sentence is linked with the first comment I made about the choice of
Nasikoa Aguilarmodels and or their calibration when exiting models are available.
Amuchastegui
Details on how this is to be done are ideal

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Thiago Metzker

Accepted

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Accepted with
Modification

Change

93

4

2

222

222

Here we must use the reference of 'Chave 2014', because in this work
there were updates of the allometric equations pantropical with new
data. reference:(CHAVE, J.; RÉJOU-MECHAIN, M.; BÚRQUEZ, A.; CHIDUMAYO, E.;
COLGAN, M. S.; DELITTI, W.B.C; DUQUE, A.; EID, T.; FEARNSIDE, P. M.;
GOODMAN,
R.C.; HENRY, M.; MARTÍNEZ-YRÍZAR, A.; MUGASHA, W. A.; MUELLERLANDAU, H.; MENCUCCINI, M.; NELSON, B. W.; NGOMANDA,
A.;NOGUEIRA, E. M.; ORTIZ-MALAVASSI, E.; PÉLISSIER, R.; PLOTON, P.;
RYAN, C. M.; SALDARRIAGA, J. G.; VIEILLEDENT, G. Improved allometricmodels to estimate the aboveground biomass of tropical trees. Global
Change Biology. v.20, 3177-3190, 2014.)

9268

4

2

225

225

Delete "and their equations"227

Crown diameter and overstory height are tree-level variables and notstand variables. Therefore, other stand variables (like basal area, crownCARLOS SANQUETTA
coverage, etc.) should be cited instead. Otherwise the terms mean crowndiameter or mean overstory height should be used.

Accepted

Change the text

2928

4

2

227

2834

4

2

228

228

It may be confusing for novel readers to introduce in this section for firsttime "emission factors". I suggest substituting this for "to estimate
biomass or carbon stock" as mentioned at the beginning of theRaul Abad Viñas
paragraph in line 226, Volume 4 chapter 2, or by " to estimate thoseparameters"

9270

4

2

228

228

Replace "emission factors" with "parameters". Emission factor has a
specific meaning in the GHG inventory context and should not be used to Nalin Srivastava
refer to every parameter.

Accepted with
Modification

The text will be reworded " emission factors and parameters"

9204

4

2

230

230

acquired is confusing terminology. In reality height is estimated from
Nasikoa AguilarLiDAR data based on rerun pattern interpretation. So use of "estimated"
Amuchastegui
could be better.

Accepted with
Modification

Modify the text accordingly, or use predict? Wider issue for the section andthe volume, unresolved during discussion

244This section relies on the relation e.g. tree height has with Biomass.
However the details of how strong or weak such relation can be (e.g.
about 68% of biomass is explained by height for the case of trees) are
not covered. Also mention of derived metrics that would be used, as
Nasikoa Aguilarexample for stand level estimation such as mean canopy height, centroid Amuchasteguiheight, home range height could be of use. A table depicting thedifferent variables and their average correlation with biomass estimateswould be ideal

RejectedToo much detail on the development of allometric models which is out of
scope

231

Satellite-borne stereoscopic sensors are not any better than airborne
imagery - the problem with both is that the ground elevation need to be
determined to get normalized canopy heights. So to the extent that
Erik Næsset
satellite imagery is relevant and to be mentioned, airborne imagery
should be listed as well.

Accepted

The text will be reworded and expanded

233

I suggest to include the concept of representativeness of field plots used
to estimate the power-law relationships, as follow: "The accuracy ofValerio Avitabilecarbon stock estimation from overstory height depends on the number
AND REPRESENTATIVENESS of field measurement plots...."

Accepted with
Modification

The text will be reworded, power-law deleted

9206

2158

2890

4

4

4

2

2

2

230

231

232

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

2160

4

2

233

233

3478

4

2

238

2930

4

2

240

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

The term "power-law" has not been introduced. Perhaps do so in box 2.1
Erik Næsset
and also introduce the multiplicative form, as per my previous comment.

Accepted with
Modification

The text will be reworded " used to estimate relationship between
overstory height …" not to mention power law

239

I believe much progress has been made in detecting and measuring sub
canopy crowns and vegetation using LiDAR.

Doug King

Noted

241

Replace tree crown diameter measurement data for the upper layer
trees by tree crown diameter measurement data from the upper layer
trees.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Consider the following changes: ... saturation curve for community age(Inoue et al, 2010). The curves produced by the models of this sort morethen often form a family of curves that could be parameterised by delay
Georgii Alexandrov
in development (Alexandrov and Golitsyn 2015). This feature makes suchmodels applicable where land use is rotated at fixed intervals, so that amosaic of communities of different ages exists.

Accepted with
Modification

The refence will be examined and incorporated in the text, if it is caseAccepted with
Modification

Editorial

Rejected

The inclusion of the decision tree is in line with the rest of thevolumes/chapters/sections of the current IPCC guidelines

Accepted with
Modification

Decision tree will be revised

8854

4

2

243

244

2836

4

2

245

245

4020

4

2

245

247

5398

4

2

245

247

2318

4

2

245

248

Figure 2.3 rows 245-248 [To be read in conjuction with 2320]

248

I believe that allometric models applied to individual trees (incombination with a stock change approach) is the best way to monitorchanges in living biomass. When combined with RS auxiliary data, theHans Petersson
estimates can (often) be improved. Does the figure claim that allometricmodels are the first choice?

Noted

The section is related to the possible use of allometric available data; thedecision tree is not aimed to provide hierarchy among different possible
choices (allometry, RS, etc.)

Accepted with
Modification

References to be checked and if appropriate revise decision tree, maybe
add an additional box.

2320

4

2

245

The title of the Figure 2.3 should mention also Volume as in the line 169
Raul Abad Viñas
of Volume 4, Chapter 2.
This figure is not user friendly. Please add concrete data for allometric
Hiroshi Ito
model
What about getting new data? And bottom figure - is it possible to use
Markus Haakana
other methods there?
Hans Petersson

9208

4

2

245

248

Figure 2.3. The decision tree would benefit from starting with initiallyassessing if viable allometric equations are available and when morethan one are, assess the quality of their fit via proper model comparison.
Additionally the situation in which models could need to be developed
Nasikoa Aguilarand the will to do so exist could be contemplated with an accompanying
Amuchastegui
decision tree and description of the process involved. Several countries
and studies have engaged in the development of general allometricmodels (e.g. Chave et al. 2014), and or specific models with adequate
sampling

9272

4

2

245

248

Figure 2.3(2nd diamond from left in 4th row): "Can the limitations beamended" is not so clear in terms of what needs to be done. It might bebetter to say something like: "Can the data be acquired?"

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted with
Modification

The text in the diamond will be reworded

9274

4

2

245

248

Figure 2.3(1st diamond from left in 4th row): Add spacing between"allometric" and "models"

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

248

Figure 2.3(1st diamond from left in 4th row): "Are the chosen allometricmodels the most appropriate under the given
circumstances?" is rather ambiguous. Does "most appropriate" relate to Nalin Srivastava
accuracy of estimates or correspondence with the species/stand inquestion?

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

9276

4

2

245

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted

This comment belongs to Ch2 Vol 4 (biomass BOG)

Accepted

Title of the figure has been modified.

247

The decision tree includes some new terms that are not well defined.
Moreover, this figure provide limited information; it reads like describing
Guangcheng Chen
under what conditions the allometric methods could be applied andprovides no information for the "other method".

Accepted with
Modification

Tree will be revised

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Figure 2.3. The decision tree would benefit from starting withinitially assessing if viable allometric equations are available andwhen more than one are, assess the quality of their fit via
proper model comparison. Additionally the situation in which

9208

4

2

245

248

models could need to be developed and the will to do so exist

Nasikoa Aguilar-

could be contemplated with an accompanying decision tree and Amuchastegui
description of the process involved. Several countries andstudies have engaged in the development of general allometricmodels (e.g. Chave et al. 2014), and or specific models withadequate sampling

6494

6496

4

4

2

2

This section deals with biomass carbon stock. "carbon stock in

246

247

organic matter" is confusing; what does it mean?

Guangcheng Chen

6532

4

2

247

248

Graph format: (Issue 1) arrow line thickness in first "No" from the top is
not the same as the rest of the graph. (Issue 2) Graph row 3. Left arrowfrom Yes to Yes. Horizontal arrow should be above downward facing
arrow point. (Issue 3) Graph row 4. Arrow on "No" should be from thecorner of the left hand box. (Issue 3) Graph row 5. Arrow on "No" should Aaron Smithbe from the corner of the left hand box and to the middle of the side ofthe "Refine the choice of allometric models" box.(Issue) Lower corner ofthe "Are the chosen allometric models the most appropriate under the
given circumstances?" box does not connect.

2322

4

2

250

260

Higher tier methods rows 250-260 [To be read in conjuction with 2324]] Hans Petersson

2324

4

2

250

260

Is about putting allometric models into different inventory designs.
Chapter 2.5.1 describes such design so I suggest either to i) introduce
and refer to chapter 2.5, or ii) just remove rows 250-260.

Hans Petersson

Accepted with
Modification

A reference to the section 2.5.1 has been added. (i) link to V1 to be check

9278

4

2

250

250

Higher tier methods refers to tiers 2/3 methods. This should be "Tier 3
methods"

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

The text will be revised accordingly

Accepted with
Modification

Text to be modified as above

9212

4

2

252

253

The point made for Tier 3 methods would apply also to tier 2 methods.
Perhaps some detail about the origin of the allometric models could help Nasikoa Aguilarhere and how that detail pertains to tier level? Particularly for the
Amuchastegui
development of the models based on local data?

6504

4

2

254

260

The information is more suitable for Tier 2 methods, and the allometricmethods described as Tier 2 is more like a Tier 3 method.

Guangcheng Chen

Accepted with
Modification

Fundamental T3 vs T2

9214

4

2

254

260

This paragraph could perhaps benefit of a the use of a box that explainswith further detail. As it is, the reader will find it hard to get the point
being made.

Nasikoa AguilarAmuchastegui

Accepted with
Modification

Text being reworded to be more readable

4614

4

2

255

9216

4

2

261

italic or not for "et al"269

Perhaps link this section to the general guidance on uncertainty?

KEWEI YU
Nasikoa AguilarAmuchastegui

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted

Editorial
Text is to be revised

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

9280

4

2

261

261

This subheading should be at the same level as others. If you decide to
divide by Tiers 2 and 3, then it should be one level below them.

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted with
Modification

The level of the subheading has been modified. In case of subdivision of T2
and T3 methods the subheadings should be arranged accordingly

2326

4

2

263

265

Uncertainty [To be read in conjuction with 2328 and 2330]

Hans Petersson

265

Rows 263-264 and 265: The e.g. references Breidenbach, J., AntonFernandez, C., Petersson, H., and Astrup, R. 2014. Quantifying theModel-Related Variability of Biomass Stock and Change Estimates in the
Norwegian National Forest Inventory. Forest Science. 60(1): 25-33. Ståhl,G., Heikkinen, J., Petersson, H., Repola, J., and Holm, S. 2014. Sample
Hans Petersson
based estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from forests – a new
approach to account for both sampling and model errors. Forest Science.
60(1): 3-13. Focuses on model and sample errors for estimating changes
in living biomass (there are probably other publications that can be used
as references).

Accepted with
Modification

The text has been modified, deleting the existing references. A reference
to Vol.1, chapter 3 has been added

267

Rows 266-267: Search for references studying the influence fromapplying i) an allometric model representative for country A in country B,
Hans Petersson
and ii) an allometric model developed for species C but applied to
species D.

Accepted with
Modification

A reference to Vol.1, chapter 3 has been added

Accepted with
Modification

Text to be revised

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

2328

2330

4

4

2

2

263

266

9218

4

2

270

279

This section is short for the implications recalculation entails. Particularly
because of the work involved if the circumstances come and because of
Nasikoa Aguilarthe implications of allometric equation becoming "obsolete". The
Amuchastegui
rationales behind this need be explained better as well as clear examplesof potential implications be explained

6534

4

2

272

272

…BEF's… Appropriate to use abbreviation if this has been written as
Biomass Expansion Factor (BEF) previously in the text.

9282

4

2

272

272

Replace "emission factors" with "parameters". Emission factor has a
specific meaning in the GHG inventory context and should not be used to Nalin Srivastava
refer to every parameter.

Acceptedrevise text

Accepted with
Modification

revise text

Aaron Smith

9404

2

2

273

274

I found this sentence confusing in the paragraph: "With regard toallometry, new models with parameter estimates differing from the onesin use do
not necessarily require recalculations, because allometry can change
Iciar Alberdi
over time (Lopez-Serrano et al. 2005)." It should be noted that many
European forests are young and not in equilibrium and thus, the relation
between tree compartments can change. It is therefore interesting tohighlight the interest of this analysis.

2332

4

2

273

279

Recalculations [To be read in conjuction with 2334]

279

I don’t follow. If models are based on allometry and the allometry
change by time than the initial models are no longer valid and have to be
substituted. We need guidance about how to smoothly switch models. Hans Petersson(However, the two publications above indicates that the model error canalmost be neglected and thereby small changes in allometry].

Accepted with
Modification

revise text

280

There is no need to have this as a subsection. Box 2.2 can be expanded to
discuss all new technologies including terrestrial and air-borne LiDAR,
Nalin Srivastava
aerial photography etc. I see no point in having a box just for terrestrial
LiDAR when airborne LiDAR is more widely used.

Accepted with
Modification

rewrite lines 280-284, rewrite simple introduction to reference box 2.2 andcross reference to land representation section (new technologies)

2334

9284

4

4

2

2

273

280

Hans Petersson

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

Expert

2336

4

2

280

284

New technologies [To be read in conjuction with 2338]

Hans Petersson

2338

4

2

280

Response

Authors' note

284

First I don’t see why this section is under allometric models for
estimating biomass and secondly why give guidance on “less useful”
techniques? The user needs guidance about if currently less useful
methods can be used if they are improved. I guess that IPCC encourage Hans Petersson
such new methods if they are scientifically proved sound (by a scientificpublication) and if there is a way of handling consistency from 1990 and
onwards

Accepted with
Modification

as above #9284

Accepted with
Modification

as above #9284

Jason Funk

Accepted with
Modification

as above #9284

Nasikoa AguilarAmuchastegui

Rejected

Prediction is correct term

Aaron Smith

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

7846

4

2

280

377

These sections of the text tend to understate the maturity of "Newtechnologies" and techniques for "Using a Biomass Density Map
Constructed from Remotely Sensed Data for Biomass Estimation." In fact,
these technologies have been used in many countries in recent years, tothe point that airborne platforms and data processing procedures havebecome more routine and more widely available than they were just a
few years ago. These rapidly advancing technologies will likely play a keyrole in assisting countries with their national inventories in upcoming
Jason Funk
years. To assist them (and to extend the longevity of the Refinement),
these sections of text should contain more examples and references, andthey should adopt a tone that more accurately characterizes thematurity of these technologies. Most importantly, these sections should
offer more detail about how to utilize remote sensing data to improve orcomplement existing estimates of aboveground biomass. Please refer tothe supporting material linked to this comment for a rich selection of
examples. Some of these materials are literature reviews themselves.

7918

4

2

280

377

The supporting document contains a rich review of the use of LiDAR toestimate aboveground biomass. This information should be reflected inthese lines of the chapter. Please see supporting material.

9220

4

2

281

281

Suggest replacing "predicting" by estimating

6536

4

2

282

282

…now available including satellite imagery through to aerial
photoimagery… change to "…now available from satellite imagery toaerial photoimagery…"

284

Consider the following changes: …2017.) These data are not very usefulat the moment for developing allometric models although the proper
Georgii Alexandrov
combination of airborne and terrestrial LiDAR scanning may serve thepurpose. See Box 2.2.

Accepted with
Modification

as above #9284

Accepted with
Modification

Introduction to be revised

8856

4

2

283

9222

4

2

283

284

The idea os the sentence deserves further detail? What is meant byuseful? Perhaps worth explaining the idea that the feasibility has been
proven but large scale implementation for change remains challenging. Nasikoa AguilarAlso perhaps worth mentioning upcoming missions such as the GEDI and Amuchastegui
NISAR missions that would enable doing change detection...plus use of
Sentinel 1 data?

2340

4

2

284

285

Box 2.2 [To be read in conjunction with 2342]

Hans Petersson

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

2342

4

2

284

285

Allometric models using dbh as independent variable is currently used toestimate belowground biomass. Why cannot TLS be used for estimating Hans Petersson
belowground biomass in the future?

2344

4

2

287

377

B. Using a biomass density map constructed from remotely sensed datafor biomass estimation [To be read in conjunction with 2346]

2346

2892

4

4

2

2

287

284

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted with
Modification

revise box 2.2

377

In my opinion its well known that sample based (periodic) approaches
usually are better than crude wall-wall data for estimating changes incarbon pools (e.g. Mandallaz. 2007. Sampling techniques for forest
inventories. Chapman 6 Hall/CRC). So in my opinion, IPCC should notHans Petersson
encourage to create biomass density maps and then use these maps for
estimating changes in biomass. I would prefer to inform the user that, if
biomass maps are already in place, they can be used. This should be
followed by pros and cons

Rejected

We are providing considerations for when using a map, and not compare
to other approaches

285

I suggest to add in the Box 2.2, at the end of the third paragraph, thefollowing citation as the statements on LiDAR are currently notsupported by scientific articles: "… whereas the errors for biomass
Valerio Avitabile
estimates fromterrestrial LiDAR are not depend on diameter (Gonzalez de Tanago et al.,2017)". The related paper is attached as Supporting document

Accepted with
Modification

as above #9284

Doug King

Accepted with
Modification

as above #9284

Hans Petersson

3480

4

2

284

285

Box 2.2: Jucker et al. (2017) reference: Tree detection and delineation
using high resolution remote sensing is a very well developed fieldspanning decades. This statement and a sole 2017 citation gives theimpression it is a recent field.

6034

4

2

284

285

Box 2.2: a few typos: "pulses" instead of "pluses", and "are notdepending on diameter"
instead of "are not depend on diameter"

Ana Blondel

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

6538

4

2

284

285

Box 2.2\ 3rd paragraph\ line 6: "…terrestrial LiDAR are not depend on
diameter." change to "…terrestrial LiDAR are not dependent on
diameter."

Aaron Smith

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

6540

4

2

284

285

Box 2.2\ 4th paragraph\ line 4: "…centre." It was not clear to me if British
or American English is used in the document. American English spelling Aaron Smith
would be "centre".

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

7218

4

2

284

285

Box 2.2: "laser pluses" should be "laser pulses"

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

285

The box gives a general introduction to LiDAR. It is not a new technology
really since its already been about 10 years since Asner at al publishedtheir work from Madre de Dios but a lot had already been done byauthors in Boreal forests before. However the box fails in delivering any
guidance about the use of this technology beyond this general
Nasikoa Aguilarpresentation. This is fundamental because even though the proof ofconcept has been more than realized from an academic perspective, the Amuchasteguiuse of the data remains at large and authors remain the same. This
points out at a lack of in-country capacity for its use. This box could
provide a general description of what the technology does and a refer toadequate resources for end user like:
https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr768.pdf

Accepted with
Modificationreferences to be checked and included if appropriate

9224

4

2

284

Dirk Nemitz

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

Expert

2164

4

2

285

285

Box 2.2. This box is about terrestrial lidar. The last paragraph seems tobe about optical imagery (at least it says "imagery"): Bringing in opticalairborne data here is a distraction. Also, identification of individual trees
in optical and digital airborne data goes back at least to the 1980s so
Erik Næsset
some other references would be more relevant if this text is to be
included. If the text is meant to deal with "imagery" in the form of lidar
images, then a primary references would be Hyyppä et al 1997. There
are many review articles that cover this topic well.

9286

4

2

287

287

This should be one level below 2.3.1.3 i.e. "2.3.1.3.1" and not "B"

377

General comment: this is a very interesting section, that adds important
knowledge to the guidelines. Nevertheless, reading it one concludes that
this is only valid for aboveground biomass. This should be made clearer,
and avoid reflections about possible future uses of remote sensing
technologies when they improve. The section should be limited to
CRISTINA GARCIA DIAZ
current usefulness of biomass density maps from remote sensed data.
This is crystal clear in lines 324 to 326. The rest of the section should bebuilt on this affirmation. SUGGESTION: redraft section to focus on thoseutilities of remote sensing that can be already used with minimum
guarantees.

100

4

2

287

Nalin Srivastava

Response

Authors' note

Accepted with
Modification

as above #9284

Accepted

Rejected

this is clarified in the first sentence: Biomass density maps are wall-to-wall,
polygon- or pixel-based predictions of above-ground biomass (that also
depict carbon stocks) for woody plants and trees. Biomass maps can bemade out of more sources of remote sensing products.

Accepted

This comment belongs to Ch2 Vol 4 (biomass BOG)

This section could benefit from guidance provided on this topic
in the refinements of Vol 4 Chapter 3. Particularly guidance
9226

4

2

287

377

based on the GFOI methodological guidance. Particularly

Nasikoa Aguilar-

because REDD+ related work has catalysed major progress inAmuchastegui

their field in the last 5 years and the GFOI has been a leading
process of this.
6506

4

2

289

289

what is wall to wall?

Guangcheng Chen

Noted

wall to wall is already defined in land representation approaches, approach3

Anke Herold

Accepted with
Modification

changed title of sub-section to: Considerations when developing biomass
density maps

9752

4

2

291

292

The text explains the characteristics and usefulness of biomass density
maps, but not how to develop biomass density maps as the headingsuggests. Suggest to modify the heading, e.g. just "Biomass density
maps" or 'What are biomass density maps?"

6498

4

2

292

294

Since such data are available, it would be better to update the default
emission factors/activity data for Tier 1.

Guangcheng Chen

Noted

some Tier 1 defaults are being updated using validated biomass maps inareas where no plot data are available

Valerio Avitabile

Accepted with
Modification

added: ... and how does this definition relate to the one used in thenational GHG inventory.

2894

4

2

296

296

I suggest to further clarify the sentence as follow: "The definitions forforest and aboveground woody biomass used to produce the map,
WHICH SHOULD MATCH THE DEFINITIONS USED IN THE GHG
INVENTORIES".

6542

4

2

298

298

"…responds to aboveground biomass…" change to "…responds to aboveAaron Smith
ground biomass…"

3482

4

2

299

300

"forests" could be replaced with "vegetation" to generalize this text.

Doug King

2936

4

2

312

312

Specify the Chapter X

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted

9288

4

2

312

312

What is "Chapter X"?

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

8858

4

2

312

313

Consider the following changes: 6. The selection allometric model used
for field biomass estimating (Duncanson et al. 2017).

Georgii Alexandrov

Rejected

Acceptedchanged to: woody plants (for consistency with 2006 GPG)

Comment
ID

7224

Volume4

Chapter

2

From line

318

To line318

Comment

Will "forest degradation" be defined somewhere, e.g. in a glossary?
How?

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Noted

Definition of forest degradation is not discussed in this 2019 Refinement,
but it is discussed in the IPCC Methodology Report "Definitions andMethodological Options to Inventory Emissions from Direct Humaninduced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation
Types" published in 2003.

Accepted

This comment belongs to Ch2 Vol 4 (biomass BOG)

Raul Abad Viñas

Accepted"ratios of below-ground to above ground" has been deleted

Jason Funk

Noted

Jason Funk

Noted

Dirk Nemitz

Perhaps worth mentioning the fact that not all observedchanges will be man-made and that nature dynamics remain to
9228

4

2

320

323

be fully understood. Attribution of change remains challenging,This is related with sections bellow addressing inter annual

Nasikoa AguilarAmuchastegui

variability and natural dynamics.
It sounds redundant and confusing to include both "ratios of
2838

4

2

325

326

below-ground to above ground" and "root-to-shoot ratios".
According with the 2006 glossary, the first term defines thesecond one.
This section lacks sufficient references to give examples of theuse of these technologies - in particular, the integration of

7848

4

2

327

340

different remote sensing techniques to improve accuracy andprecision of estimates. Please refer to the supporting material
linked to this comment for a rich selection of examples. Some ofthese materials are literature reviews themselves.
The supporting document contains a rich review of the use of

7920

4

2

327

340

LiDAR to estimate aboveground biomass. This information
should be reflected in these lines of the chapter. Please see
supporting material.

9230

4

2

331

332

7220

4

2

332

332

6544

4

2

332

332

This paragraph could benefit of a box depicting available andNasikoa Aguilar-

upcoming missions like Sentinel 1, NISAR, GEDI, etc.

Amuchastegui

It would make sense to also give 1-2 examples for sensors with"fine resolution"
Provide example for fine resolotution as has been provided forcoarse and medium resolution.
Perhaps worth explaining with a box or not how each satellite

9232

4

2

333

337

sensor uses different bands like C,L and P and how that affects
the usefulness of the data?

Accepted

This comment belongs to Ch2 Vol 4 (biomass BOG)

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted

Examples have been added.

Aaron Smith

Accepted

Examples have been added.

Accepted

This comment belongs to Ch2 Vol 4 (biomass BOG)

Noted

It is discussed in other place.

Nasikoa AguilarAmuchastegui

Would be good to also mention that active sensors like SAR and
7222

4

2

333

340

LiDAR don't have the same problems with cloud cover as optical Dirk Nemitz
satellite sensors

6546

4

2

336

336

"Using the strength of signal…" change to "Using the strengthof the signal…"

Aaron Smith

Accepted

Comment
ID

Volume2896

4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Valerio Avitabile

Noted

References have been added to help readers' understanding.

Georgii Alexandrov

Rejected

Georgii Alexandrov

Rejected

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

Aaron Smith

Rejected

Aaron Smith

Rejected

Nalin Srivastava

Rejected

Authors believe the word emission factor is fine.

Accepted

This comment belongs to Ch2 Vol 4 (biomass BOG)

Accepted

This comment belongs to Ch2 Vol 4 (biomass BOG)

Accepted withmodification

Rephrased as "multi-temporal"

The sentence is correct for spaceborne or airborne LiDAR
2

339

340

sensors but not for terrestrial LiDAR, and it could be helpful tospecify this.
Consider the following changes: Airborne LiDAR technology is

8860

4

2

340

341

technically capable to give us a direct measurement of 3-D
forest structure for every hectare in the tropics at affordable
price (Mascaro et al. 2014).
I would suggest to make a box about the national biomass

8862

4

2

346

346

mapping in Panama. There are nice maps in the Asner et al
paper which can be reproduced under Creative Commons

Authors think the example of Brazil suffices.

license.
9290

4

2

349

349

6548

4

2

349

349

6550

4

2

351

351

"…provides the basis for estimating...""Combination with activity…" change to "In combination withactivity…""The use of regionally aggregated…" change to "The use of aregionally aggregated…"
Replace "emission factor" with "C stock". Please don't use

9292

4

2

352

352

"emission factor" for various parameters. EF has a specificmeaning (emissions per unit of activity data)

The details of how to obtain those averages and how to avoid
e.g. spatial autocorrelation as well as illustrate the reduction in
uncertainty as estimates are made for larger areas is of essence
9234

4

2

352

355

here. Same thing for explaining how use of maps to estimate
pixel level biomass is not the way to use them. This is a

Nasikoa AguilarAmuchasteguicommon mistake end users make and that requires thoroughexplanation.
This remains to consolidated in its practicality. Upcoming
missions like GEDI, and NISAR may enable this. Estimatesderived from Optical data have been tested and have beenshown to generate a lot of noise due to spurious changes in e.g
9236

4

2

356

363

chlorophyll content and/or saturation of the signal. This point
number 2 is very good. I would add to this the need for ground

Nasikoa AguilarAmuchastegui

data to be designed and collected in ways that enable soundcorrelation with RS data. A point commonly raised but no agency
so far has embraced the implications for ground data collection.
Explain 'multi-date' compared to other types of biomass density
9754

4

2

356

356

maps or delete 'multi-date', the description of such maps always
seem to require a mutlitude of data and it is not clear what
distinction is made here.

Anke Herold

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' notein line with previous comment, here it is clearly stated that
quality requirements for national GHG inventories havent beenachieved to estimate biomass change directly from multi-datebiomass density maps, This paragraph assumes that

101

4

2

356

363

improvements will come in next years, but, until this happens,
the guidelines should refrain from inciting the use of these

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

Rejected

Authors believe this paragraph helps. Some modifications havebeen made aiming to improve.

maps. SUGGESTION: text from 356 to 363 should be deleted to
avoid confusion of inventory compilers and avoid unnecessary
additional complexity to the guidelines.
6552

4

2

356

356

"Such approach would provide…" change to "Such an approach
would provide…"

Aaron Smith

AcceptedAnke Herold

Rejected

Delete or clarify 'a quality requirement that has so far not beenachieved for the national GHG inventories'. This is not necessary
for the guidance and it does not seem to be very helpful to add
9756

4

2

360

361

that inventories so far have not accurately estimated biomasschanges. Seems very broad negative statement. But maybe I

Authors believe this sentence helps. "… at this stage" has been
added at the end of this sentence.

interpreted in a wring way, then the statement should beclarified.
9238

4

2

360

370

This sentence and point would deserve further elaboration?
Replace "...remote sensing-assisted, time-series of land

9294

4

2

364

364

change..." with "..time-series of land use and land-use change

Nasikoa Aguilar-

NotedThis comment belongs to Ch2 Vol 4 (biomass BOG)

Nalin Srivastava

Rejected

Authors believe the current formulation is fine.

Aaron Smith

Rejected

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted withmodification

Amuchastegui

obtained through remote sensing..""…integrated with remote sensing-assisted, time-series..."
6554

4

2

364

364

change to "...integrated with a remote sensing-assisted timeseries…"
Consider simplifying the following sentence to make it

9296

4

2

365

366

understandable:"This way the biomass map data can be linked
to land and carbon trajectories that better reflect the complexityof forest-related carbon fluxes."

9406

4

2

378

481

Under my point of view it is not clear if dead wood below ground need tobe considered. It should be clarified. However, nowadays it will be an
Iciar Alberdi
estimation with a high error rate.

2348

4

2

380

2.3.3.1

2.3.3 About dead wood and generally [To be read in conjuction with
2350]

Hans Petersson

2.3.3.1

Equation 2.17 is claimed to be a Tier 2 method (and modeling to be Tier3?). But if the change in dead wood, in equation 2.17, is actually
measured this is more accurate than to model the change. Thus, it’s ahuge difference if the change is predicted using crude EF or measured.
My point is that Tier in this case goes back to the quality of underlying
data – complexity (models) are not always more accurate.

Hans Petersson

2350

4

2

380

Accepteddefined in table 1.1 / Vol. 4, reference added

Noted

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

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To line

2942

4

2

391

401

2944

4

2

414

414

Comment

ExpertSome words appear in italic. Consider excluding this italic format,
CARLOS SANQUETTA
keeping it as a normal font (non-italic).
Consider keeping key category as a non-italic font. Keep consistency withCARLOS SANQUETTA
other parts of the text.

Response

Authors' note

Accepted
Accepted

1568

4

2

428

495

in line 428 DOMin is defined as "annual change in carbon stocks in thedead wood/litter pool, tonnes C yr-1" however in line 495 DOMin
defined as "total carbon in biomass transferred to dead organic matter,
tonnes C yr-1". It would be good to give only one definition to the same
variable.

2946

4

2

445

445

Replace gain - loss method by Gain-Loss Method.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

6500

4

2

445

462

A "big" text here is explaining why these factors should be considered. I
suggest to simplify this paragraph and move it to the Introduction, andmention what should be considered here in the methodology.

Guangcheng Chen

Rejected

This is specific to the Gain-Loss-Method and it is needed here forclarification

7922

4

2

448

448

when DOMout is estimated. DOMout using the second approach is the
product of the rate-constant describing the (Add of)

Abdul Nayamuth

Acceptedcorrected

9298

4

2

448

448

Add "of" between "product" and " the rate constant"

Nalin Srivastava

Acceptedcorrected

Acceptedreference added

Anna Romanovskaya

Acceptedchanged definition in line 498 to def. In line 428, for consistency

7368

4

2

452

454

Suggested additional reference for use of negative exponential decay
models for DOM dynamics:
Cook Garry D., Meyer C. P. (Mick), Muepu Maëlys, Liedloff Adam C.
Max Collett(2016) Dead organic matter and the dynamics of carbon and greenhousegas emissions in frequently burnt savannas. International Journal of
Wildland Fire 25, 1252-1263. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF15218

2948

4

2

474

474

Reference (supportive literature) to default = 0.37 required.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Acceptedreference added

6306

4

2

474

474

Many countries need on CF "forJongsu Yim

Acceptedreference added

fraction of biomass left to decay on ground is using only for
Ldisturbance. However in manu countries part of residues from mortality
Anna Romanovskaya
are often are collecting and used as firewood. It should be included in
the eq.2.20

Rejected

It is already covered in Eq. 2.7

Acceptedchanged definition in line 523 to def. In line 496, for consistency

Acceptedchanged definition in line 544 to def. In line 497, for consistency

Rejected

In this context disturbances must not be natural

1570

4

2

491

505

1572

4

2

496

523

1576

4

2

497

544

1580

4

2

498

498

1578

4

2

499

503

cannot find Table 2.1

Anna Romanovskaya

Noted

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

Max Collett

Rejected

Litterfall is already included

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Noted

No action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinementin these lines there are different definitions for Mortality. Better to use
Anna Romanovskaya
only one.
in these lines there are different definitions for Lslash. Better to use only
Anna Romanovskayaone.
For Ldisturbances better to make more clear definition and to add
Anna Romanovskaya"natural" disturbances

7370

4

2

508

534

This discussion should refer to both tree mortality and "litterfall" - asreferred to in line 486. The same equations and methodologicalconsiderations apply. This is particularly important for eucalypt
ecosystems where senescent trees lose limbs (with significant carbon
content) before tree mortality occurs.

2950

4

2

512

512

Literature to support the statements required.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

2952

4

2

523

527

Variables in equation are in italic and in the text in non-italic font.
Consider to standardize it throughout the Chapter.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

1574

4

2

531

534

Would be good to give at least a default range for mortality rates, if that
Anna Romanovskaya
is possible.

7924

4

2

538

538

9300

4

2

566

566

1582

4

2

567

567

4616

4

2

567

567

ha-1, superscript

KEWEI YU

Accepted

102

4

2

567

568

the table 2,2, was located here in the 2006 guidelines, but seems to fit
better in chapter 4, as it refers only to forests. SUGGESTION: change
location.

CRISTINA GARCIA DIAZ

Rejected

The section is on conversion to and from forest, so this table needs to be
here.

2524

4

2

567

568

In TABLE 2.2" is column "Broadleaf deciduous/Dead wood carbon stocks
Klaus von Wilpert(tonnes C ha-1)/Min/Max" not clear (no range!)

Accepted

table reworked

2840

4

2

567

568

The column referring to the Min/Max values of DW in broadleaf
deciduous should provides two values (e.g. a-b) as in the other similarcolumns in the table.

Raul Abad Viñas

Accepted

table reworked

2954

4

2

567

568

Improve table format reducing spaces within text lines. Use subscripts
for gases.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

5264

4

2

567

568

Table 2.2 does not accommodate effect of altitude in tropical forest
types. Moisture is only factor and excludes cool versus warm forests.
Please clarify or improve.

MINGMING WANG

Rejected

6308

4

2

567

568

Typing mistake " source : ~~ the 2006 GPG"

Jongsu Yim

Accepted

7926

4

2

567

567

Source in Table 2.2 – (Is it 2006 GPG or 2003 or 2006 GL)

Abdul Nayamuth

Accepted

9302

4

2

567

567

Updated Table 2.2: "Min/Max" values of dead wood C stocks forbroadleaf deciduous stocks don’t make sense (just one value when it is
supposed to be a range)

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

9304

4

2

567

567

Updated Table 2.2: Footnote- replace "2006 GPG" with "2006 IPCC
Guidelines"

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

7226

4

2

579

579

"is provided in the next two sections": lines 600-601 only contain areference to wetlands supplement, maybe this could already be clarified Dirk Nemitz
in line 579

Accepted

text modified to align

1584

4

2

581

599

references are dated by 1993-2005. Would be good to have more recent
Anna Romanovskayareferences as well.

Noted

references looked as found

Noted

The IPCC 2013 Wetland Supplement is an approved product by the IPCC
plenary and can be referenced by this IPCC report. Reference has been
provided to Chapter 2 within the wetlands supplement.

Equation 2.22 and which is derived from Equation 2.12 as explained
Abdul Nayamuth
below: (delete either and or which)"This section includes updates on default dead wood and litter C stocks".
Nalin Srivastava
Don’t use "EF" for all parameters.
Table 2.2 should also include uncertainty ranges. Values presented are
Anna Romanovskaya
too exact for such large regions

Noted

Authors' noteNo action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement

Accepted
Accepted"EF" replaced

Accepted

table reworked

The stratification in the table is as proposed for consistency with othertables and availability of datatable reworked

The reference to 2013 WLs supplement can be problematic for

its adoption under UNFCCC. This supplement was not accepted
as mandatory for GHG inventories. If there is an intention to
103

4

2

601

601

propose text from the supplement, the text itself should be

CRISTINA GARCIA

included in the draft, so it can be analysed as part of the

DIAZ

refinement. SUGGESTION: delete all references to 2013 WL
supplement and include the relevant text instead of thesereferences.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Mattias Lundblad

Noted

The TOC included refinement of soil C stock changes factors with updates
based on the latest data and factors. While most updates to this section fit
with the existing equation, Biochar C behaves very differently from otherforms of carbon in soil. It can persist for greater periods of time and iscreated from organic materials in which the carbon has been assumed tobe converted to CO2. As such it needs to be considered separately fromthe other forms of C input to soil, and required a separate equation for
estimating the change in SOC before summing with equation 2.24.

Anke Herold

Accepted

The definition of biochar C (lines 782-783) has been moved to line 628 tohelp show how different biochar C is from other forms of carbon in soil andwhy it should be accounted for separately.

What is the rationale to include specific guidance on biochar? It
9654

4

2

618

618

was not highlighted in the TOC. Should be better to reflect theeffects of biochar use in default parameters calculating CSC.
Could also include effect of other amendments if relevant.

The biochar term is added here, but the explanation of what
9758

4

2

620

621

biochar is only follows in line 781ff. This order is confusing andthe explanations of what biochar is should be moved before theequations.

9760

4

2

620

621

The biochar term is added without any appropriate justification andliterature sources for choosing this approach and for including this in a
separate term in the estimation. The section lacks an explanation ofwhat biochar is and how it is expected to work. This is essential if suchterm is added. The section also fundamentally lacks a more balanced
discussion of knowledge gaps related to biochar application and longterm experiments. Recent review e.g. summarized "Some fundamental
mechanisms and the utilization of biochar in agro-ecosystems are poorly
understood. These knowledge gaps mainly include the following aspects:
it is significant to understand the interactions between biochar and soil
Anke Herold
microbial communities which may critically affect the release of CH4 andN2O, The exact service life of biochar is still rarely understood and (3)the maximum adsorption and desorption capacity of biochar are needed
to be determined in further researched. From this perspective it is usefulto add as a separate term for transparency only in tier 3 approaches, but
it is questionable whether it is good practice to add biochar as a separate
term in in tier 3 approaches given the existing knowledge gaps. The
method should request considerably more justification through longterm field measurements if a separate biochar term is added in theestimation.

The justification for adding biochar as a separate term to Equation 2.24 isthat biochar is fundamentally different from other organic soil
amendments. Firstly, biochar additions are not typically a long-term
management change that would be conducted annually, but may rather bea one-time or occasional amendment whose net impact on SOC stocks
depends on the cumulative amount added over time. Secondly andperhaps most importantly, biochar has basic differences from otheramendments that mean it must be treated separately: land use (FLU),
management (FMG) and Input (FI) factors that operate on SOC are notapplicable to biochar because of its different stability to decomposition insoil. Biochar application should not be rolled into FI in the existing mineral
SOC stock estimation, because biochar application rates are independentof the reference levels of mineral SOC, and should not be multiplied by thisin the calculation.
Noted

The review article cited (Ding et al. 2016) relates only to biochar’s impacts
on agronomic performance and soil fertility. The review does not include
any data or meta-analysis on the climate-change mitigation potential ofbiochar. Accordingly, the conclusions pertain only to soil fertility, and aresubstantially irrelevant here, with the exception of the point about releaseof CH4 and N2O. Although Ding et al. do allude to impacts on CH4 and N2O
in their Discussion (not in the Conclusions as claimed by the referee) they
do not cite any evidence relating to this and discuss (speculatively) N2O
only in relation to how changing the amount of volatilized N could impact
the amount of plant-available N. It should also be noted that theparagraph which the referee has incompletely quoted begins with thesentence “Many researches showed that the application of biocharpresents an ideal method to improve soils fertilizer.” before going on to
say that the mechanisms underlying these empirical observations arepoorly understood.
Although Ding et al. do not provide any data on impacts of biochar

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Noted

This issue raised by the reviewer has arisen because of the initial use of 020cm depth for the Tier 2 Steady State modelling approach. We altered
the Tier 2 Steady State modelling approach to work for the 0-30 cm soil
layer. This change makes the original text correct.

the reference to "greater depth" would need to be replaced by"different depth". With the inclusion of the three-pool steadystate models as a method, currently defined for 20cm layer ofsoil, there seem to be a contradiction. The change to "different"

104

4

2

622

623

would also be more in line with the affirmation in chapter 1 thatsays that SOC "Includes organic carbon in mineral soils to a

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

specified depth chosen by the country and applied consistently
through the time series". SUGGESTION: replace "greater" by"different" in line 622.
How do we ensure that the impact of biochar is excluded from
9306

4

2

630

631

estimates of Del C mineral? Does it involve modification of the

Nalin Srivastava

Noted

A note has been added to the descriptions of the input factors associatedwith adding organic materials to mineral soils in croplands and grasslands
indicating that biochar additions should be excluded.

existing default stock change factors for input (FI)?

Text discussed about Tier 3 model that can be used to estimate
4178

4

2

633

635

the changes of soil inorganic C pools. Can authors insert any

Senani Karunaratne

reference for this model?

Accepted with
Modification

Biochar should be clearly linked only to tier 3 estimates which a
9762

4

2

636

640

clear indication that this needs additional justification fromlong-term field experiments. Therefore delete biochar in line 636

Anke Herold

Rejected

which refers to other tiers.

6310

4

2

641

641

Why don't consider the SOC map by FAO which can be usefulsources as IPCC default.

4

2

661

665

the examples provided in later chapters on how this calculation

Biochar can be included at any of the tiers provided the data exists on theamounts and forms of biochar created and applied to soil. As for other soil
carbon components, Tier 1 offers default accounting factors which could
be modified by countries to create a Tier 2 method. Tier 3 would require
further development of a modelling methodology.

Jongsu Yim

Noted

We think the reviewer is asking why we have not used the SOC map being
prepared by the FAO to provide reference soil carbon stock values. This
mapping exercise has incorporated soil profile data from both managed
and unmanaged soils and is dominated by those under some form ofmanagement. Because of the inclusion of managed soils, it is not
appropriate on its own to derive reference values for soil carbon stocks innative (reference) state.

Peter Aarup Iversen

Noted

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

Senani Karunaratne

Noted

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

Equation 2.2.5: It would be useful make a reference to some of8520

We are not aware of a Tier 3 approach to modelling soil inorganic carbon
stock change. The comment in the text was not meant to indicate thatmodels currently existed to allow this stock change to be quantified, rather
it was inserted to indicate that a country would have to develop this if it
wanted to include inorganic carbon stock change in its national inventory.
The text has been modified to make this statement more clear.

is done e.g. Chapter 5, line 1096 to 1101.
Text describe combining climate * soil * management. Can
authors explain how this is derived for a country? GIS overlay?
4180

4

2

675

676

Would be great if authors provide an example for this. I
understand that Tier 1 models are not necessarily spatially
explicit but providing some information will be useful.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Maya Hunt

Noted

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

Not certain it should say time D is "typically invariant" within
sectors (eg, 20 years for the croplands systems). This may be

7796

4

2

695

696

the case now, for most inventories, but perhaps greater
accuracy might be achieved through disaggregation within
sectors - and should not be discouraged?

2956

5266

4

4

2

2

699

699

700

700

Standardize fonts in Table 2.3. Improve format.

Table 2.3 includes Tropical Montane but 2.2 does not have theclimate type. Why the inconsistency?

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Font standardised across the table.

MINGMING WANG

Noted

The inconsistency between tables does exist. However, table 2.2 provides
stock values for litter and deadwood and table 2.3 provides reference stock
values for soils. Calculation of soil carbon stock change (Equation 2.25)
does not require the information in Table 2.2. Thus if a country has theTropical Montane climate and wants to calculate soil carbon stock changethen the reference soil carbon stocks are required. The Tropical Montane
climate reference values have therefore been retained.

Noted

The values for both mean and 95% CI, are derived empirically from theunderlying data on which these were based. We must respect that data
and accept the level of variance it contains. IPCC has required the use of
95% confidence intervals. Thus no changes have been made.

The uncertainty associated with the reference SOC stocks isquite large (in most cases, the 95% confidence interval includeszero). For Tier 1 countries, these results would seem to indicate
6064

4

2

699

700

that the SOC stock is nearly completely unknown. Should text
be added that addresses what these wide ranges of confidenceMark Sperow

intervals mean and how the results should be interpreted?
Could a lower confidence interval be selected (e.g., 90%
confidence for most does not include zero).
Table 2.3 provides default reference soil organic carbon stocks
for mineral soils. This table has been updated compared to the
2502

4

2

700

701

IPCC 2006 guidelines, based on Batjes (2010) and Batjes

This paper uses all soil profiles (managed and unmanaged) within the ISRIC
and other database. For Table 2.3 we only want data for profiles fromunmanaged soils in order to generate the reference soil organic carbon
stock values. The publication by Batjes (2011) therefore offers the mostappropriate dataset to work with.

Jan Peter Lesschen

Noted

Mattias Lundblad

Accepted

Table 2.3 order revised to be consistent with Table 2.2.

Hiroshi Ito

Noted

It would be very hard to provide concrete data for Tier 3 because of thevariety of possible approaches that could be taken. We do provide
examples of Tier 3 systems now in use later in the chapter in Box 2.7.

Abdul Nayamuth

Accepted"n" was changed to "in"(2011). However, more recent publications, e.g. Batjes (2016)
could be taken into account, which comprise a larger dataset.
Can not evaluate changes in the table (Table 2.3) but suggest
9656

4

2

700

700

to maintain the same order in the table as in the 2006 GL tomake it easier to follow the changes made (i.e. start with boreal…).
This figure is not user friendly. Please add concrete data

4022

4

2

701

704

7928

4

2

701

701

2958

4

2

703

703

Consider keeping key category as a non-italic font. Standardize. CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Text changed.

9658

4

2

703

704

Add "method" after "Tier 3" in first diamond.

Text changed.

forTier3
Text Box 4 on the left of Figure 2.5 - Are changes n C stocks inmineral soils a key category1? (in instead of n)

Mattias Lundblad

Accepted

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

Response

Authors' note

2960

4

2

708

708

Consider keeping key category as a non-italic font. Standardize. CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Text changed.

Expert

Noted

Formulation A is an expanded version of Equation 2.25 and has been
included in Box 2.3 to allow Formulation A (where there is not spatial
resolution of land use change) to be differentiated from Formulation B(where spatially explicit land use change is known). It is important tomaintain these different approaches. Additionally this section was out of
scope for alteration based on the approved table of contents provided by
the IPCC.

Noted

The IPCC 2013 Wetland Supplement is an approved product by the IPCC
plenary and can be referenced by this IPCC report. Reference has been
provided to Chapter 2 within the wetlands supplement.

Accepted

Text revised as suggested.

There is no sense to give a Formulation A as an alternative. This
1586

4

2

721

722

equation is absolutely the same as main eq. 2.25, just written in Anna Romanovskayaone. Alternative is only Formulation B.
The reference to 2013 WLs supplement can be problematic for
its adoption under UNFCCC. This supplement was not accepted
as mandatory for GHG inventories. If there is an intention to

105

4

2

779

779

propose text from the supplement, the text itself should be

CRISTINA GARCIA

included in the draft, so it can be analysed as part of the

DIAZ

refinement. SUGGESTION: delete all references to 2013 WL
supplement and include the relevant text instead of thesereferences.

2842

4

2

779

780

In the third line of the second paragraph within the box, instead of " theland-use is assumed to be in equilibrium" it should be stated that "thecarbon is assumed to be in equilibrium" and in the brackets that nochanges in Land-use, nor in management practices occurred during theRaul Abad Viñas
20 years prior to 1990. Otherwise, as it is now, not only the Land-use
should be considered in equilibrium, but also mention to the equilibrium
in management practices within the land-use is needed in the example
to understand that the carbon in the soils is in equilibrium.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note
The values used for the SOCRef and FLU come from tables within therefinement. The SOCRef value of 77 comes from the intersection Tropical
Wet climate and Volcanic soil type from Table 2.3. The values of FLU for
conversion of forest to cropland (0.92) and forest to grassland (1.0) comesfrom Tables 5.6 and 6.2, respectively. The values of FMG and FI were
defined as 1 for the purpose of the example calculations included in Box
2.4.
Additionally the text has been altered to include "SOCRef soil carbon stocks
under native forest vegetation"

6066

4

2

779

780

In the example (Box 2.4) it may be useful to use values that are found in
the tables for SOCREF, and FLU in particular. The new tables do not havevalues populated, so it is not possible to tell if they are there, but the
SOCREF value of 77 represents volcanic soils in Tropical wet climate
zones - it is not clear why it is identified as corresponding to "native
Mark Sperow
forest vegetation" because the SOC tables are by soil and climate. I am
pleased to see that Approach 2 or 3 table uses the ending stock from theprevious inventory year for comparison, similar to the approach
proposed by Sperow (2014).

Accepted with
Modification

The initial SOC stock used to calculate the stock change is actually that
present at the time of the land use change. This equals the SOCequil stock
if the previous land use was in place for 20 years or more. Then the annual
rate of SOC stock change is equal to the difference between the SOCequilvalues of the previous and present land use divided by 20. This rate ofchange in SOC stock is then maintained until either 1) the SOCequil of the
new land use is achieved at which time the annual SOC stock change
becomes 0, or 2) another land use transition occurs at which point the SOC
stock starts moving linearly towards the SOCequil of the next land use.
If the previous land use was not in place for at least 20 years and the
SOCequil was therefore not reached, then the annual rate of SOC stockchange is equal to the difference between the SOC stock present at theland use change and the SOCequil stock of the new land divided by 20.
This rate of change in SOC stock would then be maintained until either 1)
the SOCequil of the new land use is achieved at which time the annual SOC
stock change becomes 0, or 2) another land use transition occurs at which
point the SOC stock starts moving linearly towards the SOCequil of the next
land use.

Comment
ID

6068

Volume4

Chapter

2

From line

779

To line780

Comment

Expert

The values in the table (Box 2.4) are rounded (though not to the extent
that they were in 2006, so this is an improvement), which may confuse
analysts trying to replicate the data. For example, for SOC0 for unit 1, I
calculate the values as 75.46,73.95, 72.47, 71.02, and 71.02, which isslightly different from the values provided. The table used only the value
Mark Sperow
from the table, which an analyst building the table would not likely do.
Please consider modifying the values. Additionally, are the values for the
SOC stock change factors likely to change with this update? The ones
listed are from the 2006 release but are currently blank in the FOD
review.

Response

All SOC stock change factors have been undated to those in the 2019
Refinement tables. The number of decimal places associated with allvalues in Box 2.4 have been increased to 2 to allow inventory compilers tocheck consistency of calculations.

Accepted with
Modification

4

2

781

837

was not highlighted in the TOC. Should be better to reflect theeffects of biochar use in default parameters calculating CSC.

Mattias Lundblad

Noted

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Rejected

Any organic matter on the way to producing biochar has to be a potential
source of emission.

Could also include effect of other amendments if relevant.

3484

4

2

797

797

Replace "source" with "source/sink" since biomass pools areboth sinks and sources of GHG fluxes

The values provided in the examples have been checked and are correct.
The values provided by the reviewer were found to have an error. Whentransitioning from one land use to the next, the soil carbon stock change
needs to move from the initial stock present at the time of land use
conversion towards the SOCequil of the new land use linearly so that the
new SOCequil stock can be reached in 20 years. Thus, a constant rate ofchange in SOC stock should occur in progressing towards the new SOCequil
stock and the new SOCequil stock should be reached in 20 years. In thevalues provided by the reviewer, the initial stock is being reset at the startof each inventory period, rather than at the start of each land use change.
The result of this is that the rate of SOC stock change is not linear and the
SOCequil values for the new land use can never be achieved.

The TOC included refinement of soil C stock changes factors with updates
based on the latest data and factors. While most updates to this section fit
with the existing equation, Biochar C behaves very differently from otherforms of carbon in soil. It can persist for greater periods of time and iscreated from organic materials in which the carbon has been assumed tobe converted to CO2. As such it needs to be considered separately fromthe other forms of C input to soil, and required a separate equation for
estimating the change in SOC before summing with equation 2.24.

What is the rationale to include specific guidance on biochar? It
9660

Authors' noteComment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

9764

4

2

805

814

8864

4

2

812

812

The current knowledge and research does nto seem to be sufficient for atier 1 method as developed in this section. Please delete and guide uses
only to a tier 3 method if sufficient data is available from specificmeasurements. It seems not sufficiently robust to add a method that
does not even specify the application rate. There is no justification
provided why biochar C-gain is considered effectively permanent and not
subject to losses. This seems not in line with good scientific practice. It is
not very likely that there are measurements for the biochar-C remaining
after 1000 years. It seems not in line with good scientific practice toprovide default data for a parameter which can only be verified after
1000 years.
Only 6 studies used have time-series data over more than one year isindicated in Table 2.5. This is clearly not sufficient evidence for a tier 1
method.
Only studies on long term plits with temporal coverage of > 10 years
should be used as a basis for the default parameters in Table 2.5. It is not
Anke Herold
good practice to derive default parameters for soils from such few shortterm experiments. Please delete tier 1 approach, the knowledge gaps are
too significant for a tier 1 approach which would result in a significant
deterioration of the accuracy of GHG inventories. Additional methods
should lower the existing uncertainties in the estimation. This tier 1
addition would strongly increase uncertainties. A recent review
concluded: "However, the long-term effects of biochar on GHG emissions[...] still call for further study. Generally the study of the combination ofbiochar properties and amendment effects are insufficient, and theresults of only a small number of short-term pot or field studies limited
to periods of only 1-2 years are currently available. This review highlights
the need for a strategic research effort that will combine the effects ofbiochar applied to soils with the details about the characteristics ofbiochar and soil to be amended, allow for the elucidation of mechanismsthat are differentiated vy environmental and management factors, andalso include studies that occur over a longer time period.
1000y' need to change '1000 year' or '1000 yr'.
RAEHYUN KIM

2962

4

2

816

826

Use the same fonts of the other equations cited in the text.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

8866

4

2

816

817

It need to use same term 'F_PERM_P'.(not 'F_perm_P')

RAEHYUN KIM

Accepted

7230

4

2

829

829

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted

2964

4

2

835

837

What is a "conservation assumption"? Needs explanation andjustification

Improve format of the tables. The errors are very high. Are theycorrect? What are the implications of these errors? Explain.

Authors' note
The approach considers that a country can quantify all biochar C produced
from applicable sources and applied to soil and then determine that thiscarbon has been sequestered for a time period of 1000 years against thealternative - full emission from the source material. The application rateand location where it is applied is irrelevant under such an approach
because the approach is only addressing the most extremely stable portionof the biochar which will be resistant to decomposition regardless of thesoil conditions. It is essential in this approach that the addition of any
biochar C to soil does not get included in with the addition of other moredegradable organic carbon inputs elsewhere in the inventory (e.g.
croplands, grasslands or forest lands). Note that although a single quantityof biochar C added to soils would be derived, the calculations used weight
each type of biochar on the basis of its feedstock, carbon content andheating treatment to give the value of biochar C that can be considered tohave a permanence of 1000 years.

Noted

Accepted with
Modification

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Pessenda et al. (1997) found that charcoal particles had ages >2000 years
before present and were significantly older than stratigraphically identicalsoil organic matter by up to 3000 years. Several field assessments on thescale of ecosystems exist in the peer-reviewed literature that stretch
several hundred to several thousand years (Bird et al, 1999; Gavin et al,
2003; Cheng et al, 2008; Lehmann et al, 2008; Liang et al, 2008; Nguyen etal, 2008; Lutfalla et al, 2017). The data included in this methodology are ofcourse not from experiments conducted over 1000 years, as the refereecorrectly notes (the longest agricultural experiments are about 160 years
at Rothamsted; most agricultural experiments stretch over only 2-3 years,
with experiments longer than a decade being the exception). However,these are projections based on several years of field and laboratory
experiments using isotope partitioning. Predictions based on simulations
and multi-year experimentation are the basis for such data, anduncertainties are included. The majority of the experiments are conductedunder optimum water and temperature conditions, and have to be
The "1000y" has been changed to "1000 years".
The formatting of all equations have been updated to that required for
IPCC documents.
The parameter in equation 2.27 has been changed to FPERMP to beconsistent with the text and format used in the equations.
The text should have read "conservative assumption". The text has beenchanged to reflect this.
The formatting of the tables has been updated to be consistent with IPCC
document requirements. The values of uncertainty have been maintained
as they have been calculated from underlying data. Values for Table 2.5
have been included.
The uncertainties are not that different from that associated with othercomponents of the soil carbon methods (e.g. Reference soil carbon stocks
provided in Table 2.3).

Comment
ID

Volume1064

Chapter

From line

To lineComment
The last sentence of this paragraph, seems to be repeated in

2

845

847

the following paragraph. SUGGESTION: deletion of the lastsentence of the paragraph

4182

4

2

857

859

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

CRISTINA GARCIA

Accepted with
Modification

The last sentence provides an example. It has been moved to the end of
the following paragraph.

DIAZ

Text discusses about the importance of country specific reference C
stocks. With initiatives such as Globalsoilmap.net(http://www.globalsoilmap.net/), Soil Grid
(https://soilgrids.org/#!/?layer=TAXNWRB_250m&vector=1) and FAO
Global Soil Organic Carbon Map (http://www.fao.org/global-soilpartnership/pillars-action/4-information-and-data/global-soil-organiccarbon-gsoc-map/en/) there are a variety of maps (grid/raster base) with
Senani Karunaratne
higher spatial resolution soil C stock estimates. These datasets arederived using latest digital soil mapping techniques and most instances
calculate the associated prediction uncertainty. Therefore, I request
authors to update the text related to this section and highlight thesedata sources so users can access them through web services which arereadily available to use. For example through Soil grid website users canaccess soil organic C stocks at 1 km spatial resolution for entire globe.
These datasets are available based on the predefined depth intervals.

Noted

It is acknowledged that new sources of soil carbon stock data andassociated uncertainties are being derived including for example the FAO
Global Soil Organic Carbon Map. This section of the guidelines is referring
to Tier 2 approaches which require the derivation of reference soil carbon
stocks (that under native vegetation) and stock change factors. The maps
are derived using data from managed and unmanaged soil profiles andthus do not quantify reference stocks, as defined for this method. They are
generally best estimates of current stocks with no attempt to quantify
native stocks, which are needed for this method.
Such data may be useful for Tier 3 accounting processes depending on therequirements of the Tier 3 process. A sentence has been added after line
1324 (in the Tier3 section) indicating that the data sources identified may
be useful in the development and/or implementation of a Tier 3 approach.

Despite being somehow mentioned in Iines 1320 -1324 ofVolume 4, chapter 2, I suggest to introduce a footnote, or
perhaps a new paragraph, to clarify that systematic groundbased measurements of soil carbon stocks (e.g. measurements
taken during NFIs) do not represent SOCref values when theland has been subject to management and other disturbances(within the time period considered to reach the equilibrium) andtherefore, they do not represent native conditions. When this is
2844

4

2

859

861

the case, it should be clear that such country-specific values of
SOC content for a time x cannot be combined with default stock

Raul Abad Viñas

Accepted

An additional sentence was inserted at line 884. This sentence indicatesthat if the reference condition or soil depth is changed from soil carbon
stocks under native condition and 30 cm depth, the country must generate
appropriate reference soil carbon stock values and stock change factors.

change factors to derive the carbon content at that time x,
because those values already include the effects ofmanagements, (Fmg) inputs (Fi) and land use (Flu).
The text in the mentioned lines and in the point 3 (lines 877890, Volume 4, chapter 2) does not seem to me clear in thissense. Therefore I suggest such clarification. Note that there are
evidences of inventory compilers introducing suchmisunderstandings.
6502

4

2

877

877

replaced Ref by REF

Guangcheng Chen

Accepted

Text changed

8836

4

2

877

877

It need to use same term 'SOC_REF'.(not 'SOC_ref')

RAEHYUN KIM

Accepted

Text changed.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

There is no mention of the possibility of deriving countryspecific reference C stocks from modelling. One could run amodel to steady state conditions representing the reference
8890

4

2

877

890

condition for specific C-input-soil and climate combinations. If

Signe Kynding Borgen Accepted

this is considered a valid option from IPCC, it should be

Authors' note
It is agreed that a country specific soil carbon reference stocks could bederived by running a model to steady state conditions under the different
soil and climate combinations within the country. However, the country
would need to provide the evidence that this is an appropriate andjustified approach. A sentence has been inserted after line 884.

mentioned here. An example from Norway is given in supporting
document.
Text discusses about deriving country specific soil C stocks
using measured datasets. How the users of this guide canderive soil C stocks for 0-0.3 m depth interval from themeasured soil C stock data available at soil horizon for a given
location/pedon? Authors need to include a small section on

It is accepted that generating country specific reference stocks

depth functions (e.g. negative exponential functions or splines)

requires an ability to perform the indicated analyses. There are ato derive soil C stocks for a predefined depth interval. Most

multitude of approaches to do this that all have merit. The

commonly use tool is equal-area quadratic splines (see Bishop
4184

4

2

879

880

et al. (1999). There are free tools to fit equal area quadratic
splines such as CSIRO spline tool available throughapproach required varies with the type of soil data a country has.
Senani Karunaratne

Noted

A country should be allowed to develop its own strategy to
generate 0-30 cm soil carbon stock data. As a result,

http://www.asris.csiro.au/methods.html . Furthermore, mostrecommendation of a particular strategy within this guidance iscountries have few measured data for bulk density which is an

not considered appropriate.

essential element to derive soil C stocks. Therefore, I proposed
to include a small section with an example for bulk how the bulk
density data can be estimated/derived using pedo-transfer
functions (see Tranter et al, 2007). All these information willlead to derive accurate data which is an essential element for
carbon accounting.
2526

4

2

880

880

, or as supplementary soil investigation at the sampling sites ofnational forest inventory (v.Wilpert et al. 2015).

Klaus von Wilpert

Noted

However, mentioning a soil survey as part of forest inventory would not
add essential information to what is being proposed. The method could
be added to surveys for any land use or could be separate from a specificland use survey, such as a forest inventory.

Anna Romanovskaya

NotedThis change is out of scope with approved table of contents by the IPCC
plenary. Additionally this comment is dealt within the text presented inVolume 1 of the Guidelines.

Not only the depth of samples to measure C stock should be
1588

4

2

911

925

mentioned here. It is important to discuss a bit about the
representativeness of such measurements for a plot (including a
representative number of samples)

Comment
ID

5336

Volume4

Chapter

2

From line

913

To lineComment

913

I would add the two following references in the parenthesis. They areexcellent meta-analysis of empirical studies on SOC changes following
land-use change and as such can be used to define region-specific FLU
values:Poeplau, C., Don, A., 2013. Sensitivity of soil organic carbon stocks andfractions to different land-use changes across Europe. Geoderma 192,
189 – 201. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.08.003
Poeplau, C., Don, A., Vesterdal, L., Leifeld, J., van Wesemael, B.,
Schumacher, J., Gensior, A., 2011. Temporal dynamics of soil organiccarbon after land-use change in the temperate zone – carbon response
functions as a model approach. Global Change Biology 17, 2415–2427.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02408.x

ExpertValentin Bellassen

Response

Authors' note

Noted

This change is out of scope with approved table of contents by the IPCC
plenary. The references were passed on to the authors developing stockchange factors.

NotedThis change is out of scope with approved table of contents by the IPCC
plenary.

NotedThis change is out of scope with approved table of contents by the IPCC
plenary. It would be useful to conduct a review of the use of the value of0.58 to convert between organic matter and organic carbon for updating
this value in future refinements.

"Regardless of the data source, it is good practice that the plots
being compared have similar histories andmanagement as well as similar topographic position, soil
physical properties and be located in close proximity." It is myexperience as a reviewer that this crucial sentence is often
5330

4

2

916

916

overlooked and/or not understood. Adding a sentence specifying Valentin Bellassenthat "In particular, the use of national averages per land use isusually not appropriate because different land uses seldom havea similar average topographic position and soil physicalproperties. Forests, for example, tend to be located on steeper
and poorer soils than cropland on average at a national level."

4186

1590

4

4

2

2

919

927

920

927

Insert reference for conversion factor 0.58 that is used toconvert percent organic matter to percent organic carbon.

to change "...can be compared" to "must be compared andverified…"

Senani Karunaratne

Anna Romanovskaya

Noted

Noted. This change is out of scope with approved table of contents by the
IPCC plenary.
The text currently revolves around demonstrating the use of models - notvalidating their use. The use of "can be compared" seems appropriate. If
we want to validate modelled parameters then "must be" is more
appropriate.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Noted

No action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement"It is good practice to provide the results of model evaluation,
citing published papers in the literature and/or placing theresults in the inventory report."
A welcome improvement would be, in my view, to recommendthat a Tier 1 or simpler Tier 2 calculation be applied in parallel,
and that the possible difference with the Tier 3 results beinterpreted. This is not to question the overarching principle that

5332

4

2

929

929

Tier 3 should be preferred to Tier 1, but it would greatly improve Valentin Bellassen
the transparency of the advanced Tier 2 or Tier 3 method and its
comparability with other countries. I would therefore
recommend adding after the above sentence:"It is also good practice to compare the implementation of themodel with a Tier 1 or simpler Tier 2 estimate and to explain
what drives the possible differences between the higher andlower Tier estimates."Yes, this is a useful addition to the text - to provide guidance on
how different countries might use multiple different transition
periods within a single sector, to more accurately reflect slow
versus fast carbon changes of different activities or crop/forest

7798

4

2

936

946

types. This is particularly the case if the transition point for land Maya Hunt

Noted

converted to land remaining is at an estimated 'steady state
equilibrium' point, based on the long-term average carbon stockchange resulting from the conversion - which may differ fordifferent land use covers. Please retain this section.

Aside from academic interest, I don’t see any real value inhaving this as a tier 2 approach. It is too complicated to be of
9308

4

2

960

960

any practical value in inventory compilation- inventory compilers Nalin Srivastava
will be better off using a tier 3 modelling approach instead.
Suggest either dropping or moving to an annex.

NotedThis Tier 2 approach represents an intermediate position between theexisting Tier 2 approach and a full Tier 3 approach. It should also be notedthat it is not compulsory for a country to adopt this approach. It is being
added as an additional alternative that could be adopted if desired. As themodel is provided in the form of a tool, the equations describing carbon
transformations can be implemented by the inventory compiler within thetool without having to prepare code. The only required data would include
climate, carbon inputs, tillage regime for cropping systems and sandcontent. Most of these data are available from domestic or internationalsources.
A box describing the basis for this method as Tier 2, and its potential
usefulness for the compiler has been added.

Comment
ID

1592

Volume4

Chapter

2

From line

960

To line1153

Comment

ExpertThat section represents a real C modelling, which is not a Tier 2. In
accordance to the TOC the new report should "Develop new Tier 2
method for mineral soils that requires less activity data than the current
default method". However the methodology presented requires evenmore disaggregated data. Thta is a good example of Tier 3 approach andcould be very useful as a higher Tier. In order to provide a Tier 2
approach a simplified methodology should be developed: 1. to estimate
C input (please, note that lines 960-1153 does not explain how toAnna Romanovskaya
estimate total C input); 2. to assume only one C pool in soil; 3. to develop
and provide a set of default factors for C losses due to respiration(developed for certain climate regions and could be based on the default
modelling conducted with that model), leaching and run-off (please,note that current version of THREE-POOL STEADY-STATE C MODEL does
not include estimations of C losses with leaching and run-off). Losses
with leaching and runoff could be essential and should be included in theestimations.

Response

Authors' note
There are two ways for estimating country-specific emission factors with a
Tier 2 method in the IPCC GL, including empirical approaches andmodelling approaches. The proposed method is a modelling approach forestimating the soil C stock change rate, similar to the gross energy intake
model for estimating Tier 2 methane emission factors for entericfermentation. And like the gross energy intake model, equations areprovided along with parameters that allow the compiler to estimate thesoil C stock change rates for mineral soils. There are other examples suchas the use of allometric equations to predict forest biomass as part of theTier 2 method for biomass C (stock difference approach).

Noted

It is acknowledged that the proposed Tier 2 model does not reduce theinputs as much as may be desired, compared to the existing Tier 1 and 2
approaches. Keep in mind that for cropland, a compiler must have data
keeping track of the proportion of fields with the combination of following
practices to determine the C input classification, including residue
management, fertilization, organic amendments, use of cover crops/green
manures, crop rotation history, irrigation management, bare fallow
management, seeding more productive varieties, mixed crop and grassrotation, and N-fixing crops in the rotation. Many parties do not reportmineral soil C stock changes, and it is likely that that the large amount ofdata requirements is part of the reason. This method aggregates input datarequirements into the C input term, which is estimated from a smallergroup of data including yields, manure amendments, cover crop
production and residue management.
Fluxes of carbon from the soil due to leaching and run-off would likely
reduce uncertainty, but these processes are not always included in Tier 3
approaches. It seems that this would be too complicated for the proposed
Tier 2 model. Including it in a Tier 2 modelling approach would increase
data input requirements beyond those already included.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

General comment
This comment does not apply to “the” (“this”) specific model inparticular; the intention is to give a generic point-of-view concerning theinclusion of this new Tier option as such and at this section (place).

It is accepted that the proposed Tier 2 model blurs the boundary between
the Tier 2 and Tier 3 approaches. However, there are two ways for
estimating country-specific emission factors with a Tier 2 method in the
IPCC GL, including empirical approaches and modelling approaches. The
proposed method is a modelling approach for estimating the soil C stockchange rate, similar to the gross energy intake model for estimating Tier 2
methane emission factors for enteric fermentation. And like the grossenergy intake model, equations are provided along with parameters thatallow the compiler to estimate the soil C stock change rates for mineralsoils. There are other examples such as the use of allometric equations topredict forest biomass as part of the Tier 2 method for biomass C (stock
difference approach. In addition, this Tier 2 model does not have thecomplexity of typical models that compilers are using for Tier 3 (seeexamples in the Tier 3 section of the guidance).

Introducing a specific (and rather complex) model as an option at Tier 2
could make the distinction between Tier 2 and Tier 3 approaches difficult
to follow. The rationale for doing this definitely needs a thoroughexplanation because it is likely that some of the rationale behind boththese Tiers will then overlap. This make this new option difficult tounderstand for several reasons (see below).

5470

4

2

960

1243

Considering this second (and new) option for Tier 2 as an approach withintermediate complexity between Tier 1 and Tier 3 methods, and as astep towards the more complicated Tier 3 methods is problematic (while
this is quite straightforward to understand for the first (previous) option
Martin Bolinderof Tier 2). Certainly, this is conceivable when comparing it to theintegration frameworks, but not considering the other advanced
estimation systems for mineral soils. Where Box 2.7 providing someexamples of the latter, however, many other models exists and are (orcan be in the future) used within the IPCC framework at this level.

Noted

Although the suggested model represent a simplification of a more
complex model, it includes an important number of parameters making
the calculation procedure just as complex, or perhaps in some cases evenmore complex compared to some of the other available advanced
estimation systems (i.e., Box 2.7, and other existing possibilities at thislevel).

I think the introduction of the simplified C model is useful.
However, I suggest to preserve the structure of Tiers as it was
before. To my understanding Tier 2 is normally (always?) the
4

2

960

1243

default method (Tier 1) using CS parameters. The simplified C
model is rather complex compared to the default method andshould instead be included as an example in the box for Tier 3
or in an appendix?

The Tier 2 steady state model allows for incorporation of more countryspecific information, but as the noted by the reviewer it does not allow thecompiler to fully address all of the complexities in these systems, which
would require a Tier 3 approach. The parameters are provided and are
fixed at the tier 2 level, but this also leads to more uncertainty than a Tier 3
method in which the compiler calibrates the model given national
circumstances. Note that uncertainty in the parameters will be provided in
the second order draft.
The complexity of the method can be essentially hidden from inventory
compilers with spreadsheet models or other software. The only things thatneed to be dealt with by the compilers are the input data requirements(for which a template can be set up) and the ability to extract the output(again this can be provided in a standard form). Implementations of theapproach in an Excel spreadsheet and as R-code now exist. Much of thedata required is the same as that required for a Tier 2 Stock Change
method and the remainder can be obtained from national andGenerally, the model allows estimating the effect of both soil watercontent and temperature using dynamic entries of climate data
(monthly), the effect of soil texture (sand content) and management

9664

Authors' note

Mattias Lundblad

Noted

There are two ways for estimating country-specific emission factors with a
Tier 2 method in the IPCC GL, including empirical approaches andmodelling approaches. The proposed method is a modelling approach forestimating the soil C stock change rate, similar to the gross energy intake
model for estimating Tier 2 methane emission factors for entericfermentation. And like the gross energy intake model, equations areprovided along with parameters that allow the compiler to estimate thesoil C stock change rates for mineral soils. There are other examples suchas the use of allometric equations to predict forest biomass as part of theTier 2 method for biomass C (stock difference approach). The proposed
steady-state model cannot be implemented as a Tier 3 approach because it
is not appropriate to be prescriptive in how a country would complete a
Tier 3 inventory.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' noteThree-Pool Steady-State C ModelI think this is a good idea and good trial. It is a good idea toshare a tool to evaluate the SOC changes globally. However, theproposed model is too immature to include in this new good

The steady state model is indeed based on Century. However, most soil
carbon models in use for greenhouse gas inventory purposes have astructure similar to Century (e.g. RothC, FullCAM, Yasso07 - see Box 2.7). A
steady state implementation of the Century model was available and has
been reported in the scientific literature (Paustian et al. 1997 and Ogle etal. 2012). It is for these reasons that this modelling approach wasdeveloped for implementation as a Tier 2 method.

practice guidance. First, the output heavily relies on the model
structure of the CENTURY model. Yes, the CENTURY model is
one of the most widely used SOC model, but there are many
SOC models like RothC model. Second, this three-pool steadystate C model is only for 20 cm, and does not have litter anddead wood pools. The applicability is quite limited. The foot note
2450

4

2

960

1266

says that the lead authors will provide parameters for a 30 cm
depth in the second order draft, but I guess this is not easy

Shoji Hashimoto

Noted

because all parameters for the CENTURY are for 20 cm. Third,
the new model is not tested and validated well yet. This book isvery influential, so the contents should be well validated. Fourth,
the advantage of use of the tree-pool steady-state C model is

Although the initial application of this model was to the 0-20cm layer, theparameterisation of the model has been extended to the 0-30 cm layer.
This parameterisation was completed using a Bayesian HierarchicalModelling approach and field measurement data. From this approach both
optimal values and their associated uncertainties are determined for themodel parameters.
It was deemed necessary to describe the model in a significant level ofdetail to be fully transparent. A similar lengthy explanation is given for thegross energy intake model provided in Chapter 10 that can be used todevelop country-specific factors.

not well described in the text. Finally, the long, detailed
description of three-pool steady-state C model in the main text
looked odd to me. I believe this guide should be balanced
between general concepts and concrete methodology.
Again, in conclusion, I like the idea but I think this model is too
immature to include in the guidance.
It's a nice model, if you can fill it with appropriate data.
However, If such data does not exist country-specific anyway,
only those from worldwide databases or other as default values
are available (see links e.g. Vol4Ch5, 6, 8). In addition: What

Andreas Gensior

Accepted with
Modification

For most of the input needed, country specific data are typically available(spatially explicit values for climate, crop production and sand content).
However, you are correct that the steady-state model has only been
applied with cropland and grassland. Therefore we accept the suggestion
to include guidance for using the method with other land uses. The benefitof having another Tier 2 method is to allow compilers more flexibility indeveloping country specific factors, in this case soil C stock change rates.
In addition this may serve as a step towards developing and adopting amore sophisticated Tier 3 method.

Andreas Gensior

Accepted

The model has to be set up to work with the 0-30 cm layer.

about factors for land uses other than cropland and grassland(e.g. see Vol4Ch8)? The quality of the
5360

4

2

960

ff

model results stands and falls with the input data. What is thebenefit/improvement of an Tier 2 method if the results haveextremely
high uncertainties, as the corresponding country-specific input
data are not available and these must be replaced withdefaults. This is window dressing, a serious Tier 1 approach ismore transparent and just as appropriate

The model is designed for 0 - 20 cm soil depth. The default
5344

4

2

961

962

depth is 30 cm. Is the model nevertheless appropriate?
Please provide evidence!

Comment
ID

6070

Volume4

Chapter

2

From line

961

To line968

Comment

ExpertI think that the use of models to derive SOC stocks and changes is anincredible asset for a country to have. However, it seems a little
misleading to present the simplicity of the Century Model as it is in thissection. According to Ogle et al. (one of the cited papers), fixedparameters from previous studies were applied (these may not beapplicable to other countries), the extensive data requirements for land Mark Sperow
use over time that are required are not addressed; and their need todevelop an alternative approach to account for the effect of stored
water on their climate factor that was derived from an extensive analysis
outside of the model itself. I am anxious to see the estimates to 30 cm inthe next iteration.

Response

Authors' note

Data from a range of sites located in North America, South America,
Europe and Australia were used to derive the parameters for the second
order draft, and this includes estimates of uncertainty. The parametervalues can be considered to be applicable across all countries. Country
specific soil C stock change rates are derived through the use of specificclimate, soil and activity data when applying the model. However, if
calibrated with country data, more appropriate parameter values for thatcountry may be derived, but this would be a Tier 3 method.

Noted

The impact of stored water would be on plant growth and thus carbon
inputs. However, carbon input is provided to the model, it is not
calculated within the model. Thus the model does not need to consider
stored water impacts on C inputs.
The other effect of stored water would be on microbial activity and thus
rates of decomposition. However, the stored water is likely to reside in thesubsoil, out of the zone of active microbial activity for this model (30 cm)
although including this would likely reduce uncertainty (but also
complexity). The rates of decomposition modelled using rainfall, potential
evapotranspiration and temperature data should be appropriate for theintermediate level of complexity that this model is expected to capture.
The model has been modified to work for the 0-30 cm layer.

Authors are strongly encouraged to expand the approach to
9766

4

2

961

962

30cm depth to be consistent with the default method andAnke Herold

Accepted

The model has to be set up to work with the 0-30 cm layer.
(all instances of 0-20 cm need to be changed to 0-30 cm)

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Text was altered.

Abdul Nayamuth

Accepted

current practice in soil science
4618

4

2

962

962

7930

4

2

962

962

soil2, superscript
20cm layer of the soil2. This is an approach with intermediatedcomplexity between Tier 1 and Tier 3 methods, (delete 2)This footnote has been added in the second order draft.

avoid calling "pools" to the 3 sub-pools proposed to avoid
107

4

2

966

967

misunderstanding. SUGGESTION: write "into three different

CRISTINA GARCIA

sub-pools" "active sub-pool", "slow sub-pool", "passive sub-

DIAZ

pool"

Rejected

This introduces considerable complexity that is not needed.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted

The text has been altered to be more specific.

In this specific case, it would be clearer to say “turnover time
determines the length of time that C remains in the soils within
the specific pool, before it is transferred to another pool or
2846

4

2

966

967

converted in CO2". My reasoning is that, because we said before Raul Abad Viñas
in the sentence that each pool has different turnovers, it isimportant to remark that the dimension the space is not thesoils as a whole but each of the three pools considered.

2966

4

2

969

995

Justify text/margins.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Justification fixed

In text it has stated to use average sand content data based on
the Harmonized World Soil Database for Tier 2 approach formineral soils. These data are available as polygons. This will
not reflect the actual variability of sand contents across a
4188

4

2

986

989

country. Since there are new datasets are available as gridded

The reference provided has been inserted into the text.

Senani Karunaratne

Accepted

Yao Huang

Accepted

The sentence was added.

Accepted

The Tier 2 steady state modelling approach is only used for estimating soil
carbon stock changes, and not dead organic matter stock changes. We
recognize that the amount of C change may not be consistent for thismethod compared to the methods in the dead organic matter, and thecompiler should apply the method in the dead organic matter section
when estimating those changes. Also, it is not recommended for use inforest lands in which coarse woody debris is an important pool of deadorganic matter. The text associated with this box has been revised to makethis more clear.

Noted

The definitions and carbon flows were checked and found to be OK. Beta is
involved in the calculation of alpha. The Beta values refer to the transfersof C inputs. The alpha value refers to the flow of carbon into the ACTIVE
pool.

data at global scale at 1 km spatial resolution I propose authors
should consider these datasets as inputs for C modelling. An
example for a global soil raster dataset is given below.
https://soilgrids.org/#!/?layer=TAXNWRB_250m&vector=1
insert 'Country-specific values are recommended to replace the
1838

4

2

993

993

default values when the information is available.' after '…inTable 2.6.'

In my opinion the model 's description in Box 2.6 ( or in any
other location if it is considered more convenient) should
provide some words on how it addresses the consistency among
the carbon stock changes in the Dead Organic Matter carbon
2848

4

2

994

995

pool and the SOC pool when the model is used. I could not findany reference to this point, while in the description is mentioned

Raul Abad Viñas

how the model considers the input to dead organic matter, thatis then subdivided into two pool, and then, with different
decomposition rates, transferred to SOC. In my opinion somewords are needed.

The diagram (Box 2.6) which describes the Tier 2 model, both C
inputs to structural dead organic matter and metabolic dead
4190

4

2

995

995

organic matter are referred as "Beta". However, in line 1104
and1130 related to calculation of inputs to active pools it refers
both "beta" and "alpha". Please check this and update thediagram accordingly.

Senani Karunaratne

Comment
ID
4192

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponseBox 2.6 describes the Tier 2 three pool steady state soil carbon
4

2

995

995

model. Can authors explain how the model is initialise?
Generally model initialisation is carried out based on average

Senani Karunaratne

Accepted

Senani Karunaratne

Accepted

Authors' note
A sentence has been added to the box to indicate how the model isinitialised. A step by step description of the initialisation process can befound in lines 1158.

climate data and with appropriate C inputs.
For the Tier 2 model (Box 2.6), I propose authors to develop an
Excel model or an R package where users can readily adopt for
4194

4

2

995

995

accounting purposes. This should include an example dataset
and a guide. This is applicable to any other new model
proposing through this document.

2968

4

2

998

1006

Standardize fonts.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Fonts have been standardised.

Mark Sperow

The formula as presented has been retained to help compilers understandthe carbon flow that is occurring.

Given how variables are defined, it seems more straightforward
6072

4

2

1009

1010

to present the active pool equation as Active(y) = Active(y-Noted1)*(1-ka) + alpha; where alpha = C input.
2970

4

2

1009

1130

5324

4

2

1023

1023

Standardize fonts.
There are several definitions for sand. Please define the sizeclass in millimetres.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted
Jaakko Heikkinen

Accepted

The size range for the sand is 0.050-2mm particles.

Mark Sperow

Accepted

All values changed to Mg C/ha/yr for flows and Mg C/ha for stocks. Alpha
represents the C input into the active table, not total CI.

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Text changed

It seems inconsistent to call carbon input alpha in equation 2.29
6074

4

2

1028

1035

and Cinput in equation 2.30 when both identify "total carbon
input, …" but one is measured in Mg/ha/yr (alpha) and theother in g/m2/yr - why the difference?

4620

4

2

1085

1088

degree C is better replaced with oC

In the Bayesian Hierarchical Modelling used to derive the model parameter
estimates and associated uncertainties, a range of different estimates of
PET were used because of the different approaches used to derive thisvalue within the different studies included. It is likely that different
countries would use different PET calculations depending on the studies
available to them.
5326

4

2

1097

1097

Which method is recommended for calculation potential
evapotranspiration (FAO, Hargreaves….)?

Jaakko Heikkinen

Noted

Taking this approach of allowing PET to be calculated in different ways,
allowed generic parameters and there associated uncertainties to be
derived. The parameter uncertainty is larger than what would be obtained
if a single method of deriving PET values was used.
If a country wanted to reduce this uncertainty and it had a dataset in which
only one approach to calculating PET, it could redo the BHM analysis using
its PET data. However, this would move the modelling approach to Tier 3.

6076

4

2

1105

1105

Should the reference to "Equation 7" be Equation 2.34?

Mark Sperow

Accepted

Text changed

4622

4

2

1110

1110

year-1 to yr-1, be consistent with others

KEWEI YU

Accepted

All instances of y and year changed to yr.

6078

4

2

1110

1110

Mark Sperow

Accepted

All instances of g/m2/y and g/m2 have been changed to Mg C/ha/y and Mg
C/ha.

Earlier, Cinput was defined as g/m2/yr but here it is Mg/ha/yr.
Which is correct? Please make them consistent.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To line

1594

4

2

1152

1153

2850

4

2

1152

1153

Comment
No uncertainty values presented for any parameters in the table
2.6
Substitute in the heading of the table "tteady-state" by "steadystate."

ExpertResponse

Authors' noteAnna Romanovskaya

Accepted

A process using Bayesian Hierarchical Modelling has been used to deriveparameter uncertainty estimates. These results have been added tosecond order draft.

Raul Abad Viñas

Accepted

Text changed.

Raul Abad Viñas

RejectedParameter f4 is a calculated value (see equation 2.30)

There is not mention to the parameter f4 in the first column of
2852

4

2

1152

1153

the table although there is written in the lines 1048, 1117,
volume 4, chapter 2, etc: "see table 2.6".

2972

4

2

1152

1153

8838

4

2

1152

1152

2974

4

2

1154

1266

Improve table format.

Please, check the value of 'f_8'. Mass balance was needed
among 'f_5', 'f_6' and 'f_8'

Standardize fonts.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Table formatting made consistent across all tables.

RAEHYUN KIM

Mass balance is not required across these factors. f5 and f6 are thefraction of decaying ACTIVE and SLOW carbon that moves to the PASSIVE
pool. The actual amount of C moving into the PASSIVE pool is the sum of(ACTIVE pool C that decays*f5) and (SLOW pool C that decays * f6).
Similarly, f8 is the fraction of the decaying PASSIVE pool C that transfers to
the ACTIVE pool. The actual loss of C from the PASSIVE pool is the productof (PASSIVE pool C that decays *f8). It is therefore not necessary to havemass balance between f8, f5 and f6.

RejectedCARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

All fonts standardised.

Stoécio Maia

Accepted

Text changed.

Noted

The IPCC 2013 Wetland Supplement is an approved product by the IPCC
plenary and can be referenced by this IPCC report. Reference has been
provided to Chapter 2 within the wetlands supplement.

Noted

Spokas (2010), if anything, deems the extrapolation from controlled
experiments over annual time frames to centuries or millennia to be very
conservative and any longer experiments, though desirable, generates
estimates of greater persistence, not lower persistence as the refereeappears to imply. The data that Spokas (2010) shows in Table 2 of thearticle shows half-lives between decades and hundreds of thousands ofyears, and in the conclusion, Spokas (2010) states “Based on the literaturestudies examined in this article, biochar with an O:C molar ratio of lessthan 0.2 are typically the most stable, possessing an estimated half-life of
more than 1000 years;” These values agree well with O/C ratios of lessthan 0.2 for biochars made at temperatures of above 600C (Figure 6,
Spokas, 2010) and the methodology proposed here.

I think that the correct is "For land area under irrigation
6566

4

2

1189

1190

management" not "For land area that under irrigation
management"

The reference to 2013 WLs supplement can be problematic for
its adoption under UNFCCC. This supplement was not accepted
as mandatory for GHG inventories. If there is an intention to
108

4

2

1246

1246

propose text from the supplement, the text itself should be

CRISTINA GARCIA

included in the draft, so it can be analysed as part of the

DIAZ

refinement. SUGGESTION: delete all references to 2013 WL
supplement and include the relevant text instead of thesereferences.
See above, biochar should only be added as part of tier 3
methods, not tier 1 or tier 2. The quotes source Spokas 2010 inline 1263 is highly sceptical using this work for the purpose of atier 2 approach. It is questionable to use a parameter that
9772

4

2

1248

1266

cannot be scientifically measures (fraction of biochar remaining
after a defined period of 1000 years) based on someassumptions. No indications of large uncertainties and lack ofconfirmation in long-term experiments are provided. Suggested
to delete this section as it does not seem to take into accountthe considerable scientific uncertainty involved.

Anke Herold

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Noted

The suggested time frame of 1000 years was justified on lines 809-813. The
requirement to justify use of other time frames is to ensure that inventory
compilers do not choose a time frame that is arbitrarily short as to have no
relevance to the climate-change mitigation objectives of the UNFCCC.

Noted

This change is out of scope with approved table of contents by the IPCC
plenary.
Although there are maps and models for predicting erosion, we are notaware of any that are linked to Tier 3 soil carbon models for national GHG
inventories. This would be a development to consider in the future forcountries that have information on erosion and deposition rates.

Anke Herold

Accepted

This information has been included in Box 2.7. However, it could havebeen made clearer. The text has been revised to more clearly indicate theneed for calibration and validation against measurement plots.
Additionally a sentence has been added at line 1321. There also
considerable detail on Tier 3 model development that has been added laterin the chapter (generic guidance on tier 3 methods).

Senani Karunaratne

Accepted

Text has been altered to reflect the fact that the decomposition constants
are applied to all but the inert organic matter fraction.

Senani Karunaratne

Noted

The purpose of Box 2.7 was to provide some initial information ondifferent Tier 3 approaches being used, not detailed instructions on all
aspects.

Noted

The IPCC 2013 Wetland Supplement is an approved product by the IPCC
plenary and can be referenced by this IPCC report. Reference has been
provided to Chapter 2 within the wetlands supplement.

Anke Herold

Noted

Priming was defined previously at lines 827-828.

Anke Herold

Rejected

Tier 1 and Tier 2 methods are considered appropriate for dealing withbiochar. A Tier 3 method could also be used.

It seems strange why a justification should be provided if a
9776

4

2

1265

1266

permanence time frame other than 1000 years is used when all

Anke Herold

other parameters used are not properly justified.

Text discusses about opportunities to explicitly estimate the
4196

4

2

1290

1291

impact of soil erosion on C fluxes. Is there any Tier 3 model that Senani Karunaratne
does this? Can authors provide some reference to this work?

The entire section still misses information how tier 3 models
should be calibrated based on permanent plots and some
9778

4

2

1320

1324

practical indications how many measurements andmeasurement plots are needed to develop a reliable tier 3 modeland how model developers can approach such questions.
In the Australian example for Tier 3 model, in step 5 where it

4198

4

2

1325

1325

says "During each step, decomposition of each soil organiccarbon fraction …" should explicitly mention that these are"active fractions".
In the United States of America example for Tier 3 model, it has
stated "Remote sensing data is used to inform production

4200

4

2

1327

1327

estimates based on MODIS products". Can authors’ elaborate
this and mention what are those products and how those
products are used within DayCent model?

The reference to 2013 WLs supplement can be problematic for
its adoption under UNFCCC. This supplement was not accepted
as mandatory for GHG inventories. If there is an intention to
109

4

2

1329

1329

propose text from the supplement, the text itself should be

CRISTINA GARCIA

included in the draft, so it can be analysed as part of the

DIAZ

refinement. SUGGESTION: delete all references to 2013 WL
supplement and include the relevant text instead of thesereferences.
9784

4

2

1332

1343

It is not explained what priming is in this context, this cannot be
understood by 'regular' users of the guidelines
The approach suggested above to delete tier 1 and tier 2

9786

4

2

1332

1343

methods related to biomar amendments and to only add as partof a tier 3 methods based on country-specific data andmeasurements would need to revised this section altogether.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' noteAnke Herold

Noted

The same comment can be made for all types of soil C. The proposed
problem is not exclusive to biochar.

NotedThis change is out of scope with approved table of contents by the IPCC
plenary. It is thought that this has arisen because of the additional
equations added to the text. This was addressed by implementing theplanned approach to equation numbering in the SOD.

Noted

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

Noted

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

The sentence "It is also important to recognize that the dynamic
nature of biochar decomposition is important because ist net
impact on C stock and GHG emissions varies with time, which

9788

4

2

1341

1343

can be better addressed with a Tier 3 model." confirms myearlier concerns. Natural processes are seldom static asproposed in the tier 1 and Tier 2 approach with no adaptation to
any site parameters or conditions which is therefore highly
unlikely to produce reliable results.
The reference to equation 2.27 should be changed to equation

8522

4

2

1436

1474

2.35 shown in line 1461. There are at least 6 of these references Peter Aarup Iversenin this section.

2276

4

2

1463

1473

There should be an explanation for the equation 2.35 why "10exponent(-3)" is used (for converting the units of g to kg)

Eray Özdemir

On page 2.50, please consider to add another equation right
5472

4

2

1494

1494

here for Mb or add the formula for Mb on line 1469. (Mb = Crop Kadir AKSAKAL* RAG /1000)

2976

4

2

1497

1497

Consider keeping key category as a non-italic font.

2978

4

2

1498

1500

Is there any information on planted forests? It should be included in the
CARLOS SANQUETTA
table, if possible.

Noted

1504

There have been significant advances to the data included in Tables 2.7,
2.8 and 2.9 through a number of recent studies. There are improved fuelvalues (MB), Combustion factors (Cf) and Emission Factors (Gef) for
Eucalpyt forests and Savanna Woodlands and Savanna Grasslands
contained in"Roxburgh, S., Volkova, L., Surawski, N., Meyer, M., & Weston, C. (2015)
Review of fuel loads, burn efficiencies emission factors, and recovery
functions used to estimate greenhouse gas emissions and removals
associated with wildfire on temperate forested lands. Report prepared
for the Department of the Environment. Commonwealth Scientific and
Max Collett
Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). Canberra."and "Cook GD, Meyer CPM, Muepu M, Liedloff AC (2016) Dead organic
matter and the dynamics of carbon and greenhouse gas emissions infrequently burnt savannas. International Journal of Wildland Fire 25,1252-1263." and"Meyer CPM, Cook GD (2015) Biomass combustion and emission
processes in the northern Australian savannas. In 'Carbon Accounting
and Savanna Fire Management.' (Eds BP Murphy, AC Edwards, M Meyer,
J Russell-Smith.) pp. 185 - 218. (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne)."This data is also summarised in tabular form in Annex 6.K of Australia's
National Inventory Report 2015 - see supporting document.

Accepted with
Modification

7372

4

2

1498

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Acceptedadditional references examined in order to update the Tables 2.7, 2.8 and
2.9, consistently with the updating of the tables included in the chapter 4(forest land) and chapter 6 (grassland)Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

8896

4

2

1499

1500

As for Tables 2.7 and Table 2.9, valuable data for South Americansavannas, specifically for Orinoco Los Llanos, is provided in this work,
which originally was not considered in the FOD version of the present
document.

8524

4

2

1499

1504

Table 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9 all have references to the equation 2.27 whichshould be changed to equation 2.35

2980

4

2

1503

1504

The term tertiary forest needs be clarified.

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Dirk Thielen

Accepted with
Modification

additional references will be examined in order to potentially updating theTables 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9, consistently with the updating of the tables
included in the chapter 4 (forest land)Peter Aarup Iversen

Accepted

the updated equations' numbering mentioned in the tables 2.7. 2.8 and 2.9

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Rejected

The guidelines are aimed to provide guidance on the estimation methods,
emission factors and parameters to be used in the estimation of emissions
and removals. The information on the region and/or vegetation typerelated to the reported default value are included in the quoted
references.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Processes are not limited to growth and decay, e.g. mortality isalso a significant process. So I do suggest to keep the original
3646

4

2

1529

1529

text, since the “process-based models” term is retained as well
below in line 1531. An alternative would be to have “without

Reverted to original text and inserted 'process-based' to maintainconsistency with terminology below.

relying on process-based models (e.g. growth, decay, mortality,etc.)”
3486

4

2

1529

1529

Add "…and carbon stock changes" just after "carbon stocks"

I'm not sure what is meant by "require appropriate statistical models"here. If the estimation is measurement-based, where do the models
come in? Do you mean e.g. allometric model ? (that would make sense
and I can follow you). Further, why are models needed for "spatial
scaling to a national inventory"? Once an estimate (allometric model
Erik Næsset
prediction) is established for each plot, I guess the "scaling to a national
inventory" is about using an appropriate sampling estimator (a formula)?
So apart from allometric models (or any model needed to establish aground estimate for each plot), I do not see the need for models to
produce a national inventory in a measurement-based system.

2170

4

2

1529

1530

7232

4

2

1532

1532

Not sure why "six" should be deleted, as the number of steps
remains 6.

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted

Accepted

Edits made as suggested.

The term allometric model has been added and some additional
clarifying text on statistical estimators.

Reverted to 'six' steps.

The use of paired sites is a fundamental methodologicalapproach to collect data for modulization of processes; I stronglyThis section aims to provide general guidance rather than specificrecommend to add a section (three paras: description,
3648

4

2

1534

1570

advantages, good practices in using them) on such

Iordanis Tzamtzis

methodological approach. I would add text from the 2003 IPCC

Accepted with
Modification

GPG for LULUCF on paired sites selection (see chapter 5.7). I

commentary about various sampling approaches. Therefore we
prefer not to write specific pros and cons on paired sampling
designs but have rather acknowledged them in the list o fexamples of sampling approaches.

also add some other references on paired sites.
3488

4

2

1538

1539

9310

4

2

1543

1543

3490

4

2

1543

1543

I would redraft as follows: "…variability in carbon stocks andIordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Changes made as suggested.

Delete "source" before "categories"

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

Changes made as suggested.

I would redraft as follows: "…source/sink categories."

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

their dynamics,.."Opted to remove 'source' and kept text as 'key categories'. See
suggestion from comment 9310.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To line

3492

4

2

1554

1554

Comment
The addition "and removals" is not needed, since removals are
already included in the "C stock changes" of the previous row

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Deleted 'and removals'

Erik Næsset

Accepted with
Modification

Added suggested text with a reference to GFOI, 2016.

This is a good point (utility of accurate georeferencing). Perhaps
2172

4

2

1554

1555

state why, e.g. that accurate positions may enable use of
remotely sensed data to enhance estimates (improve accuracy).

whilst soil sampling is less common in National Forest Inventories,
which was the context in which this paragraph was written, it is

The statement that soil sampling is less common seems strange
9792

4

2

1564

1566

because the methods and models described before needcalibration and evaluation with field data from sampling plots.

Anke Herold

Accepted with
Modification

Please clarify.

noted that empirical data from plot observations are required formodelling highly spatially variable and costly carbon pools tomeasure. This sampling section provides guidance that is relevant
to NFI as well as research and other non-national level plot
designs.

it is not correct to give a term "good practice" to somewhat is
1596

4

2

1567

1570

not directly related to the GHG inventory. The wording around

Anna Romanovskaya

Rejected

Original 2006GL text that does not warrant revision

discussion of handbook should be changed.
Destructive sampling should be avoided on plots in a repeatedmeasure design. The paragraph remains deleted but the following
3494

4

2

1599

1602

Why has this text been deleted. I propose to keep it

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Rejectedclarifying paragraph has been added, "It is good practice to avoid
any affect on the sample unit compared to the representative area
(i.e. no destructive sampling or changes in management). "First, this is about measurement based systems which aresample-based systems, so what does "spatial resolution" mean?
A sample-based system may not even have coordinates for theplots, so spatial resolution is a non-item. And even if the plots had

Chap. 2 Generic methodologies applicable to multiple land use

coordinates, we do not use the plots as individual entities as such

categories. Section 2.5.1 Measurement-based Tier 3 Inventories,- they are just included in the estimation to provide e.g. a mean or

page 2.59 "Countries with existing inventory systems": suggest
6320

4

2

1638

1655

considering adding a bullet point that it is good practice toAnny Huang

Rejected

describe how the sample design and/or measurement system

total for the entire area (nation as such). Second, temporal
resolution may be an issue, but I guess there is guidance
elsewhere (e.g. Chap 1) how to deal with interpolation in time. For

are sufficient in spatial & temporal resolution to detect andexample, many of the most advanced NFIs in the world use 5-yr

account for disturbance.

cycles for the plot measurements, and sometimes interpolation isused to provide annual estimates for a certain year. If we decideto keep something on temporal resolution, we need to be surethat we are aligned with guidance provided elsewhere.

9312

4

2

1644

1644

Replace "god practice" with "good practice"

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

Change made as requested.

2174

4

2

1644

1644

We should not get religious here: Please correct "god".

Erik Næsset

Accepted

Change made as requested.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

9314

4

2

1655

1655

Clarify "omission" and "commission"

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted with
Modification

Deleted 'omission and commission' from sentence as the point ismade with "prevent errors".

This sentence, referring to empirical models and allocated under
the subheading 2.5.2 (Model-based Tier 3 inventories), can betaken as that whenever an empirical model is used for CSC
estimation that method is categorized as a Tier 3, and therefore
A qualifying sentence has been added to specify that "In all cases

considered of high(er) accuracy. This is not always the case. For
2854

4

2

1662

1664

instance, it is not the case when a single (of just few) forest
growth curve is available and applied for the whole variety ofRaul Abad Viñas

Acceptedmodels used in Tier 3 methods ensure higher accuracy only when
they are able to represent the whole population and are correctly
applied. "forests within a country (i.e. mixing different species andmanagement practices). Perhaps it needs to be clarified that
Tier 3 methods ensure higher accuracy when correctly appliedor that not always potentially higher methods ensure higher
accuracy if they are not able to represent the whole population.
I have to admit that this is not my field of expertise, but thisstatement seems to og a bit beyond the tone and content of thesubsequent text of this chapter. This chapter has a careful andthorough discussion of factors that must be considered andactions that must be taken for model-based approaches to work
under local conditions. My general feeling is that thisThe statement is too categorical and we rephrased it to state that

introductory statement (lines 1669-1671) is a bit more
2184

4

2

1669

1671

categorical than indicated in the subsequent text. There is also
some recent evidence of challenges with modelling approaches(Pilli et al. 2016). The Pilli study leaves a somewhat optimistic
tone, but with such huge differences in estimates for really large
entities (countries) my understanding is that this study isalarming rather than comforting. Nevertheless, I leave it to theexperts to considered if rewording is necessary. Reference: Pilli,
R. et al. 2016. Carbon Balance Manage. 11:5.

Erik Næsset

Accepted with
Modification"models aim to describe". Additionally the text describing various
models has been moved to a box to distinguish the material as for
information.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Max Collett

Accepted with
Modification

Authors' note

The discussion about the use of local site data to calibratemodels, and in particular the possibility that it is not
representative, is a common concern with measurement based
inventories. This is correctly identified in section 2.5.1 as acomponent of uncertainty, and the use of local data for

7374

4

2

1672

1674

calibration should not be referred to as a source of 'bias' in amodelling context. The guidance could be improved by referringto the methods for assessing sampling variance and uncertainty

Often models can be calibrated with data that is not always
representative (i.e. research plots). Text has been substantively
modified to address the comments.

that can be applied to calibration and evaluation data. Refer tolines 1607 to 1613 for discussion of methods that can be used
for sample based inventories and also applied to model
9316

4

2

1676

1676

calibration data.

Delete "where" at the beginning of the sentence.

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

Change made as requested.

Abdul Nayamuth

Accepted

Change made as requested.

where to combine the strengths of the two model methods. For
7932

4

2

1676

1676

example, the development of forest growth curves (delete
where)

2982

4

2

1684

1685

Specify Figure XX

The step of evaluation with calibration data is missing as part ofCARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

The figure is Figure 1 in Volume 1, Chapter 6, Section 2.4

Anke Herold

Accepted

Made changes as requested.

Anke Herold

Accepted

Text will be revised along the lines described in the comment

Anke Herold

Accepted

Text will be revised along the lines described in the comment

good practice: It is good practice to ensure that the model
responds appropriately to variations in activity data and that themodel is able to report results by relevant land use category (or
9794

4

2

1702

1714

activity). Re-calibration of the model or modifications to thestructure may be necessary if the model does not capture
general trends or there are large systematic biases. Evaluation
results are an important component of the reporting
documentation, justifying the use of a particular model for
quantifying GHG emissions.

The step of sensitivity analysis is missing in the good practicesteps: Perform sensitivity analysis, i.e. how the variability
9796

4

2

1702

1714

(uncertainty) in the output of a model can be apportioned,
qualitatively or quantitatively, to different sources of variation in
the input of the model.
The step of evaluation with independent data is missing fromgood practice steps: While Step 2 involves testing model output

9798

4

2

1702

1714

with field data that were used as a basis for calibration (i.e.,
parameterization), the evaluation with independent data shall bedone with a completely independent set of data from model
calibration.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' noteAnke Herold

Accepted

Text will be revised along the lines described in the comment

The good practice documentation in this section should bebetter linked with the questions in line 1733ff and the steps in

9800

4

2

1702

1714

the following sections (e.g. step 2 model calibration andparametrisation. It may be useful to describe first the steps andsubsequently the good practice documentation.

9318

4

2

1718

1719

Where is "figure XX"

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

Sentence deleted. This was a note to the authors

2984

4

2

1718

1719

This sentence can be deleted.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Sentence deleted. This was a note to the authors

Box 2.8, last paragraph: "...both spatially-referenced andspatially-explicit". This may seem a bit confusing. What is the
2178

4

2

1721

1721

difference between the two? And how do you characterise thetwo typical data 1) georeferenced sample data and 2) spatially

Erik Næsset

Accepted

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Klaus von Wilpert

Rejected

Shoji Hashimoto

Accepted with
Modification

Removed any reference to spatially-referenced to be consistent
with the terms removal from chapter 3.

continuous (wall-to-wall) data from e.g. remote sensing (withinherent coordinates)?
I propose to further elaborate on this? Indeed, all models are in
3496

4

2

1751

1751

practice an instrument for interpolating/extrapolating complete
datasets from partial/incomplete information

Edited text to say 'How sensitive is the model to extrapolation orinterpolation?'

Therefore, as an alternative to process-based gas exchange
models, GHG-fluxes can be derived directly from spatiallydiscrete GHG concentrations collected in several superficial soil
layers with diffusive gas samplers (Schack-Kirchner et al. 1993).
2528

4

2

1757

1757

Gas fluxes are calculated with the 1st derivation of the gas
concentration profile as driving gradient (Schack-Kirchner,

The science quoted would not be considered operational and may
be in interesting Box for information.

2012). The transfer of GHG fluxes from monitoring sites (e.g.
Level II) to areas requires regionalization using geo-matching or
spatial regression techniques (Aertsen et al. 2012, Zirlewagen
and v.Wilpert, 2010)
I don’t think the description of model calibration method iscorrect.
First, what do you mean by manual and automated? The
example of manual calibration, statistical analysis packages,
sounds for me automated as well, I mean the parameters are
statistically and computationally determined via kind of
2452

4

2

1770

1776

algorithms. Yes, sometimes computer simulations are applied todetermine the best parameters for relatively complex models,
but it is often impossible to determine all parameters of acomplex model via automated statistical method. In reality,
many parameters in a complex model are arbitrarily determinedby the developer based on sensitivity analysis, calibration, andsometimes from literature (previous observational studies) etc.,
it’s manual.

Rob to provide text on Optimisation vs humanComment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

Expert

2986

4

2

1776

1777

Specify the box cited in the text.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

3498

3500

4

4

2

2

1777

1789

1777

1795

Response

Authors' note
Number of box will be added

Box 2.9 describes the results of a calibration process and states

The purpose of Boxes is to provide relevant information tothat further work is ongoing. However, here we are asked toinventory compilers. Boxes do not provide guidance. Science isprovide guidance so: Is there any guidance to be applied to any

always ongoing and that should not be a reason to remove a box.

possible calibration process that can be inferred from theIordanis Tzamtzis

Rejected

There are few examples of data assimilation techniques applied

calibration process described and consequently added to theto models used in National GHG inventory processes and this box

guidance text? Further, since further work is ongoing it is better

provides information on this process, with details available in theto remove this box.

peer-reviewed scientific literature.

This text is about "calibration" which is the focus of Step 2 (notstep 3). I suggest to move it up (under step 2)

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Moved text to Step 2 as suggested.

Valentin Bellassen

Accepted

check with Rob this added text.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Changed text as suggested

Erik Næsset

Accepted

Text will be revised along the lines described in the comment

Erik Næsset

Accepted

Changed text as suggested

A common flaw in the use of complex model is that the user and even sometimes the designer - are not able to track backthe key drivers of their results. This is why an interpretation of
the differences with simpler - Tier 1 or Tier 2 - approach seems
to be good practice as well. It would guarantee that the key
engines with the "black box" have been identified and are
5334

4

2

1795

1795

consistent with the current state of knowledge. Accordingly, I
would recommend adding a fourth bullet point to this list ofgood practices pertaining to model evaluation:"It is also good practice to compare the model simulation withsimpler Tier 1 or Tier 2 estimates, and to be able to identify the
key drivers of the possible differences between the higher and

3502

4

2

1819

1819

lower Tier estimates."

Replace "source" with "source/sink"

This statement is rather strange - perhaps a bit awkward. I
guess the point here is level of (statistical) confidence. If you
have few plots for the evaluation, you will also have lessconfidence in the results of the evaluation. I think it is importantto get this message through (the tradeoff between confidence

2180

4

2

1823

1825

and efforts/costs in the evaluation). In principle, this is notdifferent from a situation with a measurement-based inventory(statement in line 1825). But of course the inference(uncertainty) of the estimates (output) from a model-based
approach does not depend directly on the sample size perhaps that is your point?

Perhaps insert "model-based" or similar to underline that you
are in the model domain (as opposed to measurement-bases
2182

4

2

1838

1838

systems) since measurement-based systems (e.g. sample plot
surveys) may be "spatially explicit and referenced" as well (asper IPCC definition of "spatially explicit").

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Erik Næsset

Accepted

Edited text to remove use of the term bias.

Box 10, example Canada, line 8: The term "unbiased" is used
incorrectly. Bias (or unbiasedness) is a property on an estimatoror procedure, not a particular estimate. Perhaps "systematic
2186

4

2

1857

1857

deviation" or something like that could be used instead in orderfor reserve "bias" for a phenomenon with a rigorous statisticaldefinition. In fact, the author has used "mean difference" in thesubsequent brackets. This is is a good term. Please also notthat "biases" is used incorrectly in line 11 as well.

The failure of the IPCC science community to include mosses in
the GHG inventories is increasingly recognised as an oversight forBox 10, example Canada, second paragraph: the moss stuff isboreal forest ecosystems. Boxes provide information, notinteresting and certainly gives some perspective to the
2188

4

2

1857

1857

magnitude of the different pools. But as long as mosses are not Erik Næsset

Rejectedpart of the IPCC protocol (stated in the text), I guess this is

guidance, and it is relevant to raise awareness among inventory
compilers that a currently excluded pool does have a large impact
on carbon stocks and fluxes. This will eventually have to beirrelevant and just a distraction.

addressed and a box is the appropriate place to raise awarenessof this issue.

5370

4

2

1857

1857

In the text box about Finland, please correct Oritz to Ortiz

Paula Ollila

AcceptedBox 2.10 describes the results of an evaluation andBoxes do not provide guidance, they provide information to

improvement process and states that further work is ongoing.

inventory compilers. The two country examples listed in Box 10

However, here we are asked to provide guidance so: Is there any
3504

4

2

1857

1859

guidance to be applied to any possible evaluation andimprovement process that can be inferred from the evaluation

provide information on calibration processes that have been
Iordanis Tzamtzis

Rejected

that fact should not be a justification to remove otherwise

the guidance text? Further, since further work is ongoing it isrelevant information.

better to remove this box.
4

2

1857

1857

In box 2.10, ha-1 in superscript, p = 0.000?

undertaken (and published) to improve scientific models that areused in GHG inventories. In both countries work is continuing but

and improvement process described and consequently added to4624

Changed text as suggested

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Corrections made to parameters noted in comment.

Erik Næsset

Accepted

Deleted 'and precision' from sentence.

Erik Næsset

Accepted

Is there a clear definition of "uncertainty" here and is that
2190

4

2

1866

1866

definition aligned with Vol 1? Many would take uncertainty andprecision to be synonyms, so clearly uncertainty must have a
different meaning here.

This text assumes that Approach 3 is based on pixel data, which
is not true. Even if remote sensing is used, it could be someaggregation to polygons etc. Further, Approach 3 does not even
2192

4

2

1869

1870

assume remote sensing data. Please also be careful with theterm spatially explicit. The data need not be spatially continuous
to be spatially explicit (as per IPCC definitions, see also detailed
text in Box 2.11)

Edits to be made to address the comment to remove theimplication that Approach 3 means pixel based approaches.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Text will be revised along the lines described in the comment

According to section 6.10 of Volume 1 model outputs are to be
subject to verification. So, the suggestion is either to redraft this

3506

4

2

1875

1876

sentence or adding a new sentence saying that "Estimates ofcarbon stocks and emissions and removals from a statisticalsample of location for which model outputs have been
produced"

The two IPCC approaches as defined in Vol 1 chapter 3 areTerm "error propagation": isn't MC also an error propagation
2194

4

2

1884

1884

method? (as is analytical estimators). As it now stands, MC is

Erik Næsset

not an error propagation technique.

Accepted with
Modification

described as 1. Error Propagation and 2. Monte Carlo. Someclarifying edits have been made to ake it clearer that these are
IPCC terms in this context

Box 2.11: a few things here under Measurement: 1) "sampling
intensity" perhaps better than "sample intensity"; 2) perhaps
better to say that sample variance can be reduced rather thancontrolled by increasing sample size; 3) there is no model error,
perhaps better to say model uncertainty. 4) why state "accuracy
and precision of estimates", do you assume that the estimators
are biased? 5) it is stated that the accuracy of estimates can be
estimated from an estimator of variance. That is not true if theestimator is biased. Nevertheless, it is more common to say thatvariance quantifies precision, not accuracy. 6) It says that model
errors normally can be neglected. I'm not sure about that, andespecially not in the tropics. Think about the quality and
2196

4

2

1889

1889

variability of e.g. allometric models for tropical regions. 7) The
very last sentence of Measurement seems to be out of context.
Perhaps discard. 8) It is stated that model error is small in
relative terms. That may be true under simple forest conditions
and where there even are very well developed allometric models
at hand (like in the two examples represented by the two casestudies referenced (Breidenbach and Stahl). But what about thetropics? Greater diversity in tree forms and wood densities,
many more tree species, difficult to construct good allometricmodels. I think the current statement is incorrect as a generalstatement valid for all parts of the world. 9) Please clarify what
is meant by" if carbon pools are simultaneously assessed". How
does that affect uncertainty of any particular pool??

Erik Næsset

Accepted

Adopted 1 / 2 / 3 / 7. Others need to be discussed.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Iordanis Tzamtzis

AcceptedAnke Herold

Accepted

Edits to be made to address the comment

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

Sentence was in the wrong location as has been deleted.

Box 2.11 should contain guidance on how to quantify uncertaintyof tier 3 model/methods. While the first section (Measurement)
contains some guidance, the second (Model) section lists the
3508

4

2

1889

1889

performance of a single model only. So: Is there any guidance tobe applied to any possible uncertainty analysis of models thatcan be inferred from the model evaluation reported in the box?
Is such guidance new (i.e. not included in the main text?) and is
the example showing how to operationalize it?
Also this section on good practice documentation is not very
consistent with the steps described before. It would be more

9802

4

2

1894

1911

useful if for each step it is described what should be
documented and if this part is better linked with the structure
before.

9320

4

2

1904

1904

Delete "?"I would add within bracket the following text "(Verification)";

3510

4

2

1906

1907

since this sentence refers explicitly to verification of modelThis text refers to the outcomes of Step 6 Evaluation. We are
Iordanis Tzamtzis

Rejected

outputs

using this term rather than Verification and text has remained thesame for consistently in terminology.

SUGGEST DELETING THE ENTIRE SECTION. I don’t see why
we should further attribute emissions/removals tor their causes
when using the overarching framework of managed land proxy,
which is recognized as the only practical means of identifying
9322

4

2

1913

1913

the anthropogenic emissions and removals for reporting of
national GHG inventories. IAV provision in the KP LULUCF rules
was just an accounting fix and has been covered extensively in
the KP Supplement. I don't see any persuasive reason forincluding this section in the Refinement for the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines, which is meant to be used for Convention reporting.

Nalin Srivastava

Rejected

See for example comments 7812, 110 and others that support this section.
The IPCC has repeatedly called for methodological improvements todealing with MLP and IAV within it and this section outlines the state of theart, which has progressed since the KP supplement, which also does not
apply to most nations. Need to explain better why disaggregation is done.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Maya Hunt

Accepted with
Modification

Thanks for expressing your support for this section. We will consider
expanding the table on drivers to show trends and make it more explicit
that long term trends can also be affected by past disturbance andmanagement actions. By removing the variation due to ND, the remaining
fluxes are the ones that are strongly affected by past management actions.

Tiwari Yogesh

Noted

Noted but UNFCCC reporting requires annual estimates and while intraseasonal variability may be of interest in Tier 3 models, sub-annual
variation in fluxes has to be summarised in annual estimates.

This is an excellent new section, that brings important newemphasis to the role of GHG inventories in distinguishinganthropogenic versus natural sources of emissions andremovals, in order to better quantify the impact of mitigation
actions. Overall, however, it does appear that more importanceis placed in this section on natural as opposed to human causes
of interannual variability. The title itself, 'interannual', alsodoesn't seem to do justice to the strong temporal trends thatcan occur in emissions and removals as a result historical

7812

4

2

1913

1913

impacts - both natural and human - and instead may be at riskof over-highlighting short-term fluctuations due to climate or
fire. In some countries, fire will easily be the largest source ofvariation over time, but in other countries (eg, New Zealand), itis the legacy of past management on the current age-classstructure of planted forests that is by far the largest driver ofemissions variation over time. If this section could therefore be
expanded upon to give elaboration to historical and legacy
effects, that would be extremely useful for improving theunderstanding, transparency and accuracy of reported
anthropogenic emissions.
Similar to interannual variability, Intra-seasonal variability is alsoa matter of interestin the carbon exchange between terrestrial bisphere including
agricultural and forest
land with the atmosphere. The net carbon exchanges (NEE)
between terrestrial

9002

4

2

1913

1951

biosphere and atmosphere are determined by the variances ofthe short-term variability in the NEE due to oscillations in theatmospheric circulation and meteorological forcing. The NEE
over India is reported to have 25% of variances in short-termtime scale (15-to-60 days of variability) of NEE which is an
integral partin the annual cycle of NEE from the country.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Tiwari Yogesh

Noted

Noted. NPP estimates may be required for some Tier 3 models

The IAV of NPP over India is large over mixed shrub andgrassland (MGL), moderate over croplandand small over the forest regions. Inter-annual variability of
NPP exhibits strong
positive coherence with the variability of precipitation, and weakcoherence withthe variability of temperature and solar radiation. Estimatedlinear growth rate ofannual NPP is 0.005 Pg C Yr−2 which is equivalent to 8.5% overthe country
during past 25 years. This increase is primarily due to the

9004

4

2

1913

1951

enhancement of
productivity over agricultural lands in the country. NPP has
increased overmost parts of the country during the early 15-year period (1981–
1995)
resulting in a 10% growth rate of national NPP budget. On theother hand,
the NPP growth rate has been reduced to 2.5% during later 15
years period(1991–2005) owing to large decline of NPP over the IndoGangetic plains.
Climate had a strong control on NPP growth rate during both theperiods.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

From pages 2.70 to 2.80, the guidance in this section should be
removed from the 2019 Refinement. Introduction into the IPCC
Guidelines of accounting guidance such as described in thissection is not helpful to the IPCC good practice goals ofgenerating GHG inventories that are transparent, accurate,complete, consistent and comparable (TACCC). Additionally,

5916

4

2

1913

2322

this approach moves national inventory reporting for the land

While we agree with some of the reviewer's points we clarify our

sector away from appropriate application of the managed land

text that already is in line with the reviewers comments, rather

proxy (MLP), which is currently the best approach available tothan deleting the entire section. This section is not intended toestimate anthropogenic land use/conversion
emissions/removals in a comparable manner by all countries.

Vincent Camobreco

Rejected

discuss accounting issues and our revisions to the text strengthen
the estimation guidance. The text acknowledges the MLP as the

The IPCC Guidelines should not introduce a methodologicalonly universally applicable method. We present ways in whichapproach that permits countries to report emissions/removals

concerns about shortcomings of the MLP can be addressedon a piece of land when it is a net sequester, but then allow thethrough disaggregation of fluxes within the MLP.

country to remove this land from reporting when it becomes a
net source of emissions. If a country designates land as
managed, and the country is reporting emissions and removals
before a “natural disturbance” then the country should continue
to do so during any recovery phase following that disturbance,
not factor it out of the Inventory report.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Ch 2.6. In this chapter, is discussed inter-annual variability andnatural disturbances, especially the disaggregation of emissions
from ND from the subsequent removals. It stayed unclear why
the subsequent removals should be reported separately from

#1. Accept: Both emissions and post-disturbance removals

other removals on managed lands. In this case, transparency isfollowing ND are estimated and reported separately fromnot an adequate reason. Also new definitions/classification foremissions and removals that occur on lands affected by humanND (predominantly natural/anthropogenic) are introduced. How

activities, as otherwise there would be a perception of unbalanced

the use of these new classes would increase the quality of

estimation and reporting. #2. Accept - references to

GHGIs? The given examples (highlighted section in rows 19876698

4

2

1913

2322

2000) of how to separate these two NDs is very subjective, and Tarja Tuomainen

Accepted

not practicable. The comparison of SC and G/L methods is a"predominantly" have been deleted from the text. #3.Accept footnote and text have been updated to better reflect
methodological options for SC methods #4 Accept - a genericsimplified picture. Also along with SC method, more

description of methods has been added to supplement thesophisticated methods eg. for interpolation can be used. There

information in the boxes. #5 ACCEPT with Modification - text has

is discussion about methodological approaches to estimate

been revised in response to many reviewer comments but notcontribution of ND, but no methods to to use in GHGI are given.

moved to the Annex.

As it is mentioned in the beginning of the chapter: "Theguidance includes methodological approaches and examples forthe voluntary identification.", I recommend to rethink the text of
this chapter, or include it to the refinement as Annex.
the section on interannual variability is not mandated by thetable of content as adopted by the IPCC plenary, nevertheless, it
contains very valuable information, but mostly related to natural
disturbances, that is really the part connected to estimation of

NOTE. #1 The approved Table of Content clearly includes this

ANNUAL emissions and removals (the final aim of IPCC

section on IAV as Section 2.5. #2 We do not limit our discussion toreporting guidelines). Other considerations not related to the
110

4

2

1913

2322

estimation of emissions and removals should be removed.
SUGGESTION: limit the section to 1. definitional issues

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

Accepted with
Modification

just ND but they are the main driver of IAV #3 Text has beenrevised to limit in the text the considerations not related toestimations. We are describing the MLP as the only "universally(definition of natural disturbances lines 2058-2061), 2. the use

applicable method" and identify how estimation can be refinedof managed land proxy as the "only universally applicablewithin the MLP context.

approach", 3. transparency (2089-2140) 4. Reporting (theapproach proposed is right but the option of having separate
information on NDs in a memo item should also be considered).

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

According to the proposed text emissions and removals
generated from managed land can be disaggregated in 2
subdivisions: predominantly anthropogenic and predominantly
natural, both of them containing a component that can beassumed to average out (i.e. the natural) and another that

#1 We agree that Ch 1 of Vol 4 has introduced the expectation

doesn't (i.e. the human). Why these? What is the benefit of suchthat natural disturbance E/R will balance over time. Information

disaggregation? Both subdivisions must be summed up to the
3512

4

2

1913

2322

national total since they both contain anthropogenic emissions .
Why we need such section then? I suggest to delete it.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted with
Modification

Further, the method applied to KP, it is capable to separate

on this should be reported. #2 The approach developed for KP
reporting is considered here as one of the possible approaches.
We offer three possible methodological approaches but refrainfrom suggesting a default approach. And we do not limit it tothose emissions and removals that can be assumed to be

those three approaches.

entirely caused by natural circumstances from those thatcannot; so that the first (the natural) can be excluded from thenational total. So, why such method is not proposed here as thedefault approach (given that country-specific methods may
always be developed).
I suggest the definition be more clear that this is across years,
rather than within years (intra-annual). Suggested new
6592

4

2

1917

1918

sentence: "Inter-annual variability (IAV) refers to variability in
GHG emissions and removals at an annual rate over several

Nancy French

Accepted with
Modification

Text revised to clarify the definition of interannual variability.

Irving William

Accepted

Revisedyears, rather than faster rates (e.g. intra-annual, monthly) or
slower rates (e.g. decadal).
Would it be more accurate to say "Emissions and removals from
9924

4

2

1918

1918

land ARE SOMETIMES characterized by high inter-annual
variability". The current formulation may overstate the situation.
"...and climate variability (e.g. Temperature, precipitation,

1598

4

2

1921

1922

drought, and extreme events)" - better to write "weather

Climate refers to long-term variability in weather and climate isAnna Romanovskaya

Rejected

supplement.

variability) as examples are for weather parameters
It is common in National forest inventories that they usually

NOTED - but the GL methods rely on activity data that canhave longer data collection period than one year, e.g. full
5400

4

2

1929

1929

dataset is collected in 5-year cycles. Therefore, LUC between
the years may be inter- or extrapolated, or a running averageapplied.

what is of concern here. And this is a quote from the KP

Markus Haakana

Notedcontribute to high interannual variability. Only SC methods thatuse 5 year or longer measurement intervals and apply averages
do not show the same IAV.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Saying just "it is therefore a good practice to reflect inter-annual
variability..." - is too strong message and has never been
supported by decisions of the Parties on negotiations. I suggest
1600

4

2

1929

1930

to delete words "good practice" and only mention the essencewith softer words and to add "to the extend possible". If country

This text if from the previously approved IPCC KP Supplement as
Anna Romanovskaya

Rejectedstated on line 1917+ of the FOD and is also contained in the IPCC
2006 GL

does not have data for every year inter-annual variability - it is
not a reason to change the whole system of the forest inventory(which is very expensive in all countries, even small)
It might also be useful to provide guidance on partitioning*historical* versus *current* rates of human and natural
disturbance activity, as opposed to only partitioning
anthropogenic versus natural fluxes. In determining
anthropogenic effects, for example, it is very useful to split out
natural effects, but to do so requires establishing what
proportion of removals today are the result of natural
disturbance effects in the past (eg, historical cyclone windthrow
effects). Working out the historical natural disturbance
contribution may be assisted by also working out the historical

The legacy effects of pre-1990 disturbances do in fact influence

human impact - though sometimes these will be hard tocurrent E/R but they do not affect IAV (but can affect long-term

differentiate. Differentiating all historical/lagged/legacy impacts
7814

4

2

1934

1951

on current emissions and removals trends therefore helps todifferentiate the impact of *current* human activities fromMaya Hunt

Accepted with
Modification

background trends. It would be very helpful for the guidance totrends). While better understanding of the drivers of today's fluxes
would be of scientific and policy interest - achieving this would
require a much more complex estimation process. CONFIRM
THAT WE ADDED A SENTENCE RELATED TO LEGACY EFFECTS

explain the value of differentiating historical from current

OF PRE 1990 DISTURBANCES

effects, and the methods for doing so, to help build
understanding of these phenomena. In particular, many policy
makers struggle to understand how there can be dynamic trends
in existing carbon stocks/forests, set in motion by historicalevents. Is it possible to include an illustration of this? While not
all countries are interested in, or have the capacity to,differentiate current from historical human impacts, it does
seem that doing so would, at minimum, improve the accuracy of
any natural disturbance exclusions, and at best, may help report
more accurate estimates of the impacts of new mitigation"Noise" is written in quotes in the text in line 1932. In line 1935
that is ignored, and noise seems by this to be introduced as an
2198

4

2

1935

1935

IPCC term. That should be avoided. Perhaps be a bit more
precise in wording. To speak about certain emissions as noise,
is not very helpful nor meaningful.

Erik Næsset

Accepted

Added quotes to noise in line 1935

Comment
ID
9804

9806

Volume44Chapter22

From line
1935

1937

To line
1935

1937

Comment
For the purpose of readability and user-friendliness it would bebetter not to abbreviate inter-annual variability with IAV
For the purpose of readability and user-friendliness it would bebetter not to abbreviate managed land proxy with MLP

ExpertResponse

Authors' note
Reject - the term appears so many times in this section that it

Anke Herold

Rejected

would lengthen the text considerably if we did not use theabbreviation.
Reject - the term appears so many times in this section that it

Anke Herold

Rejected

would lengthen the text considerably if we did not use theabbreviation.

Disaggregation of net fluxes with separate reporting ofemissions and removals due to natural disturbances was only
has been discussed and agreed by Parties for KP reporting with
exclusion of emissions from natural disturbances from theNoted - several comments have highlighted the need to use

accounting. This is very and very complicated way of the
1604

4

2

1945

1951

reporting with no sense if everything is accounted. Authors ofAnna Romanovskaya

the IPCC could not decide how it should or may be reported.

Accepted with
Modification

cautious wording and reduce references to accounting. We willrevise the text accordingly. However, the reference to Tier 3 isincorrect, these methods can be used at all three Tiers.

Wording here should be very soft and general. Clearly, that theissue relates only to those countries that using Tier 3 and would
like to exclude emissions from natural disturbances from theiraccounting in PA NDCs.

The use of "voluntary" in this context is confusing because the
9926

4

2

1945

1951

IPCC Guidelines do not have mandatory or voluntary provisions
as might a UNFCCC decision. It is sufficient to say that

Irving William

Accepted

Klaus von Wilpert

Noted

Erik Næsset

Accepted

Text has been revisedcountries may find this information valuable.
Also in this respect calculating GHG-fluxes directly from timely
2530

4

2

1951

1951

integrated gas concentrations has the advantage, that thisprocedure either integrates all impacts mentioned or enables to
identify distinct events.

2200

4

2

1957

1957

2988

4

2

1961

1961

"effects" in quotes. What is that supposed to mean? I do not getthee point.
To be completed.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Quotes removed
AGREED

Figure 2.8. Human-induced N fertilisation should be included
under management activities as direct-human induced effects.
9692

4

2

1962

1963

Land-use change also qualifies infer indirect-human induced

Mattias Lundblad

effects or under natural effects if there is an ongoing

Accepted with
Modification

Revised text in the figure.

degeneration of land from forest to unmanaged land categories.
2990

4

2

1965

1966

To be completed.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

The sentence should read as" the anthropogenic GHG emissions
2856

4

2

1969

1970

by sources and removals by sinks…." Otherwise, it seems thatboth emissions and removals are linked to sinks.

Raul Abad Viñas

Accepted

AGREED
AGREED - added [by sources] to the sentence but had to do thisin [ ] because the original sentence is a quote from 2006 GL.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Nancy French

Accepted with
Modification

Modified the text but not the actual quote.

Nancy French

Accepted

Revised and simplified text to improve clarity

Erik Næsset

Accepted with
Modification

The examples of the numerical implications of the suggested

I suggest a clarification of "average out over time and space" bemade, since this section is dealing with inter-annual variability,
6594

4

2

1971

1972

therefore the period of variability is specific. Suggested addition
after this quote is: "…(Vol 4, Ch. 1), that is for multiple years.
Therefore, assessment of IAV is important to understand if
these background GHG variations are consequential."
It is very difficult to follow this set of sentences due to themultiple mid-sentence references and mis-placed parentheses.

6596

4

2

1975

1980

It would have been more effective to have had this copy edited
before the expert review, as I found several places where thetext is garbled due to mistakes in the punctuation, etc.
The authors reach out for feedback from the reviewers. I findthis text carefully and well formulated, but it would be useful to
see the full implications of adopting such a text. I guess it may

2202

4

2

1981

2000

have a huge impact on annual emissions estimates for somecountries, and some illustrative alternatives/examples would be

estimation methods are provided later in this chapter.

useful - not at least for the countries that will be influenced bythis text (I would think for a country like for example Canada).
What would be the consequences. This is politics, not science.
I am of the opinion that the word "predominately" should be
6598

4

2

1981

2000

included, since teasing apart natural and human factors is never Nancy Frenchabsolutely possible.

LAs decided to remove the explicit reference to "predominantly"
Rejected

and to specify that countries may define the natural andanthropogenic components according to national circumstances.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

I personally agree with the inclusion of this text. In my opinion,

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted with
Modification

The term predominantly has been removed throughout but we have added
clearer explanation that the approach results in an approximation of thenatural and anthropogenic components. We have also provided genericmethodology to show the consistency among the approaches that are thenpresented in the country-example boxes. As with other IPCC methods
options are available that make the results comparable even if theestimates may differ.

Noted

NOTED - The text will be improved. However, it is not correct that thereason can be clearly and entirely attributed to either anthropogenic or
natural (in particular because we tend to include indirect human in thenatural component (e.g. climate change impacts on fire risks).

the explanation provided in the bracketed text is needed tomake clear that sometimes the net quantity of GHG emissions
due to natural disturbances are very influenced by humanfactors (and the other way around). Users need to bear in mind
the importance of separating correctly natural emissions fromanthropogenic activates in order to do not mask the result of
mitigation actions. But also, that when they report GHG
emissions due to natural effects, the resulting quantities are inmany cases not fully “natural” or “human” but “predominantly”.
Therefore, the “predominant” component should be taken into
consideration, to do not allocate as natural, emissions that are
2858

4

2

1987

2000

due to human actions. However, in practice, considering that thecurrent quantitative approach to exclude emissions from natural

Raul Abad Viñas

disturbances under the accounting KP scheme seems won’t bevalid anymore, I see that there is need for more clear and robust
guidance that allow to clearly separate "natural" and“anthropogenic” emissions in a consistent way acrosssubmissions. The current text seems rather soft and, if the
predominant component is judged by users, this could leave thedoor open to different interpretations on which emissions should
be considered “anthropogenic” and which “natural”. This could
impact the accuracy of the net emissions/removals reported andthe comparability among submissions. The need for a morerobust and clear guidance is to some extend supported by thedifferent approaches followed by the Parties presented in the
Confusing text. It should be clear described on the reason of one
or another event: the reason clearly should be anthropogenic OR
natural. However consequences of the event could be modified
by human activity. So in low-population region the event with
1602

4

2

1987

2000

natural reason has no any further effects and consequences are
fully natural. However on managed land (that's why on managed
land all events and all consequences are anthropogenic) thesize of the impact effects and therefore emissions and removals
could be modified by human. I think figure 2.8 is better
explaining that.

Anna RomanovskayaComment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted with
Modification

The references to Predominantly have been removed and the specific text
section has been revised.

Anke Herold

Noted

NOTED - thank you.

Noted

NOTED - we do agree that the approach involves considerable complexities
but we also highlight that Tier 3 approaches that track lands affected bynatural or human disturbances have successfully implemented thisapproach (e.g. Canada). Others are working on alternative approaches thatare also expected to work. Thus countries that are prepared to invest into
the estimation systems that enable this separation can chose to do sounder the current proposal.

The approach presented in brackets is reasonable, as it allows
pragmatic application for GHGI reporting while also reflecting

7234

4

2

1987

2000

accurately the scientific knowledge. However, the explanation
why "predominantly" is used here in lines 1983-1986, and that
this has no practical effect on the reporting, should also be
clarified in the text.
The use of 'predominantly' seems to be a helpful and practicable

9808

4

2

1987

2000

concept to address the reciprocal influences of natural andhuman
The term predominantly is a rather weak term that illustrates
the difficulties in establishing clear guidelines for distinguishinganthropogenic and natural effects. While the example in line
1987 with a low-populated boreal forest with no direct
management history is fairly clear, there will be other examples
which will be much more difficult to classify.
In some cases emissions from unmanaged lands could also havesome impact from anthropogenic activities such as campfires
coming out of control.
It seems it is more about magnitude where the annual
management effect disappears in the effects from single events(could be a fire season) that happen only every 30 years and

8544

4

2

1987

2000

where the inter-annual variability is a problem in terms ofunderstanding the different components and thus when
considering the effectiveness of mitigation efforts. However, thearea included will determine whether this is the case. Any forest
fire that are more than a ground fire will most likely havesignificantly higher emissions compared to the annual incrementfrom the same area in one year but is the aim to report all thosefire emissions separately as predominantly natural?
I think that would be a mistake for countries where forest fire isconsidered a natural part of the ecosystem. Considering that itis then good practice to also disaggregate the subsequent
removals it could become almost unmanageable. The approach
used under the Kyoto protocol including only emissions above anational threshold seems a better approachPeter Aarup IversenComment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Ana Blondel

Noted

NOTED - thank you.

Noted

NOTED - thank you.

Anke Herold

Accepted

AGREED - more information on storms needs to be added - one of thechallenges with storms is that areas affected by storms tend to be salvage
logged as soon as possible and that human activity would transfer the land
from ND to human activities right away.

Ana Blondel

Accepted

AGREED - this information is in the NIR2017 and NIR2018 and this will bereferenced here.

Anna Romanovskaya

Accepted

AGREED - will be corrected

Nancy French

Accepted

AGREED - will be corrected

recommendation and the table 2.20 does not reflect what the

CRISTINA GARCIA

text below explains. SUGGESTION: delete section, or at least,

DIAZ

Accepted with
Modification

Increased consistence between footnotes and text. We find the tableuseful in providing background information to inventory compilers. Can
the text be modified to soften the statements and be less absolute? We did
not delete the table.

NotedYes, Stock difference does capture long term trends but as implemented bycountries it is not able to capture the IAV.

While I do not have a specific suggestion on the bracketed blue
text presented in this FOD, I would like to mention that I feelglad to see that the IPCC Guidelines might finally recognize thefact that “natural” emissions and removals from a wildfire canbe affected by past - and present - human activities and that“human” emissions and removals can be affected by natural
6036

4

2

1987

2000

influences. Recognizing this fact may have a positive influencein changing our human behaviour in order to more effectively
reduce the effect of "predominantly natural' influences.
I hope to review a more refined version of this section 2.6 in thenext SOD of this refinement and be able to better contribute if
possible. For now, I agree with the use of the tern
"predominantly" as intended.
I agree with applying "predominantly". Because some country

4024

4

2

1987

2000

may mis-understand that very limited human influence area are Hiroshi Ito
also anthropogenic
The earlier chapter and this section are strongly dominated byfires. A more balances consideration of different types of natural

9810

4

2

2002

2022

disturbances would be useful and storms only appear in one
sentence, but affect huge regions should be described in moredetail related to their impact.
Need to cite a reference for this statement: "Canada’s 1990 to2015 time series of annual emission and removals due to natural

6038

4

2

2014

2016

disturbances ranges from -13 Mt CO2e to 247 Mt CO2e, whileremovals due to land management have a trend that includes arange from -250 Mt CO2e to -157 Mt CO2e with very little IAV"

1606

4

2

2018

2019

6614

4

2

2018

2019

repeating of lines from 2002 to 2003
the sentence starting with "In some countries …" is a direct
repeat of text in the previous paragraph - lines 202-203.
this section doesn't provide any good practice, solution, or

111

4

2

2023

2051

delete the table.
stock difference method should be able to capture most indirect
1608

4

2

2033

2033

effects, specifically those have some trends (e.g. raising of CO2 Anna Romanovskaya
and temperature)

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To line

7816

4

2

2033

2033

Comment
In this table, both 'Direct human' and 'Natural disturbance' might
usefully be split into 'Current' / 'Historical' columns.

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Maya Hunt

Noted

The information about current or historical influences would make analready complex table more complicated and is not important for
inventory compilers. It would be of scientific interest.

Noted

Yes a hybrid approach to explore convergence of estimates of GL and SD
methods would be very helpful but few (any?) countries have the data to
do this. Moreover this section does not speak about verification but about
the ability of these methods to detect IAV and SD does not help with this.

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted

AGREED - revised

Nancy French

Accepted

We revised based on the next comment

Nancy French

Accepted

Text deleted.

Mattias Lundblad

Accepted with
Modification#1: We have revised the title as per the reviewer's comments. #2 It is notcorrect that only process models can do this and we did not change thetable entries as requested. What the table shows is that in an inventory
compiled based on the GL method can distinguish the impacts of direct
human (harvest, thinning) or natural disturbances (fires).

Irving William

Noted

Please note that footnote 5 refers to exactly this point.

This table should also reflect that stock changes can be used toverify the aggregated net changes -- a hybrid approach that
6110

4

2

2033

2033

uses stock changes to determine overall fluxes can be combined William Hohensteinwith an approach to attribute the percentages of the changes tocategories (e.g. direct, indirect, etc.)

7236

4

2

2033

2034

Footnote numbering in table is off (contains footnotes 5 and 2)
Table 2.10: The table title is very difficult to understand. It

6600

4

2

2033

2034

should be modified to be more clear. Suggested title: "The effectof estimation method and data on ability to quantify IAV inemissions."

6602

4

2

2033

2034

Table 2.10: The text in the first row below the title is unclear,and is redundant to the title/caption. I suggest removing it.
I think the heading of Table 2.10 should be "Does the estimation
method quantify and distinguish between the impact of thedrivers below on the inter-annual variability of reported annual

9662

4

2

2033

2034

emission and removal estimates?". Only process based model
can do this. All other cells should be "NO". For instance growthdefined by EF:s or empirical yield tables cannot distinguishdirect human impact from natural.

The Table 2.10 entries for stock difference are oversimplified
9928

4

2

2033

2042

and do not reflect the qualified statement in line 2040 about
auxiliary data. Auxiliary data in countries with detailed survey
data are useful for assessing drivers.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Erik Næsset

Noted

Please note that footnote 5 refers to exactly this point.

William Hohenstein

Noted

While this point is correct, the table and the associated text discuss theability of methods to quantify the IAV.

Raul Abad Viñas

Accepted

Footnote has been revised.

Nancy French

Accepted

Title has been revised

Rejected

REJECT - MLP is a concept that is fundamental to the IPCC reporting
approaches. It is not "only one approach".

Rejected

This report is about refinements and the methods presented here can beused to refine the MLP estimates.

Accepted

The use of the term "significant" in a non-statistical sense is always
problematic and should be avoided. We deleted the word.

The text in line 2035-2042 and the Stock-difference entry inTable 2.10, footnote 5: I'm, not sure this is correct. National
forest inventories are probably the main source of data for thoseadopting stock-difference. Many (most?) NFIs have adopted apanel system with a constant repeat cycle (5-10 yrs.) ofobservations on permanent plots but designed such that

2204

4

2

2035

2042

measurements from every single year will provide a valid
probability sample for any particular year. One may therefore
provide annual estimates based on annual observations rather
than interpolations if that is needed, but the precision will ofcourse be lower than if the entire sample from the entire
inventory cycle is used. I think some modification of this text isneeded because many NFIs have the potential to provide annual
data if there is a need.
The document should note that the stock change method
provides data that can be verified over time. The stocks are
directly measured. Over time, the stocks can be remeasured
and updated. Attribution of changes in stock due to direct and

6108

4

2

2035

2042

indirect human influences, disturbances, and variability can beapportioned from the overall stock change. While othermethods allow these influences to be estimated directly, they do
not offer the same opportunity for verification and oter time
validation unless fluxes are compared against changes in stocks
over time.

I suggest clarifying, for instance along with the footnote 5, that
2862

4

2

2039

2042

for the Stock Different method annual statistics are still needed
for an accurate estimation of non-CO2 emissions associatedwith natural disturbances.
"ND" should be spelled out in the title. And, ND is unclear, since

6604

4

2

2053

2053

it is not used throughout. There is inconsistencies in the use of
abbreviations that needs to be fixed.
"It is good practice to apply MLP" - suggest to delete that

1610

4

2

2055

2055

sentence. It bring no sense as MLP is only one approach agreed Anna Romanovskaya
by Parties.

9930

4

2

2056

2056

Change "to refine" to read "to supplement".

Irving William"... that cause significant emissions…" - that statement has no
1612

4

2

2058

2059

sense if there is not any definition for this "significance". Better Anna Romanovskaya
to delete.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

Response

Authors' note

Rejected

This sentence describes the assumption underlying the MLP and this is wellestablished and explained elsewhere.

Peter Aarup Iversen

Accepted

Footnote has been revised.

Raul Abad Viñas

Accepted

Text revised.

Nancy French

Rejected

ND and other abbreviations are use consistently in the chapter.

Anke Herold

Accepted with
Modification

We modified the wording and added a footnote earlier in the text to define
the common English term "disaggregate"

is not the role of the guidelines to expect balance in the future,
it should focus on how to better estimate/report annual

112

Expert

4

2

2066

2067

emissions and removals, independently of the future situation,
being the source natural disturbances or not. SUGGESTION:CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

delete these lines.
Regarding footnote 6 on the subsequent balancing of emissions
with removals, the outlook for boreal forests with climatechange is in some cases not very good, drying out of soils, lackof natural regeneration after fire leading to change in forest
cover and permanent loss of forest carbon (Example: Southern
8526

4

2

2066

boreal forest in Russia and Mongolia). In this case we could
have naturally caused change in forest cover, which may bedifferent from land use change but in any case have apermanent situation with less carbon compared to before thefire. To strengthen this point the footnote could include the text
“which could be challenged by the effects of climate change”.
I suggest adding that some other indirect-human induced
effects may also decrease the balancing period (CO2 and N

2860

4

2

2070

2070

fertilization), therefore, explaining together with the mentioned
effects why the balancing period is not defined (i.e. this was thecore idea of the sentence).

6606

4

2

2070

2071

"ND" is used again here, and is not defined nor usedconsistently
It is unclear what disaggregated means in these sentences. The
two good practice guidance sentences are incomprehensible,
please explain better what the reader is expected to do. The

9816

4

2

2072

2075

first sentence does not seem to come first from a logical point ofview, first the disaggregation (to what? for what purpose? atwhat level? of what? How should this be done? Then the second
should say, if disaggregation for emissions, then also fr
removals.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Rejected#1 This is an accounting issue that is out of scope. #2 If a country choses todisaggregate the emissions and removals from ND, then removals that are
the result of ND that occurred prior to the start of the time series should
also be estimated. Moreover, it is a fundamental principle of IPCC
guidelines that time series consistency is applied, i.e. methods cannotchange during the time series. If countries want to inform about therelative contribution of human vs. natural disturbances, they should be
able to do so, regardless of the possible use of this information in futureaccounting.

Noted#1 Agreed, but it may not always be possible to quantify the emissions
from disturbances prior to the start of the time series. #2 If areas affectedby natural wildfires do not regenerate, the resulting failure to reachbalance of E and R in those areas is reflected in the E/R estimates for the
ND category.

Anna Romanovskaya

AcceptedYes the decision to disaggregate is voluntary and we have changed thewording to make it clear that the Good Practice statement applies not tothe disaggregation but to the fact that IF a country disaggregates, then it
needs to do this for both the E and R associated with ND.

Anke Herold

Accepted

Revisedthe separation of emissions from natural disturbances andsubsequent removals is only needed if the country expects to
exclude them from accounting, and this has no retroactive
effect. What would be the objective, in relation to reporting, toreport of reporting information prior to the start of the reporting
period? or even in years from 1990 to the year this refinement is

113

4

2

2072

2079

applied? how does that improve the inventories? SUGGESTION:
redraft this lines, limit the need to separate emissions from NDs

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

and subsequent removals to those NDs from the starting of theuse of this refinement and only if the emissions from those NDs
are going to be treated differently from the rest of emissions. If
the country is going to account for them anyway, there is noneed to separate.

Yes, it is appropriate and strengthens environmental integritythat removals should also be disaggregated until the balance
7818

4

2

2072

2079

has been reached. Any failure to reach balance suggests a direct Maya Huntor indirect human effect, possibly permanent, which should be
captured as an anthropogenic emission.
Again: "It is also good practice to disaggregate in the first andsubsequent years of the reporting period removals contributed

1614

4

2

2075

2079

by lands affected by natural disturbances that occurred prior to
the start of the reporting period." - only if country intends to
exclude emissions and ND. If everything is accounted - no needto do that. That should be clear.
What is a time-proxy? What is approximated? Proxy for what?

9818

4

2

2078

2078

9820

4

2

2080

2081

Sentence incomplete, add 'occur' at the end of the sentence.

Anke Herold

Accepted

Revised

9932

4

2

2080

2081

Change "is not valid" to "may not be valid".

Irving William

Accepted

Revisedland conversion to a different use? I am not sure how to fix this, Nancy French

Accepted

RevisedAccepted with
Modification

We agree that the reference to "significant" was not appropriate

Please explain better.

This paragraph is unclear. Is "if land use changes" referring to
6608

4

2

2080

2081

but it is unclear.

the definition of "significance" in relation to NDs is missing.
There should be a paragraph asking countries to describe how"significant emissions" are defined, preferably linked to line
118

4

2

2090

2140

2100. Options can be provided (for example, the use of
background levels and margins, as in the KP supplement, orothers...). SUGGESTION: include a reference to the need todescribe "significant emissions".

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

and have removed it from the text.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

Expert

4

2

2093

2140

#1 The IPCC has consistently used two reporting methods,

exact land areas affected by the natural disturbance. Please add

spatially-explicit and spatially-referenced and the methods

areas is good practice. All the documentation requirements

Anke Herold

seem to be placed before any method is described which makes

4

2

2095

2100

Accepted with
Modification

described here can be implemented using either of these methods#2 We are considering moving the "transparency" section after theboxes into the "reporting" section along with the table and adding

it hard to understand. Would be better to move aftera brief description of the generic method before the boxes withintroduction of method.

country examples of implementations.

it is not clear what would be expected from countries. There is1616

Authors' note

The documentation does not seem to include information on thethat a clear geo references documentation of the affected land9822

Response

no clear definition of ND in the methodology (see my comment

Anna Romanovskaya

above)

Accepted with
Modification

A definition of ND is provided in Line 2058 (FOD), further detailsof definitions of ND will depend on national circumstances, andexamples already provided in Box 2.12.

I personally agree with the current bracketed text. Nevertheless,I see that here, the text mentions “prevalent direct cause offires”, “demonstration that the ND were”, so it seems to focus
on the cause of the natural disturbance, which is different fromthe question of whether all emissions from ND can be taken as
natural. The importance here is given to a correct categorizationof events as ND and how to demonstrate that the event meetthe definition of ND. In this sense, the current file uses ["....
2864

4

2

2106

2107

should include [bracketed text] AND documentation on
practicable efforts...." therefore, I consider that the first

Raul Abad Viñas

Accepted with
Modification

We have revised the text to provide stronger guidance on methods.

Anke Herold

AcceptedWill be revised

Nancy French

AcceptedWill be revised

Dirk Nemitz

AcceptedWill be revised

sentence (bracketed text) AND the second sentence, contributeto a better demonstration that the event in fact meet thedefinition of Natural Disturbance. To the question whether all
emissions from ND can be taken as natural, my answer is no.
And, as said before, in this sense, I see the need for a morerobust and clear guidance (methods) that ensure a harmonizedseparation of “natural” and “anthropogenic” among Parties andthe consistency of the submission.
9824

4

2

2106

2107

Blue sentence is not very clear
I cannot understand the sentence due to missing parentheses,

6610

4

2

2106

2107

so it is hard for me to comment on this. I would suggest (for the
future) before sending out for expert review that there be a copy
editing step made so the reviewers can be more effective.
This sentence would only make sense if the "and" would be

7238

4

2

2107

2107

replaced with an "or" (thus making it an either-or-relationship).
Alternatively, "either" in line 2106 could be deleted

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

AcceptedWill be revised

climatological conditions could be added to the list ofoccurrences that led to the natural disturbances event. For
example, in some countries, the conjunction of heat waves, withdrought and high-speed winds make forest fires unmanageable,

114

4

2

2107

2108

and they are impossible to prevent, manage and control.
SUGGESTION: add "as well as information on climatological

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

and meteorological conditions" after "natural disturbance event"in line 2109. Details on which kind of information could be
added below.
as mentioned in a previous comment, the guidelines shouldn't
focus on a future expected balance of emissions and removals
in lands that suffered NDs, but in the estimation of associated
115

4

2

2131

2133

emissions and removals, therefore, this para should also be

CRISTINA GARCIA

deleted. In addition to the problem with the context that led to

DIAZ

Accepted with
Modification

this paragraph, there is no way that a "method" used for

Text revised and it requires a statement that methods are
consistent with the concept of balancing by estimating BOTH
emissions and subsequent removals.

estimating emissions and removals can "fulfil expectations ofbalance". SUGGESTION: delete this paragraph.
As mentioned in a comment above, the need to report further
land use changes after NDs should only be good practice if

It it not necessary to go through all of this effort if the country

emissions from that natural disturbance have been treated in adifferent way than the rest of emissions. If not, the
116

4

2

2135

2137

disaggregation is not needed. SUGGESTION: redraft, and clarify
that, in cases where the NDs emissions and subsequentdoes not plan to report separately the emissions and subsequent
CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

Acceptedremovals from direct human activities and ND. Revised opening
sentence of this section to state clearly that all of this only applies
to countries that chose to refine MLP estimates byremovals are treated in a different manner, there is a need todisaggregation.

prove that lands under NDs didn't change use, and that land usechanges are adequately reflected in the GHG inventories.
"emissions and subsequent removals associated with human
117

4

2

2138

2140

activities that occur after natural disturbances" would need

CRISTINA GARCIA

more explanation. It is not clear what is this referring to.

DIAZ

AGREED - easy to revise by explaining better activities such as
Acceptedaccelerate regrowth.

SUGGESTION: clarify this paragraph
2992

4

2

2141

2284

salvage logging, site preparation or planting designed toAppropriate box format required. Figures to be improved as well. CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Box format will be implemented for SOD

Unclear why very weak phrase of strong winds and not storms is
9826

4

2

2155

2155

used, strong winds do not seem to classify as naturalAnke Herold

Accepted

Revised the text.

Anke Herold

Accepted

Revised the text.

Erik Næsset

Accepted

Revised the text.

disturbances, please be more precise.
9828

4

2

2187

2190

2206

4

2

2190

2190

Sentence unclear 'that assume away the natural background'?
I'm not sure what is meant by "spatial interpolation betweenplots". What is that, how is it done and what is the purpose?

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' noteThis text box 2.15 'example' of implementation 'from an EU
country' as currently written could be understood as outlining a

7376

4

2

2236

2284

default method. This does not appear consistent with lines

It will be revised - logic is missing while equations are explained.

2016-2064 which states that "no 'default' methodology is

Portugal and a few other EU countries are using it for KP

defined here." This may be resolved when specific country

Max Collett

Acceptedreporting - but none are using it for convention reporting. Sandroexamples are listed however suggest also clarifying that this isvolunteers to draft a new version of the Box in which the logic will

not a default methodology. (In particular noting that this is

be added. Need to also make this box more readable.

similar but not quite the same as previous IPCC default
guidance provided in the IPCC 2013 KP Supplement.)
9832

4

2

2252

2252

explain the terms salvage logging and what can cause delayedemissions.

Anke Herold

AcceptedAnke Herold

Accepted with
Modification

Text explains salvage logging and reference to delayed emissions
is deleted.

The methods described are contradictory and not helpful,. One
option calculates the minimum, the other option the maximum
level of area-specific emissions, this is totally confusing. Please
9834

4

2

2255

2266

provide only ONE clear method. Neither minimum . Not
maximum levels of area-specific emissions seem logicalapproaches, but only the average, extrapolation seems for tocomplex in this context.

This entire box has been revised to address this and other comments.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

To my understanding the section 2.6.4 provides just a template
table on how to report separately emissions that are considered(predominantly) natural from those (predominately) human, so
to do not mask the mitigation efforts. But firstly, to do that,agreement should be on a common and robust method
applicable by all Parties to separate the emissions (andsubsequent removals) in a consistent manner. Aiming to answer
the questions: The fluxes reported under the Managed Land

2866

4

2

2286

2322

Proxy (#3) are considered anthropogenic. If it is recognized that

#A - Yes, this is just a template that will be moved to a Box tothe emissions caused by an event that meets the ND definition,

make it clear that this is not guidance but an information item. #B

are predominantly natural and should be separately considered,

Revised text will outline a generic method. #C We will rewrite the(#3) should be seen as the sum of natural and anthropogenic
occurring in managed lands. Does removing the natural

Raul Abad Viñas

Accepted with
Modificationtext to refer to #3 as the "anthropogenic E/R #1 as the natural
disturbance E/R, and #2 as the 'refined anthropogenic' E/R. #D

disturbance component (#1) from this total (#3) mean that #2

While such partitioning over time would be ideal, thecan no longer be called anthropogenic? In this second step, (#2)

implementation would be very complicated. THINK ABOUT THIS

should be seen as predominantly anthropogenic (i.e. It would

FURTHER.

include also emissions from natural events that do not meet the
ND definition). If salvage logging is followed by planting, then
are the removals considered “natural” or “anthropogenic”?
Proven that the salvage logging and the planting take place inareas defined as affected by ND, in order to keep the balance,
they can be seen as a natural removals as they would not occur
in the absence of that natural event. Even if they have apractical human origin.
the word "predominantly" in relation to natural or anthropogenic
emissions and removals, when we are working with a proxy,
120

4

2

2286

2322

doesn't seem necessary. This word should then be added to allemissions and removals in volume 4. SUGGESTION: delete the

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

Accepted

Predominantly has been deleted in the table title.

Noted

NOTED - but see previous comment.

word "predominantly"
I am of the opinion that "predominantly" be retained in this

6612

4

2

2288

2322

119

4

2

2290

2290

not clear what "#2" is referring to.

9936

4

2

2292

2292

Delete "voluntary". See earlier comment on line 1945 to 1951.

section.

Nancy French
CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

4

2

2292

2294

understanding". Unclear how accuracy is affected by reporting
format/content.

This text will be removed as it is merely guidance for the FOD
review.

Irving William

Accepted

Revised text

Irving William

Accepted with
Modification

Revised - deleted accuracy

Change "Transparency and accuracy" to "Overall
9934

Accepted

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To line

9938

4

2

2298

2298

7240

4

2

2307

2307

9940

4

2

2312

2312

Comment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Irving William

Accepted with
Modification

The table will be moved into a Box which makes it an information

Too many full stops and commas

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted

Revised text

Delete "voluntary". See earlier comment on line 1945 to 1951.

Irving William

Accepted

Revised text

Irving William

Accepted with
Modification

Clarified that this approach reduced the IAV of the Anthropogenic

Anke Herold

Accepted

Change "reporting" to "disaggregating" or "distinguishing
between"item rather than a guideline.

change "…greatly reduces the interannual variability" to "…
9942

4

2

2312

2313

identifies, quantifies, and helps to explain the interannual
variability…". Reducing/factoring out interannual variability is

E/R (by moving it to the ND E/R.)

an accounting decision.
Again good practice sentence is unclear, what does
'disaggregate' means. It seems also wrong as the approached in
9836

4

2

2317

2318

IPCC KP supplement don't say you always have to calculate
natural disturbances separately, bot only if beyond threshold.

We have revised the text to clearly state that this only applied if
the country choses to disaggregate.

Here it becomes a general good practice element that users
should always apply. Please delete.

It remains unclear why the removals should be disaggregatedproportionally to former c stock losses. Wouldn't this more
depend on whether the land remains unmanaged? Wouldn't the
7242

4

2

2318

2320

land under natural succession remain categorized as
unmanaged, but under planting rather re-categorized asWithin the MLP discussed here, all lands are "managed" Dirk Nemitz

Noted

separation into ND and anthropogenic does not alter the"managed land" designation.

managed land? When would a change from managed tounmanaged land or vice versa be recommended / goodpractice?

table 2.11. SUGGESTION: replace "area subject to forest
management" y "rest of [managed] area under FL-FL". "Forest
management" is associated with the Kyoto Protocol accounting,
121

4

2

2321

2322

in addition to this, countries (the country) applying the narrow

CRISTINA GARCIA

approach for forest management would be in trouble to fulfil this DIAZ

Accepted

Text has been revised

table, and some other countries that have different concepts for"managed forests" than for "forest management" could also
have difficulties.
2532

4

2

3159

3159

Literature citations suggested

Klaus von Wilpert

Noted

6080

4

2

3167

3167

Change "complimented" to "complemented"

Mark Sperow

Accepted

SUGGESTION: delete the annex. Beyond the mandate of the
122

4

2

3494

3591

refinement. Guidelines are for national GHG inventories. This

CRISTINA GARCIA

doesn't mean that they can't be used by others, but there is no

DIAZ

Rejectedpag 31 of the Scoping Meeting Report notes as an issue to consider forproviding Update/Elaboration/New guidance, the "Consistency between
projects or activities (e.g. REDD+) and IPCC inventory guidelines". So, theauthors are working according to the mandate.

Accepted

Text amended to make clear that the box refers to any activity
implemented in the AFOLU sector, including REDD+; as per the mandateneed/mandate for this annex.
7256

4

2

3495

3495

Besides REDD-plus activities, which other activities would becovered by "AFOLU activities"? What does the term refer to?

Dirk Nemitz

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted

The title cannot be changed, since it is text from the scoping meeting. The
box elaborates on how project activities can be reported consistently with
the NGHGI when these guidelines are voluntarily applied; text modified tomake it more explicit.

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted with
Modification

The comment doesn't point the supposed inconsistency with UNFCCC, so
no answer possible. In any case, the box is written according to the
mandate received from the IPCC Scoping meeting. The information
included in the box is generally applicable to subjects that have boundaries
different from that one of the NGHGI, for which consistency with theseguidelines wishes to be ensured. We refer to those subject as a sub
aggregation of sink/sources compared with the NGHGIMax Collett

Accepted

General Guidance from the application of the ERF to be added, as well as areference to such system.

Dirk Nemitz

Acceptedreferences removed

The title is unclear - what do be consistent? The AFOLU
7246

4

2

3495

3496

projects with IPCC GLs? Or the AFOLU project methodologies

Dirk Nemitz

with IPCC GLs?
First, this whole section is inconsistent with UNFCCC, whichshall be avoided in IPCC GLs! Second, the section mixes
different types of activities which don't belong together, andthus increases risks for errors and misunderstandings. Lastly,
7244

4

2

3495

3591

the purpose of the section remains rather unclear. Sources andreferences are scarce, and a single expert meeting report will
not be sufficient to build such a section. There is also quite
some application of statements that might be true when
considering all sectors, but applying the same statement to the
AFOLU sector alone is unjustified. Detailed comments follow
The Australian Government has developed a framework as partof the Emissions Reduction Fund for ensuring consistency inemissions estimation between AFOLU project-level mitigation
activities, and Australia's GHG inventory and the IPCC inventory
guidelines. The Emissions Reduction Fund is the centralcomponent in the Australian Government's policy suite to reduce
emissions, and operates alongside existing programs such as
the Renewable Energy Target, the National Carbon Offset
Standard and energy efficiency standards on appliances,equipment and buildings. Information is available from

7380

4

2

3497

3498

http://www.environment.gov.au/climatechange/government/emissions-reduction-fund. Experiences
gained under this program can be shared to improve theinformation in Annex 2A.3 - for example there are integrity
standards to ensure emissions estimation methods are
consistent with IPCC and GHG Inventories, as described online
at http://host.cals.wisc.edu/kss/wpcontent/uploads/sites/79/2017/08/3.-Soil-carbon-accountingin-Australia-1.pdf.
Please advise on the most appropriate process or opportunity toprovide examples from the Emissions Reduction Fund program
for the SOD?

7248

4

2

3501

3501

Example of cities seems rather irrelevant in AFOLU chapter

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted with
Modification

the direct reference to CDM has been removed. However, information
provided in the box is relevant for any kind of sub aggregated reporting forwhich consistency with NGHGI wishes to be ensured.

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted with
Modification

REDD-plus activities are implemented also outside the UNFCCC. A footnote
should be added. However, in SOD such footnote isn't showed yet.

Erik Næsset

Accepted

Modify accordingly. However, the SOD still contains such editorial

Dirk Nemitz

Noted

A box doesn't allow to provide an extensive discussion of the subject

Dirk Nemitz

Rejected

The information included in the box is generally applicable to subjects thathave boundaries different from that one of the NGHGI, for which
consistency with these guidelines wishes to be ensured. We refer to thosesubjects as a sub aggregation of sinks/sources compared with those one of
NGHGI

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted with
Modification

we just limited this box to that information that is generally applicable;
although it is recognized that REDD+ may have specific requirements

Noted

The aim of the box isn’t to provide guidance on
projects/programmes/activities reporting. It is just on how to achieve
consistency between sub aggregated inventories and NGHGI"CDM" doesn't really seem to fit here, because at least in the
LULUCF-related methodologies approved under the CDM the
IPCC GPGs and GLs are hardly ever referred to, with minor
exceptions. Corporate level application also seems rather
unlikely, as companies are much more likely to apply certified
7250

4

2

3502

3502

ISO-standards. Most projects also don't actually build on IPCC
GPGs and GLs, e.g. compare the VCS documents, which mainlyrefer to some statistical methodologies of the IPCC to calculate
uncertainties. To keep this section in all of these statements
would need to be underlined with clear evidence that this isactually the case (examples, references, maybe even boxes).
Any use of "REDD-plus" should also clarify that it refers to the
UNFCCC decisions on REDD-plus activities by including afootnote with the appropriate UNFCCC reference (as is done in
the GFOI MGD): "The REDD+ activities as listed in the Cancun

7254

4

2

3502

3502

Agreements (UNFCCC Decision 1/CP.16 paragraph 70) are: (a)Reducing emissions from deforestation; (b) Reducing emissions
from forest degradation; (c) Conservation of forest carbon
stocks; (d) Sustainable management of forests; (e)Enhancement of forest carbon stocks."

2208

4

2

3502

3502

7252

4

2

3503

3503

I guess "REDD+" is more correct (here and elsewhere, e.g. line
3527, footnote 12)
I'm unaware of such use of the IPCC AFOLU GLs, and would
think that this would also require examples, references, etc.
It is difficult and rarely useful to treat in the same section what
is known in the outside world as "projects" and what might be

7258

4

2

3515

3516

known as "(REDD-plus) activities". Approaches, objectives andrequirements between these two categories are just too
different in most cases.
In case this section is supposed to cover REDD-plus activities,
the paragraph here should be much clearer in the requirement

7260

4

2

3515

3519

that REDD-plus should be consistent with the GHGI, and why
there often is a time lag in achieving this REDD-plus
requirement. As it stands the paragraph is leads tomisunderstandings if read in the context of REDD-plus.

7262

4

2

3521

3521

What does this step have to do with the application of the IPCC
GLs? This is standard for all projects/programmes/activities.

Dirk Nemitz

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To line

7264

4

2

3524

3525

Comment
Unclear how "full reporting of legacy emissions and removals"
would be ensured

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Dirk Nemitz

Noted

An example is given in the relevant footnote

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted

Footnote redrafted to ensure that: a) it refers to deforestation and forest
degradation, b) the net difference between to long-term average C stocks
is made at a single point in time (i.e. by assuming instantaneous oxidation)

Erik Næsset

Accepted

Change implemented

Dirk Nemitz

Noted

text made more generic, since it doesn't apply exclusively to REDD+

Dirk Nemitz

Acceptedok, "require" replaced by "apply", since the word require may give theimpression that there is a legal constrain to do so.

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted with
Modification

The text is about likelihood, and it is a general statement. However, it isparticularly true for REDD+, since various countries are applying it at
subnational level and a umber of projects are implemented (including by
WB) at subnational level.

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted

Indeed, this box is about consistency with IPCC methodological guidance.
So it does matter

Dirk Nemitz

Noted

Unfortunately, the entire section will be included within a box, so nochance to further expand it with additional elaborations.

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted with
Modification

Figure 2A.1 has been removed

The footnote contains two major mistakes: 1) Nothing in REDDplus indicates that this would be under a more "limited timeframe" than GHGIs; 2) the GFOI MGD provides decision trees
7266

4

2

3525

3525

for choosing gain-loss or stock-change method, but doesn't
recommend one method explicitly. In addition, choice of
methods may also largely depend upon which of the 5 REDDplus activities is actually implemented.

2210

4

2

3538

3538

I guess you mean "a single category"This reveals a very important concept, which should be more
explicit: subnational implementation of REDD-plus activities is

7268

4

2

3542

3542

an interim step only, the objective is national level
implementation just as with the GHGI. This is another reason
why addressing projects and REDD-plus activities in the same
section may be a rather poor choice.

Unclear which activities are addressed here. Also, reasons for
why Tier 2 or 3 would be "required" are not given. This needs
7270

4

2

3543

3546

further explanation. To my understanding, and particularly for
REDD-plus activities, Tier 2 or 3 would be useful for some pools
and activities, while Tier 1 is fully sufficient for others for the
moment (e.g. litter).
This is not true in case this section should also cover REDD-

7272

4

2

3554

3555

plus, as REDD-plus activities aim for implementation at thenational level, just like GHGIs
Unclear. What does "whether" mean here? Does it matter that

7274

4

2

3555

3557

data is collected and analysed consistency with good practice,or does it not matter?
This is all true, in a way, but very vague. How would these

7276

4

2

3557

3564

bullets help someone working on such matters? This would
require some elaboration on how this can be done, andpotentially boxes with examples.

7278

4

2

3565

3566

The sentence is not understandable.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Dirk Nemitz

Noted

as noted, information in the box is generally applicable to subjects thathave boundaries different from that one of the NGHGI, for which
consistency with these guidelines wishes to be ensured. So, no need todifferentiate among those typologies

Dirk Nemitz

Noted

Unfortunately, the entire section will be included within a box, so nochance to further expand it with additional elaborations.

Max Collett

Accepted

the reference to confidentiality is removed

Anke Herold

AcceptedBox 2.1 has been changed to Box 2.0b with some additional explanation.

David Reay

Accepted

Figure 2A.1 clearly shows that the authors are conceptually
unclear regarding what they would like to cover: all sectors or
specific to AFOLU? "Projects" and "activities" of smaller scale?
(why would these need consistency with the GHGI when the

7280

4

2

3569

3571

applied project standard is different, and more rigorous, andrequired for participation?) Or large-scale programmes such as
REDD-plus activities, which aim at national level
implementation? Many questions remain open here regarding
objective and applicability of the chapter.
This is a rather theoretical list which doesn't seem wrong, but

7282

4

2

3572

3584

also doesn't seem to be rooted in practical experiences and bestpractice. Some further elaboration based on examples and howto explanations would be required to make this useful.
The authors correctly identify that there may be issues ofconfidentiality. However their suggestion that the data should
not be used where there may be issues of confidentiality
appears to be excessive. Avoiding use of such data due topotential confidentiality issues could result in not using the best

7378

4

2

3583

3584

available data, and reduced accuracy of the methods andinventory reporting. Many sectors deal with confidential
information, which can be handled through aggregation andother approaches. This should not be a concern for the IPCC
guidelines, as it can be dealt with by UNFCCC reporting andreview requirements, and ensuring that reviewers are provided
access to confidential data.
It would be useful for the understanding to add the presentation

9746

4

2

Box 2.1of an equation in a less generic form in the last paragraph andto add a typical example that uses DBH, tree height etc.

36

4

2

Box 2.2

Typo in penultimate para:should be '…are not dependent...
The explanation of the active, slow and passive pools lacklinkage of what these pools present in practice and how they
can be determined. In the description they appear as a rather
theoretical construction for the model and it is difficult to
9768

4

2

Box 2.6

understand how this is linked to C stock flows in soils inpractice. The description misses explanation how all theparameters were derived, how the model was calibrated, howwell it is able to model C stock changes in soils that occur inlong-term field studies.

Anke Herold

Noted

The papers that are referenced provide an explanation of the pools andhow carbon flows between them. The parameter values are derived byfitting to experimental data, which is described in more detail in thesecond order draft

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' noteAnke Herold

Accepted

Text has been altered to ensure that it is clear that these countries havecalibrated and validated the approaches against independentmeasurements.

Anke Herold

Accepted

This was not the intension of what was put into Box 2.7. The last part ofthis sentence has been deleted

Anke Herold

AcceptedAnke Herold

Accepted

Example Australia; Japan, USA: It would be useful to add
information how the model results were verified with

9780

4

2

Box 2.7

independent measurement data and how this should be done(see example for Finland which is the only example where this
aspect is addressed)
Example Australia, Finland, Japan: in the introduction it is said

9782

4

2

Box 2.7that the examples show how using a tier 3 model has changed
the results, but this is not the case for the three examples.
The section misses a clear methodological description, and only
includes three examples. This is not what is expected from IPCC
Guidelines, Key components of the method such as backgroundlevel are mentioned. But not explained at all. Please introduce

9830

4

2

box 2.15

generic features of a method before introducing the examples.
Instead of providing a method the chapter refers to some

Revised the text to describe generic methods and then explainthat the three boxes are examples of the implementations.,

methodological descriptions in NIR. This doesn't seem to begood practice and is not helpful for the users. Either provide aclear method or delete the chapter ion interannual variability.
Unclear why method is described in a box (box 2.15)
The default fractions have no values. These should have beenpart of the expert review as this is the stage when the data canbe assessed. As these are not yet provided, this confirms the
proposal that it would be better to delete the Tier 1 approach
when experts haven't been able to compile such parameters so
9774

4

2

Table 2.5

far. The government review is too late to check the suggested
default parameters by experts. In addition the table seems to

The values were not ready for the first order draft. They were inserted into
the second order draft, which is also subject to expert review.

suggest only one value without any range, this does not seem tobe reliable. Also the lack of indication of any conditions apartfrom the production method on the default values for biochar
remaining after 1000 years is not in line with scientific literatureand common sense.

For what soil types., climate and management conditions havethese parameters been derived. No references or sources arepresented in take 2.6, no ranges, nor uncertainties are provided.
It seems highly unlikely that the parameters do not have high
9770

4

2

Table 2.6

uncertainties. The current table does not need the standards
IPCC default parameters should gave (Provision of sources andreferences, explanations for which conditions the default
parameters are valid, ranges and uncertainties in addition to thedefault values.

Anke Herold

Accepted

For the first order draft the values were derived for 0-20 cm soils. Revised
values for 0-30cm were developed. A statement was added to the table toreflect the number and locations of the studies used in the derivation of
the 0-30 cm values. Uncertainties associated with the parameters were
derived and provided. An annex was added describing how the parameters
and uncertainty values were derived using Bayesian calibration methods.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' noteAnke Herold

Noted

This table has not been updated and is the same as in 2006 guidelines. No
additional values could be inserted because it was out of scope with thetable of contents approved by the IPCC plenary. Since the values inquestion are not based on multiple data sources, derivation of a standard
deviation value was not possible. We agree that values should be updated
in future revisions.

Anke Herold

Noted

Anke Herold

AcceptedAnke Herold

Accepted

Stoécio Maia

AcceptedRoland Hiederer

Accepted with
Modification

The updated EF for agricultural residues are not in line with
GPG standards for IPCC Guidelines. SD is missing and notreferences are provided. It is not sufficiently to say 'expert
assessment by authors'. This is not an appropriate qualification
9790

4

2

Table 2.9

for a default parameter which cannot be assessed by inventory
compilers as no references can be assessed. If countries use
such expert assessment it is usually not accepted by antechnical expert review. It is not acceptable that IPCC
Guidelines produce default parameters with lower standards.
Please add references used as well as SD.

9812

4

2

Table 2.10

The table is a useful overview
1st diamond: are data for the application of allometric equations

9748

4

2

Fig 2.3

available? From the text it is not completely clear which data isneeded as a minimum. This could be clarified in the text. It isalso unclear to what other methods the decision tree refers to
Question "Can limitations be amended?" It is not very clear how
users should answer this question and to describe how

9750

4

2

Fig 2.3

limitations can be amended and how not. It would be useful if
the text would reference the decision tree better and explain theindividual steps. AT the moment the decision tree seems a bit
delinked from the text.

6564

4

2

Fig 2.5

Figure 2.5 - There is a error in penultimate triangle - Arechanges n C stocks in mineral soils a key category1?
Main comments:• The elaborations on mixing Approaches (transitions between
categories) and Tiers (methods) are to extensive and in places
very confusing.
• There are many references to spatial data and analysis that

566

4

3

generalwould be better moved to the Annex. There are some missrepresentations of spatial data formats and analysis capacities.
• The remote sensing part should go to the Annex, where someof it already resides. The section also contains generalreferences to LU (land use) and LC (land cover), which weretreated separately in previous sections of the Chapter.

These general comments are very useful and have been taken into
consideration in revising the Second Order Draft.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Ana Blondel

Noted

No action Required

AcceptedRole of remote sensing is limited to identifying land categories and activity
data where applicable which is captured in this chapter while otherchapters focus on emissions and removals for each land category. We have
kept remote sensing discussion to required level to inform inventory
compilers. Further we included several references such as GFOI methods
guidance document where more detailed (cookbook style) information canbe found.

Accepted

Some sections where no refinement was expected are not highlighted ingrey (e.g., introduction, uncertainty) as during the process a refinement
was made in that section for consistency or because it was considered that
it was better fitting in that place.
Box 3.1 Sweden case study has been deleted. This comment, therefore, is
not relevant in the Second Order Draft (SOD).

NOTE: Due to strong time constraints within our Division at thistime of the year (right in the middle of the GHG-NIR production
cycle) I could not review Vol 4, Chapters 2, 3 and 12 as I was

6040

4

3

planning to. Hope to have a better chance to review thesegeneralchapters in the upcoming SOD version.
In any case, I hope this short list of observations can be still
useful at this point.
Overall: Most text corresponding to my expertise (remotesensing of LULC and vegetation) is in Vol. 4, Ch.3. I also looked
through other chapters and made a few comments. A generalcomment - When reading Vol 4 Chs 4-7, it does not seem readily
apparent that there is a large role for remote sensing for these
3420

4

3

1

1

types of LCLUs. So I wonder why significant description of
remote sensing and classification is given in the preceding

Doug Kingchapter (Vol 4 Ch 3). Linkages between such remote sensing
data and methods with Vol 4 Chs 4-7 should be made more
explicit if such linkages actually exist. Otherwise, I would
recommend reducing the text on remote sensing data types,
classification and temporal analysis significantly in Vol 4, Ch. 3.
It is not clear why some sections are shown in the ToC with grey
9324

4

3

5

5

highlighting while some others are not even though no

Nalin Srivastava

refinements are proposed for those sections (e.g., 3.1)
2996

4

3

55

55

Replace sweden by Sweden.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

2998

4

3

56

56

Replace rs by RS.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Replaced rs with RS

3000

4

3

59

59

Replace Argentina by Argentina.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Replaced Argentina with Argentina.

4626

4

3

59

60

Argentina, Kenya

KEWEI YUSee Author's note to comment ID 3000 and 3002

3002

4

3

60

60

Replace kenya by Kenya.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Box 3.4 Case study 4 has been deleted in the Second Order Draft (SOD).

74

4

3

68

68

Please check if IPPC is IPCC.

Mingshan Su

Accepted

Replaced "IPPC" with "IPCC"

5378

4

3

68

68

IPPC land-use categories --> IPCC

Markus Haakana

Accepted

Replaced "IPPC" with "IPCC"

7294

4

3

68

68

IPPC should likely be IPCC

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted

Replaced "IPPC" with "IPCC"

9326

4

3

68

68

Replace "IPPC" with "IPCC"

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

Replaced "IPPC" with "IPCC"

9328

4

3

70

70

"...assist the inventory developer in their implementation"

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

Changed "the" to "their"

Accepted

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

AcceptedDefinitions added: land cover is "the observed physical and biological coverof the earth's land, as vegetation or man-made features." Land use is "thetotal of arrangements, activities, and inputs that people undertake in acertain land cover type" (FAO, 1997a; FAO/UNEP, 1999;
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=45)

Roland Hiederer

Accepted with
Modification

There is no priority but we provided another example and clarification;note that grazing land refers to a KP activity and as such we cannot directly
use the suggestion

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Text modified as suggested

Accepted

Deleted references to fresh water.

Accepted

Text has been amended to include uplift and other biophysical or politicalprocesses resulting in change in land area.

Accepted

It is important to be consistent with the guidance provided by Wetland
Supplement. Deleted reference to fresh water and adding land-use. As
such, this should then refer to all areas under the six IPCC Land-use
categories, hence dealing with issues of if and how fresh, brackish and salt
water are included. The definition then sits with the countries definition ofeach land use class.

It would be very useful to add definitions of land-use and landcover (in the glossary or in a box) to ensure that terminology isclear. It would also be interesting to add an example on how
123

4

3

86

92

woody crops with FCC higher than the one used to define
forests can be considered by the country as cropland, and not

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

necessarily forest land. SUGGESTION: add definitions for landuse and land cover, add example on woody crops with high FCC.
This may not a very good example.
Forest Land has higher priority than Grazing land and forest
568

4

3

95

95

areas that are grazed would fall under the Forest category andnot considered as grazing land, to avoid double accounting. The
example may confuse the issue.

3514

4

3

98

98

The word "additional" is not needed
it is unclear why fresh water is singled out here, it is either

124

4

3

109

109

managed or unmanaged. SUGGESTION: delete "and fresh
water"

5386

4

3

109

109

Also land uplift relative to sea level

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ
Markus Haakana

Page 3.6. With the introduction of coastal wetlands in the 2013
IPCC Guidelines, it seems the land area should not exclude
5918

4

3

109

109

brackish and saltwater areas that may be included in a country’s
land base. There is also a reference to freshwater on page 3.21,
lines 525, 543 that will need adjustment if this comment is
accepted.

Vincent Camobreco

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Iordanis Tzamtzis

AcceptedTo ensure consistency with reporting guidelines, text has been updated tostate that sum of all areas of land-use (managed and unmanaged) should
remain constant through time.

Anna Romanovskaya

Accepted with
Modification

To ensure consistency with reporting guidelines, text has been updated tostate that sum of all areas of land-use (managed and unmanaged) should
remain constant through time.

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Text modified as suggested

The total country area should remain constant through the timeseries. In cases where the total area changes due to reasons
like reclamation/inundation the total area should remain stable,
by assigning these changes in respective land-use change
categories. So the following text is proposed at the end of thepara: "Taking into consideration that the total (sum of all land
managed and unmanaged) area should remain constant along
3654

4

3

110

112

the time-series, by assigning the gain or loss of the land areas
to respective land-use change categories."
Note that any new area has to be entered in a land use change
category for a proper quantification of GHG net
emissions/removals. Consequently, any such area has to bereported under its previous land use, which in turn makes thetotal area of the country constant across time. Thus, theproposed text on variability of country area across time isinconsistent with reporting guidance.
to make a point more clear it should be "...document the cause

1618

4

3

111

112

of the change and consistently add to the reporting the gain orloss of new land areas in the inventory"

4628

4

3

111

111

3004

4

3

113

113

good practice in italic
In Chapter 2, good practice is always written in italic.
Standardization is required.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Suggestion taken, all references to good practice have been updated toitalic font.

I propose to delete this sentence. Indeed, changes in areas
caused by methodological differences are just inconsistencies inthe time series which must be deleted. Alternatively, you may
3516

4

3

113

114

amend the text as follows: "Where the land or total area

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted with
Modification

To ensure consistency with reporting guidelines, text has been updated tostate that sum of all areas of land-use (managed and unmanaged) should
remain constant through time.

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

Text amended (see Author's response to comment ID 3516).

Vincent Camobreco

RejectedMoving lands to unmanaged status is not considered in this review as it isout of scope of 2019 Refinement.

changes due to methodological reasons, it is good practice toremove such bias by applying methods for time seriesconsistency, in accordance with Chapter 5 of Volume 1."
It is important to include here the need to perform recalculations
9330

4

3

113

114

to ensure time series consistency in case the total land areachanges due to any of these reasons.
Page 3.6. There will be some cases where a country’s definition

5920

4

3

115

121

of managed land will over time result in land falling out of the
managed category and option 2 is a reasonable way to deal withthis issue.

Comment
ID
1620

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' noteAnna Romanovskaya

Rejected

This is not applicable. None of these proposed transitions meet thedefinition of unmanaged as noted on page 3.6 (and unchanged from 2006
GL). In these cases the lands would move between categories orsubcategories, but would remain managed

Paula Ollila

Accepted with
Modification

Moving lands to unmanaged status is not considered in this review as it isout of scope of 2019 Refinement.

Tarja Tuomainen

Accepted with
Modification

Moving lands to unmanaged status is not considered in this review as it isout of scope of 2019 Refinement.

Nalin Srivastava

Noted

No action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement. Managed land cannot revert to unmanaged land.

Mattias Lundblad

Noted

No action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement. Managed land cannot revert to unmanaged land.

land can be moved to unmanaged. Fores or other area could
4

3

122

128

became a national parks. Or some areas could be affected bynatural watering or flooding and therefore these area would not
be used as previously.
If option 2) is chosen, I would suggest adding a text box with

5372

4

3

122

128

concrete examples of the cases. How should the land areas bemonitored, does this mean some separate monitoring in addition
to the normal land use monitoring?

I welcome the authors to raise this question of transitions
between managed and unmanaged lands. In same cases it
would be correct to include a previously managed land area inunmanaged category. But, to establish the rules is tricky. If thiskind of rules are intended to give in the GLs, different kind oftransitions should be discussed. When a mineral soil forest land
6696

4

3

122

128

turn to barren open land, the anthropogenic emissions can be
expected to cease in due corse. If the soil is peat and a drained
area is rewetted, the CH4 emissions will increase, and continue
for ever. Are these CH4 emissions anthropogenic or not? This is
only to encourage the authors to consider this question from all
sides. The normal monitoring of lands is adequate for thesetransitions, and no extra guidance to follow separately theselands is not needed.
Managed land cannot move to unmanaged (the legacy effects
are far too significant for the assumption to work). And definitely

9332

4

3

122

128

not in such a short time span (i.e. 20 years) which is barely
enough for the soil and DOM pools to reach steady state levels.
Strongly suggest not revising the existing assumption in the2006 GLs that managed land cannot revert to unmanaged land.
Land can change form managed to unmanaged. Depending on
the definitions used by a country there may be a "grey area"
where managed land (of any kind) may be very close to
unmanaged. For instance if a broad definition is used for forests

9666

4

3

122

128

the extreme case would be very close to not being a forest but
more likely belonging to one of the unmanaged categories usedby the country (for instance wetland or other land). I think itshould be up the country to decide whether this is possible ornot. It should be allowed to report natural degeneration ofmanaged land to unmanaged land as LUC.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Noted

No action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement. Managed land cannot revert to unmanaged land.

Noted

No action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement. Managed land cannot revert to unmanaged land.

Noted

No action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement. Managed land cannot revert to unmanaged land.

Accepted

Where Countries choose to develop country-specific methods foraddressing issues of interannual variability (IAV), it is good practice todescribe the methods used to disaggregate the land areas subject tonatural disturbances (see Section 2.6 in Chapter 2 of Volume 4).

Vincent Camobreco

Rejected

The IAV work was requested as an update, and as such it remains in
discussion. We cannot delete this unless there is a final decision on IAV
itself. See Author's notes to comment ID 1622

Tarja Tuomainen

Accepted with
Modification

The IAV work was requested as an update, and as such it remains in
discussion. We cannot delete this unless there is a final decision on IAV
itself. See Author's notes to comment ID 1622

Nalin Srivastava

Rejected

The IAV work was requested as an update, and as such it remains in
discussion. We cannot delete this unless there is a final decision on IAV
itself. See Author's notes to comment ID 1622 and 1624

It might not be true that land can move from managed tounmanaged. For example, in Mediterranean countries, managed
125

4

3

124

125

lands (for example, cropland) can degrade due to desertification CRISTINA GARCIA
and turn into unmanaged "other lands". SUGGESTION: revisit

DIAZ

the paragraph and delete this reference. Preference for "option
2" with the wording reflected in next comment.
Realistically, there are very few circumstances in which
managed land could become fully free of subsequent humanintervention. The fact that it was managed once implies that it is
7810

4

3

126

126

able to be affected by human actions. Great caution should be

Maya Hunt

exercised before managed land can effectively be removed fromany obligation to report on emissions, as a result of being reclassed as 'unmanaged'.

there is not need to monitor the lands that moved frommanaged to unmanaged, the resources burden of thismonitoring can be unapproachable. National statistics and maps
126

4

3

127

128

will take care that they will enter in the system again if they are
managed. SUGGESTION: The sentence should say "Countries

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

will ensure that if these lands become managed again, they will
be included in the inventory again".
"Countries may develop country specific methods for addressing
issues of interannual variability (IAV) to disaggregate
1622

4

3

129

130

anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic emissions and removals

Anna Romanovskaya(see Section 2.X) IF THEY INTEND TO EXCLUDE EMISSIONSAND REMOVALS FROM NDs". Please add that.
5922

4

3

129

134

This text should be removed as well as the section oninterannual variability in chapter 2.
This a new element in GHGI. If emissions from wildfire on forest
land is reported, the area (usually) is used as AD. Cant see the

6700

4

3

129

134

advantage, if it should be discriminated from total forest land
and report separately. This kind of guidance promote thereporting of land areas by unit by unit and continuous
monitoring of them. Suggest to delete this section.
SUGGEST DELETING THIS PARA. IAV is addressed in the

9334

4

3

129

134

underlying assumptions of MLP. There is absolutely no need to
add an additional layer of factoring out.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To line

9668

4

3

129

134

1624

4

3

131

134

570

4

3

135

135

Comment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Mattias Lundblad

Accepted with
Modification

We have simplified the paragraph to a single sentence, noting that IAV
might be an issue and needs to be considered. We then refer readers to
Chapter 2, Volume 4 - IAV section.

Here there is no IAV. Only discussion about ND. Please, change. Anna Romanovskaya

Accepted

We have simplified the paragraph to a single sentence, noting that IAV
might be an issue and needs to be considered. We then refer readers to
Chapter 2, Volume 4 - IAV section.

"For" in sentence should be "for".

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Change 'For' to 'for'

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Sentence reformulated as suggested.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Agree this needs further work and clarification. There also appears to besome typos in this section as noted below.

Strange to have this sentences on IAV here. The section is on
Land use categories.

This is a complex and confusing sentence. It would be better tosplit the sentence according to the matter addressed.
Possible:
The spatial resolution of the national land use map may becoarser than the definitions used to describe the land-use

572

4

3

135

139

categories (e.g., if the forest definition applied by a country
includes a minimum area, of say one hectare for example, yet
the available land-use mapping minimum unit size is fivehectares). This may lead to a situation where small(unidentified) areas of one land-use category are reported underanother category.

This method can become problematic under Approach 3.
It introduces a mismatch between the spatial data and the
578

4

3

135

143

reported data, without such a change being reflected in thespatial data. It would then not be treated as a change in land
use category in the temporal sequence of spatial data.
As the resolution of the national land use, mapping may be For

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Sentence reformulated as suggested in comment 572

This text is not understandable. I suggest to delete it.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Sentence reformulated as suggested in comment 572

135change For in lower case

Alicia Villamizar

Accepted

Sentence reformulated as suggested in comment 572

135

135

For, lower case

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Sentence reformulated as suggested in comment 572

3

135

135

Jongsu Yim

Accepted

Sentence reformulated as suggested in comment 572

4

3

135

135

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted

Sentence reformulated as suggested in comment 572

9944

4

3

135

143

Simone Rossi

Accepted

Sentence reformulated as suggested in comment 572

574

4

3

139

140

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

This does require further elaboration

3006

4

3

135

135

3518

4

3

135

143

3672

4

3

135

4630

4

3

6276

4

7296

the cases where... Improved redaction required.

the sentence may be typing mistake : "mapping may be For thecases ~~"
Sentence incomplete
Please reword this part, it is not clear, especially the lines 135
and 136.
How should such areas be treated when they do not belong to
the same category? Explain.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Raul Abad Viñas

Accepted

This does require further elaboration

classification. Instead, they were below the detection limit of the Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Sentence reformulated as suggested in comment 572

Accepted with
Modification

2006 IPCC Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories and the 2019
Refinement provide guidance broad enough to classify all land areas in acountry without being specific on how to classify these lands. It is largely
be up to the country to do this within current categories and definitions.

In my opinion the fact that small areas that match a land-use
definition are reported under other land use category defined in
the map, because the map’s resolution is not able to identify

2868

4

3

139

140

such areas, leads to potential under-over estimation of CSC thatshould be avoided. The sentence in the FOD seems to allow
such lack of consistency among the methods used to derive
activity data and the land use definitions used in the inventory.
This needs further clarification.

The term "misclassified" is misleading.
These areas were not "misclassified" as an error in the
576

4

3

143

143

method user and thus add to the uncertainty of theclassification.
What class does Arctic tundra fall into? Same for alpine. Bothmay have lichens, mosses, shrubs, grasses etc. In some areas of
3422

4

3

144

144

the world they can be managed (e.g. as pasture). These, andDoug Kingany other such major land cover types should be specified ifthey are to be incorporated into one of the six existing classes.
3008

4

3

154

154

Perhaps the term bushes could replace brushes.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Changed "Brushes" to "bushes".

Doug King

Added 'other wetland types' to bracketed text.

Focus on "peatlands" by naming them twice here is perhaps too
3424

4

3

158

159

much - not all wetlands are peatlands. Perhaps change 2nd

Accepted

occurrence to: "(e.g. peatlands; other wetland types)".
3010

4

3

165

165

Perhaps include deserts.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Rejected

The whole section is rather general about its guidance. Several

No action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement. The qualifying text "and areas that do not fall into any of theother five categories.' is considered sufficient to cover deserts.

aspects that could be added include guidance on adequate
procedures for e.g. existing model use/choice/calibration and/or
development. I do believe this is fundamental. Guidance isprovided on model use it has been selected but the preliminary
9198

4

3

166

266

process is missing. This assumption is not always fulfilled andwe have seen countries sometimes make choices based on nontechnically sound criteria. There is a broad set of literaturedeveloped in the last years on development, choice and use ofallometric models for REDD+ implementation the authors could
capitalize on.

Nasikoa AguilarAmuchastegui

Rejected

This is a very broad comment. Further, this section is not about systemdesign and development: this remains the responsibility of the country anddetails are provided in other chapters. Other documents (such as the GFOI)
provide more of a 'cookbook' approach that can be used as needed.
Further, we are not dealing with REDD+ here, and this is about lands notallometry etc which is part of the biomass section.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Suggested text alternative inserted with thanks.

The initial reporting year for inventories can be other than 1990. Markus Haakana

Accepted

Text revised to remove specific reference to years. Text suggestion fromcomment 3520 was adopted.

Accepted

Text revised to remove specific reference to years. Text suggestion fromcomment 3520 was adopted.

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

Text revised to remove specific reference to years. Text suggestion fromcomment 3520 was adopted.

Mattias Lundblad

Accepted with
Modification

Text revised to remove specific reference to years. Text suggestion fromcomment 3520 was adopted.

Acceptedlegacy emissions are important but this text including reference toemissions and removals in 1990 has been deleted. Further guidance on lag
emissions has been provided elsewhere in the section.

Accepted

Data selection and use is the responsibility of each country to ensure they
can meet the reporting requirements

It is not up to IPCC establishing the date of the initial inventory.
I understand the objective of this text, although it needs to be
redrafted; e.g.: "To accurately report the area of conversion
categories in the first year of the GHG inventory time series

3520

4

3

197

201

requires estimates of land-use changes before the initial year.
The length of the time series depends on the transition period
which is by default 20 years. Where data are not available,techniques provided in chapter 5 of Volume 1 on consistency oftime series can be used."

5388

4

3

197

197

The attempt to fix 1990 as standard start year isunderstandable, but it seems to be more an accounting than a
7298

4

3

197

201

reporting issue. However, in this case some guidance should be Dirk Nemitz
included for countries that would not be in possession of theappropriate data.

9336

4

3

197

201

The initial reporting year (base year) for some countries (EIT) is
not 1990. Revise.
This information about the importance to have information prior
to the starting date of reporting may be included but given as an
example using 1990 as the starting year. IPCC cannot pre-judge

9670

4

3

197

201

the starting year of reporting, that´s to be decided by the
COP/CMP, for instance as in 24/CP19. Propose to change thefirst sentence to "The initial reporting year for inventories ,asreported by Annex-I parties to the UNFCCC, is 1990" or "Theinitial reporting year for inventories is often 1990".
Emissions and removals in 1990 will not just be the result of

7802

4

3

198

198

land use conversions before that year, but also historical

Maya Huntmanagement (eg, logging) and past natural disturbances.
Suggest to remove "available data and".
580

4

3

200

200

The length of the time series depends on the reporting rule. Any Roland Hiederer
deviation would have to be explained.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Raul Abad Viñas

Accepted

Guidance on lag emissions has been provided elsewhere in the document.

Andreas Gensior

Accepted

Guidance on lag emissions has been provided elsewhere in the document.

Simone Rossi

Accepted

Text modified as suggested

Ermias Betemariam

Rejected

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

It would be necessary clarify that, for an accurate reporting oflagged emissions, the length of the time series prior 1990 shouldtake into account not only the period in which a unit of land
moves for "converted" into a "remaining" category, but also, theperiod after which a carbon pool that is subject to a land usechange, or change in management practices (mainly SOC), is
considered in equilibrium. These two time periods could be

2870

4

3

200

201

different, mostly when using Tier3 methods. A good example of
how the reporting of lagged emissions needs to consider theperiod to reach the equilibrium of carbon stock is given by lands
not subject to land use change prior to 1990 but subject tochanges in soils management practices (for instance in 1985),
that will lead to lagged emissions that would need to bereported from 1990 until the year in which the equilibrium isreached.
Do we really have the choice? The default transition time for

5352

4

3

200

201

soils is 20 years. To achieve balance concerning C stocks insoils after land use change, periods much longer than 20 years
are necessary in part (according to the relevant literature).

9946

4

3

200

201

9576

4

3

222

222

9338

4

3

223

223

"text from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines"

Nalin Srivastava

Rejected

Lack of sufficient detail to address this comment. Ignore

3674

4

3

232

232

to write Remote Sensing (RS)

Alicia Villamizar

Accepted

Change: "RS" by "Remote Sensing (RS)"

6278

4

3

240

240

the difference between tier and approach (?)

Jongsu Yim

Accepted

Replaced "tiers" with system

Jongsu Yim

Accepted

Paragraph has been redrafted to clarify the intent.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Deleted the following sentence: 'Otherwise accuracy is often affected asmuch or more by the quality of application of the Approach as by theApproach itself.'

Alicia Villamizar

Accepted

We have simplified this text to make it clearer. Specific examples on
combining data are covered in example box and elsewhere in the chapter.

State that that period is called transition period
Table 3.1. replace "High activity clay" and "Low activity clay"
with Clay

Why the accuracy will be increased by applying approach 3 ? I
6280

4

3

241

243

don't understand the relationship between approach andaccuracy.
This is a generic comment. It does not specify what the term

582

4

3

243

244

"quality" in the context it relates to.
As such it is not useful to better understand the requirements
and could be deleted.

3676

4

3

245

249

how could manage all different approaches from all countries interms of emissions and removals?

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted

Further guidance provided on this issue - "Where different data are
combined, it is good practice to describe how the data are used together
and demonstrate how these data cover all the land-uses and provide timeseries consistent results"

Accepted

This sentence has been amended - "Where different data are combined, it
is good practice to describe how the data are used together anddemonstrate how these data cover all the land-uses and provide timeseries consistent results"

Accepted

This sentence has been amended - "Where different data are combined, it
is good practice to describe how the data are used together anddemonstrate how these data cover all the land-uses and provide timeseries consistent results"

Doug King

Rejected

We are not required to report on unmanaged lands. The examples here are
actually managed by the definition in the current 2006 GL (and we are notchanging that definition). If a human induce event occurs, then the lands
move from unmanaged to managed and are reported as such, including all
future C stock changes

Alicia Villamizar

Accepted

Text modified as suggested

Rejected

No action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement. This table belongs to 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Need to ensure
consistency with other chapters and also as such this type of changes areout of scope of 2019 Refinement.

How to standardize measurements that are taken by combining
several approaches? if each country takes a particular aspect of
3678

4

3

245

249

each approach and other countries take other aspects, be they
the same approaches, or only some of the three, how to ensure

Alicia Villamizar

that the regional or global estimates are comparable? How toensure consistency in terms of emissions and removals?
A reference to time series consistency seems to be missing
127

4

3

248

249

here. SUGGESTION: add "and should ensure time seriesconsistency." at the end of the sentence.
It seems there is a jump in the topics here as no transition

9210

4

3

248

249

occurs when moving from one time measurements to change
measurement. A liaison paragraph would be ideal here.

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ
Nasikoa AguilarAmuchastegui

Carbon stocks on unmanaged lands assumed to remain
constant': What about abandoned farms? What if
3426

4

3

280

281

anthropogenic climate change reduces the forest fire return
period such that fires occur more often in younger forests thanin the past? Do these and other such scenarios warrant
attention for inventories?

3680

4

3

299

299

include one space
Table 3.3. "Unimproved" and "Improved" could be changed tomore modern terms. "improved" depends on the perspective. I

3428

4

3

381

381

would call rangeland grazed for beef "unimproved" from anecological perspective. Abandoning it or managing it towards its
former per-settlement state would "improve" it.

Doug King

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Rejected

No action can be taken because IPCC should not give policy prescriptive
guidance. How countries choose to further partition the five carbon pools
is a national decision and need not be further disaggregated in theseguidelines.

Alicia Villamizar

Rejected

No action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement. Existing text from 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

Alicia Villamizar

Rejected

No action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement. Existing text from 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

Mattias Lundblad

Noted

Authors think showing an example helps. FAO is referred to just as an
example.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted with
Modification

Sentence edited as follows, 'Sample based and wall-to-wall methods can beused to estimate land-use area and land-use conversions.

Erik Næsset

Accepted

Sentence has been rewritten to clarify the difference between the threemethods for estimating land-use change - Sample based, survey based andand wall-to-wall methods.

This balance can vary significantly among natural ecosystems,
and even more so between systems that have been intervened. I
suggest consider that the inventories include: live and deadbiomass, aerial and subterranean, especially vegetation that is
the most dynamic compartment within continental systems; theforms and quantities of carbon compounds in the soil, with theorganic carbon in the soil (SOC) being the most important.
Secondly, exchange flows with the atmosphere must be known,
3682

4

3

411

413

considering that the most important are primary productivity and Alicia Villamizar
respiration (including the losses due to decomposition of thebiomass and decomposition of the COS). Other important flows
come from the activity of fire, from the transformation of one
type of vegetation into another, or from the expansion of the
agricultural and / or urban frontiers. It may be necessary toreview this period of time in the light of a better knowledge ofthese flows and residence times in each component (soilmoisture, plant, atmosphere) for example.

3684

4

3

457

457

3686

4

3

457

457

9688

4

3.3.2

462

463

584

4

3

466

466

I suggest it is necessary to include afforestation, understandingthat it can create forest lands that were not previously.
Afforestation is the artificial establishment of forests by planting
or seeding in an area of non- forest landStarting box. Is it really relevant to give examples of datasets
here. FAO data may not be the moset relevant source of data.
Suggest: "spatially explicit"
Excuse me, but this is a mess. What is the difference between"spatially explicit" and "spatially referenced"? My understandingis that these terms mean exactly the same thing - data withknown location (georeferenced). Maybe what you want tocharacterise here - in addition to known geolocation (which is a

2212

4

3

466

469

common property for all Approach 3 methods) is "spatiallycontinuous" (e.g. a map or remotely sensed image) as opposed
to sample data (spatially discontinuous). Further, the definitionof "spatially explicit" (with reference to set of grid cells or small
polygons) is not consistent with text in line 441-442 and text inprevious chapters of this volume.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Mattias Lundblad

Accepted

Sentence has been rewritten to clarify the difference between the threemethods for estimating land-use change - Sample based, survey based andand wall-to-wall methods.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Sentence has been rewritten to clarify the difference between the threemethods for estimating land-use change - Sample based, survey based andand wall-to-wall methods.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Sentence has been rewritten to clarify the difference between the threemethods for estimating land-use change - Sample based, survey based andand wall-to-wall methods.

Mattias Lundblad

Noted

This paragraph has been substantially re-drafted in SOD. See thecomments above.

Erik Næsset

Accepted

Sentence has been rewritten to clarify the difference between the threemethods for estimating land-use change - Sample based, survey based andand wall-to-wall methods.

To my knowledge the definition of "spatially explicit" is "spatially
explicit means having a location that can be identified on the
ground using geographical coordinates and applies to bothindividual sampling sites and exhaustive tessellations obtained
from wall-to-wall remotely sensed data". Therefore, thedivisions in the categories as proposed in the text must be
9672

4

3

466

469

changed since both wall-to-wall and sample based NFI:s can bereferred to as spatially explicit. Propose to use the following
sub-headings to "Wall-to-wall methods" (row 470), "Sample
based methods " (row 497), "Land unit or stand-based" (row555) and to delete references to spatially-explicit and spatiallyreferenced in the headings. These terms may be explained anddefined on row 466-469- as well as information how they apply
to different sampling methods.
This refers to "spatially referenced data", not "method".

586

4

3

467

468

There are, to my understanding, no "spatially referenced
methods" that present the matter. There are spatial analysis
methods that a re applied to spatially referenced data.
This is not correct as stated: it is not "often".

Data may be collected at point locations, such as soil or landuse data from ground surveys. At least for the last 30 years
588

4

3

468

469

these data were geo-coded or geo-referenced. There are
surveys without a point reference, such as surveys foradministrative regions. These survey data are still spatiallyreferenced, just to an area rather than a point.
Suggest to change "collected by survey is often not referenced

9690

4

3.3.2

468

469

spatially to a specific location" to "collected by survey is notalways referenced spatially to a specific location
This heading is confusing and misleading. "Spatially explicit" is
not the same as "wall-to-wall" see previous comment and

2214

4

3

470

470

previous definition of "spatially explicit" in this chapter and inother chapters of Vol 4 (maybe even Vol 1?). Perhaps you mean
spatially continuous. This comment also pertains to the entire
text of this section.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted

Sub-headings have been updated to reflect the three methods noted above
for estimating land-use change

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Updated text.

Erik Næsset

Accepted

See Section 'Converting land cover into land use'

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Changed 'land-cover' to 'land cover'Doug King

Accepted with
Modification

Added additional text on attribution and what it aims to do. For land cover
to land-use it is generally seen as assigning the cover change to use.

Alicia Villamizar

Accepted with
Modification

We agree with the comment on being careful, but we also need to keep
the guidance generic enough. We have included the term 'and processes'
as suggested by another reviewer. This highlights this issue without going
into too much detail. We trust this addresses this issue.

remote sensing shall be used to find out land uses and land usechanges, that are the activity data that inventories need. If a
country decides to identify them through land cover definitions

128

4

3

471

476

is fine, but the real objective is to derive the hectares undereach land use and under land use change. SUGGESTION: revisit

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

the paragraphs and formulate them in relation to land uses andland use changes
590

4

3

471

471

"remote sensing (RS)"This text deals with "land cover" and "land cover change". As
per line 93-94, "care needs to be taken in inferring land use fromthe land cover characteristics and vice versa". GHG inventory is

2216

4

3

471

476

primarily about land use, not land cover. Some guidance on
conversion from land cover (inferred from remote sensing) andland use seem to be rather essential, but missing. Perhaps
make a reference to the new section, line 702--

4632

4

3

475

475

land cover or land-cover, be consistent"Attribution of change to specific disturbances or processes". I

3430

4

3

477

477

would add "processes" to represent growth of vegetation, andnot only focus on disturbances.
in this aspect one must be very careful because a certain
disturbance can be measured, registered or even qualified
differently between countries, or it can have different effects onland types or different uses. In these cases, we should be able
to count on standardizations regarding the disturbances and theway to measure their effects in the changes observed in termsof surface changes. For example, a landslide of great magnitude
can carry large amounts of sediments from land-based sources
to coastal environments. There are several possibilities: in less

3688

4

3

477

477

than 20 years there may be a dramatic vegetation change thatwould lead to a new land registry that would reflect one or more
new units of land with vegetation coverage very different fromthe one previously had, or eliminate the coverage of vegetation
permanently. The first case is plausible in mangrove
environments, where some of its species can be displaced byother more terrestrial species whose seeds were transported by
the landslide. In terms of the carbon estimates associated withthis disturbance, it will be significant and if these floristicchanges are not considered, there will be erroneous carbon
estimates.

Comment
ID

Volume3690

4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Alicia Villamizar

Accepted with
Modification

Added new text to clarify this point - "stratification of land-uses into logicalunits that facilitate the estimation of emissions and removals, such as
forest condition, growth stage, time since disturbance and forest type."

Accepted

This has been addressed in the revised text.

Accepted with
Modification

This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Accepted

Sentence changed to: "Minimize the influence of misalignment of images
or artefacts in data"

Accepted

Duplicate tax deleted

Roland Hiederer

Accepted with
Modification

This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Erik Næsset

Accepted with
Modification

This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Accepted

Satellite has been changed to satellite imagery referring to optical data,
whereas lidar can be airborne or satellite.

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 2200. This is just an example list of types
of RS data.

To what extent can a homogenization of land units guarantee a
3

478

479

better record of emissions if the homogenization itself involves
unifying vegetation cover whose carbon cycles have different
rhythms and paths?

129

4

3

480

480

SUGGESTION: replace "be" by "ensure". "spatially explicit

CRISTINA GARCIA

approaches also need to ENSURE time-series consistency"

DIAZ

In my opinion the fact that a spatially explicit approaches is able
to track lands and to determine the previous and current land
use is not fully related with its time-series consistency. That is
2872

4

3

480

480

more related with ensure a more correct building up, and a more
complete, land use matrix. For a spatially explicit approach, toRaul Abad Viñas

be time series consistent has more to do with, for example thecategorization of land units under the land use categories
consistently throughout the time and space.

it is impossible to ensure that estimates are not influenced by
misalignment or artefacts, especially when we are talking of
130

4

3

483

484

remote sensing images and its interpretations from 1990, or

CRISTINA GARCIA

1970 or even before (to take into account lag emissions).

DIAZ

SUGGESTION: replace the sentence by "Minimize the influenceof misalignment of images or artefacts in data"
131

4

3

491

491

Duplication with text between lines 480 and 482. SUGGESTION: CRISTINA GARCIA
delete.

DIAZ

This term is confusing.
592

4

3

496

496

It refers to spatially reference data, not methods.
As stated it may be confused with spatial analysis methods,
which is a very different aspect.

2218

4

3

496

496

This heading is confusing, see previous comment. "Spatiallyreferenced" is an unnecessary and misleading.
"LIDAR": perhaps you mean "airborne LIDAR" (since "satellites"

2220

4

3

500

500

already has been mentioned and therefore must be assumed to Erik Næsset
also include satellite LIDAR).

3522

4

3

500

500

Lidar is just a sensor, that may be either on satellite or on
airplane. I would not specify it here.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Erik Næsset

Accepted

This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Accepted

In addition to use of samples for 1) "calibrate and evaluate…",and 2) "to directly estimates …", they can also 3) be used in
combination with wall-to-wall remotely sensed data or existing
2222

4

3

502

503

maps (e.g. global map products or national maps) to estimate
using so-called model-assisted or model-dependent estimators.
GFOI has some guidance that may be referenced and/or there isalso a growing and fairly rich literature in this field from the last
10-15 yrs. In fact, there is an example in Box 3.2.

This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.
This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.
This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.
This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

594

4

3

503

504

Error! Reference source not found.

Roland Hiederer

3012

4

3

503

504

Error! Reference source not found.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

8528

4

3

503

504

There is a mistake with the reference.

Peter Aarup Iversen

Accepted

7300

4

3

504

504

Reference unclear/missing

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Change to accurate

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 3524

Accepted

This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Erik Næsset

Accepted

This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted with
Modification

This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Considering that according to the IPCC glossary a precise
estimate may be biased; it is recommended to replace "precise"
3524

4

3

506

507

with "accurate". Further, IPCC guidance does not define a levelof precision to be achieved, so the word "precise" has no
meaning
Precision is a technical issue.

596

4

3

507

507

One is looking for accuracy. This is often confused insubsequent parts of the document.

132

4

3

509

509

SUGGESTION: add, at the end of the sentence, "with an

CRISTINA GARCIA

acceptable level of uncertainty"

DIAZ

Remote sensing (or even maps) may very well be used in
combination with ground samples to estimate carbon stocks.
2224

4

3

511

511

For example, the 2019 Refinement has a new section use of
biomass maps. The current text must be aligned with text inother parts of Vol1 and Vol 4.
The text is not clear. It cannot be understand what kind of

3526

4

3

511

513

consistency should be established between sample units used
for activity data and those used for emission factors.

3528

4

3

514

515

The sentence does not make sense

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

598

4

3

516

516

Suggest: "these do not lead" to "these changes do not lead"

Roland HiedererThis section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Accepted

Changed "these do not lead" to "these changes do not lead"

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment
SUGGESTION: Add "It is also good practice to use existing

133

4

3

518

518

sample based products". The guidelines need to make sure thatthe option of adapting existing activity data sources is possible.

6282

4

3

525

525

consistency of wording : "Country" or "Party". I suggest the useof "Country" than "Party". The other pages or chapters

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted

This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Jongsu Yim

AcceptedBox 3.4 - Sweden case study has been deleted instead the sectionreferences Sweden's national inventory report where further details can befound.

Doug King

Accepted with
Modification

Box 3.4 - Sweden case study has been deleted instead the sectionreferences Sweden's national inventory report where further details can befound.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted with
Modification

Box 3.4 - Sweden case study has been deleted instead the sectionreferences Sweden's national inventory report where further details can befound.

Jongsu Yim

AcceptedBox 3.4 - Sweden case study has been deleted instead the sectionreferences Sweden's national inventory report where further details can befound.

Erik Næsset

AcceptedBox 3.4 - Sweden case study has been deleted instead the sectionreferences Sweden's national inventory report where further details can befound.

CRISTINA GARCIADIAZ

Two limitations I see with this sample-based approach are: 1)
LU change does not have equal probability of occurring in allcells. E.g., Change is more likely to occur closer to cities andlarge resource extraction facilities. Thus, an equal resolution
grid based approach may miss much of the changes. A variable
resolution approach (e.g. quadtrees, or use of the strata to ID
3432

4

3

525

529

areas of likely change) may be better, but certainly more
complicated. 2) Permanent sampling so the same location is resampled will miss certain changes in subsequent inventories.
E.g., once an agriculture cell has been converted to settlement,
it is very unlikely to change again, whereas in cells close by that
cell, change from Ag to urban is highly likely, but would be
missed in a constant resolution grid-based sample design.

600

4

3

529

529

Stratifying the area does not necessarily improve the accuracy.
However, it generally improves the efficiency.
"ht-estimator" -> "HT-estimator" ; "ht" can be reading as

6284

4

3

533

533

2226

4

3

533

534

602

4

3

534

534

Suggest: "together the total" to "together of the total"

Roland Hiederer

AcceptedBox 3.4 - Sweden case study has been deleted instead the sectionreferences Sweden's national inventory report where further details can befound.

3014

4

3

537

537

Replace From fresh stumps by from fresh stumps.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Box 3.4 - Sweden case study has been deleted instead the sectionreferences Sweden's national inventory report where further details can befound.

604

4

3

545

545

Suggest: "e.g. From the" to "e.g. from the"Roland Hiederer

AcceptedBox 3.4 - Sweden case study has been deleted instead the sectionreferences Sweden's national inventory report where further details can befound.

Erik Næsset

AcceptedBox 3.4 - Sweden case study has been deleted instead the sectionreferences Sweden's national inventory report where further details can befound.

"height".
"sample unit" or "sampling unit"? Consistency - here andelsewhere. (sample unit is perhaps better).

See comment to vol 4, chap 2, line 1889-1889, box 2.11
2228

4

3

552

552

regarding statement with reference to Stahl et al andBreidenbach et al.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

Expert

3016

4

3

552

552

Standardize fonts in cited literature.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Box 3.4 - Sweden case study has been deleted instead the sectionreferences Sweden's national inventory report where further details can befound.

Erik Næsset

Accepted

If stand based data are available in a spatially explicit form, further
guidance is included in the section on wall-to-wall methods.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Abdul Nayamuth

Accepted

This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Accepted

Response

What about cases where stand-based inventories are available
2230

4

3

555

564

in a spatially explicit form (stand maps, not just lists). Is
guidance for such cases relevant?

606

4

3

557

557

7934

4

3

558

558

Suggest: "do not include spatial information" to "do not include
explicit spatial information"
Delete last word of
The text is quite obscure; and as it is, it does not constitute a

3530

4

3

561

564

guidance. Further, the reference to the use of multiple
approaches doesn't seem to pertain to or to support the text toAuthors' note

which is referred.
608

4

3

563

563

Suggest: "here" to "where"

Roland Hiederer

3018

4

3

563

563

Replace ehere by where.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

3692

4

3

563

563

where

Alicia Villamizar

Accepted

4634

4

3

563

563

ehere?

KEWEI YU

Accepted

7936

4

3

563

563

First word to read where

Abdul Nayamuth

Accepted

8530

4

3

563

563

There is a typo in the first word.

Peter Aarup Iversen

Accepted

9340

4

3

563

563

"Where possible"

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.
This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.
This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.
This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.
This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.
This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.
This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

the information on drivers is not relevant for the estimation onemissions and removals, therefore, the reference in line 571 to
the fact that RS don't provide this information should be
134

4

3

571

571

deleted. This reference doesn't add value, it is also applicablefor most of the activity data sources (land use maps, statistics,

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

Accepted

Sentence has been revised to replace the term 'drivers' with 'theevents that occurred to cause the change'etc.), and can be confusing. SUGGESTION: delete from "forinstance" in line 567 to "associated emissions" in 572.
3532

4

3

572

572

Add "and removals", just after "emissions"

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Added "and removals", just after "emissions"

610

4

3

574

574

Could be better to use "categories" instead of "classes".

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Changed to "categories"

2232

4

3

581

581

"strata": I think you mean "stratum" (singularise)

Erik Næsset

Accepted

Changed "strata" to "stratum" (singularise)Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

it is very difficult to ensure that raster and polygon boundariesalign when comparing different maps/layers. This is even moredifficult if we take into account that we are using maps, remote

135

4

3

586

587

sensing images and its interpretations from 1990, or 1970 or

CRISTINA GARCIA

even before (to take into account lag emissions). SUGGESTION: DIAZ

It is possible and easy to check whether or not two datasets
Rejected(raster or vector) spatially align and that they have same
projection etc. Changed the word boundaries to layers

delete the need to "ensure" and redraft the sentence reflectingthat countries should do all possible efforts to reduce thismisalignment.

Accepted

Clarified using an example conversion period so the intent of this point isclear. New text 'ensure that the land conversion period appliedconsistently across all land use categories (i.e., that, the same number ofyears before lands in a ‘converted to’ sub-category move to the ‘remaining’
category'

Accepted

Inserted reference to "Chapter 5, Volume 1 - Time series Consistency"

Alicia Villamizar

Accepted

Changed "eover" to "cover"eover?

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Changed "eover" to "cover"594

Typing mistake " eover"Jongsu Yim

Accepted

Changed "eover" to "cover"

594

594

first word to read cover

Abdul Nayamuth

Accepted

Changed "eover" to "cover"

3

594

594

"cover data gaps.."Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

Changed "eover" to "cover"

3

595

595

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Replaced "improve" with "ensure"Accepted with
Modification

Updated the text to clarify the intent, that is when combining multiple
datasets they need to be aligned properly otherwise it will result in falsechanges/classification. Sentence redrafted as: "all data layers areregistered to a common projection, and that the layers align as far as
possible, to prevent errors due to misalignment such as slivers or areas offalse change along the edges of boundaries between different land use
categories;".

Abdul Nayamuth

Accepted

Sentence revised, see Author's note for comment ID 138

the need to "ensure" and redraft the sentence reflecting that

CRISTINA GARCIA

countries should do all possible efforts to reduce thisDIAZ

Accepted with
Modification

Sentence revised, see Author's note for comment ID 138

it is not clear what this sentence means. SUGGESTION: clarify

CRISTINA GARCIAor delete.

DIAZ

SUGGESTION: insert a reference to the relevant section in the

CRISTINA GARCIA

guidelines that deals with activity data gaps

DIAZ

594

cover

594

594

3

594

4

3

9342

4

3534

4

136

4

3

591

591

137

4

3

594

594

3696

4

3

594

4636

4

3

6286

4

7938

replace "improve" with "ensure". Indeed it is good practice toensure accuracy of all estimates
it is very difficult to ensure that raster and polygon boundariesalign when comparing different maps/layers. This is even moredifficult if we take into account that we are using maps, remote

138

4

3

601

602

sensing images and its interpretations from 1990, or 1970 or

CRISTINA GARCIA

even before (to take into account lag emissions). SUGGESTION: DIAZ
delete the need to "ensure" and redraft the sentence reflectingthat countries should do all possible efforts to reduce thismisalignment.

all data layers are all registered to a common base maps align to
7940

4

3

601

601

prevent errors due to misalignment such as (delete second all
and map is singular)
It is very difficult to ensure that data align. SUGGESTION: delete

139

4

3

605

606

misalignment.

Comment
ID

Volume612

4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

The term 'pixel' means grid point as commonly used within RS community.

Use "grid" or "raster".
3

605

605

The term "pixel" originates from to "picture element", which isthe smallest addressable element on a display device. This is
not meant here.

3020

4

3

605

605

Spatial resolution? Improve explanation.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Changed it to pixel size. spatial resolution is defined in Annex 3 A 2 4

614

4

3

607

607

See 605.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

See Author's note for comment ID 3020

Erik Næsset

Accepted

This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Erik Næsset

Accepted

2006 Guidelines use Auxiliary - we therefore used this terminology
throughout the chapter

Erik Næsset

Accepted

This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification

Box 3.2 has been deleted as it is no longer appropriate given the changes
made to the chapter.
Box 3.2 has been deleted as it is no longer appropriate given the changes
made to the chapter.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted with
Modification

This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Sample data are often spatially explicit - in developed as well as
2234

4

3

610

610

in developing countries. This statement is therefore a bit
misleading (the statement assumes that sample data are notgeoreferenced)
On the use of the term "auxiliary data". Please use this term

2238

4

3

610

671

consistently. For example, Box 3.2. and 3.3. use the terms"auxiliary" and "ancillary". See also line 892 and elsewhere. I
guess you mean the same thing in all cases.
The terms spatially explicit and spatially referenced are notused in a meaningful way (see previous comments), and the useof the term "spatially explicit" is not consistent with previous

2236

4

3

613

614

use and definition of the term in the 2019 Refinement. Further, if
a model-assisted estimator is used (the example in Box 3.2),
both the sample data and the auxiliary data must be spatially
explicit (have known coordinates, as per definition of spatially
explicit in the 2019 Refinement).

616

4

3

615

618

Content for Box 3.2 missing.

Roland Hiederer

6288

4

3

615

618

Missing the context for the BOX 3.2

Jongsu Yim

This text contains comments on examples that are not reported
in this Guidelines (they are reported in another publication i.e.
GFOI), in a way that makes not understandable what the
3536

4

3

615

640

examples are about and what is the guidance that the authors
wish to derive from those examples. IPCC Guidelines should
provide clear guidance, and when authors fail in achieving thisclarity the text should be better removed

618

4

3

624

624

"pixel" is not correct. See 605.
What should the term "variance error" refer to?

620

4

3

632

632

An error in the estimation of the population variance is anunlikely explanation.

622

4

3

635

635

Accuracy, not precision.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted with
Modification

Box Examples are not intended to provide guidance but explain theconcept with a case study. While we agree the options of data combination
are enormous, we include here just one of these options to illustrate the
combination of spatially explicit and ancillary data. Sentence added toclarify this.

Alicia Villamizar

Accepted

Changed: "non-annex 1" to "Non Annex 1"

Roland Hiederer

Rejected

The example use deforestation maps (spatially explicit data) that wouldclassify as Approach 3. However, land-use conversions are estimated my
combining this data with ancillary information. Then, the approach ismixed (Approach 2 and 3). There is no estimation of land-use conversions
based on changes in area.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Removed reference to raster data format. Revised sentence: "To combine
the data, stratified deforestation data is linked to the administrative
boundaries at the municipality level.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Sentence deleted.

The options of combining various data sources is enormous. An
example may be worthy if from it universally applicable guidance

3538

4

3

642

671

may be derived. So, I suggest to redraft the current text byfocusing on guidance that can be extracted from the example, if
any.

3698

4

3

646

646

Non Annex 1
If there are no consistent land-use maps the application ofApproach 3 is highly unlikely, unless inventory data are

624

4

3

648

650

available.
Estimating land-use conversions from changes in area would be
Approach 1.
Why?

626

4

3

654

655

This is by no means required, raster data can be used for the
purpose just as well.
This is a generic sentence and not very useful as a guidance.

628

4

3

656

657

What seems to be intended is that the temporal consistency ofan incomplete time-series of land use data can be estimatedfrom additional processing.

4638

4

3

658

659

text in centre?

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Text formatted correctly.

9344

4

3

658

660

Reformat text.

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

Text formatted correctly.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Figure 3.2 has been deleted.
Changed "miss-classification" to "misclassification"

This does not seem to be the case.
630

4

3

661

661

Fig. 3.2 give the areas of change, not the absolute areas of e.g.
natural grassland.

9346

4

3

667

667

"Misclassification"

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

3700

4

3

668

669

just in case that we are considering the intensive agriculture.

Alicia Villamizar

Accepted

3702

4

3

668

669

Alicia Villamizar

Accepted

Changes on density of livestock in non-intensive agriculture can
not be taken as a proxy for changes in land used for agriculture.

Clarified that this is the case when dealing with intensive
agriculture
See Author's note for comment ID 3700

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Comments on Table 3.7:
- it must be clear that this is about the land use change
occurred between to point in time. So, it is proposed to redraft
the title as "EXAMPLE OF DATA COMBINATION FOR THE
ATTRIBUTION OF LAND USE CONVERSIONS BETWEEN YEAR

Changed Table caption as "Example of data combination for the

X and Year Y";

attribution of land-use conversions between year x and year y".

- the table is incomplete, i.e. from where the area of forest land

The area of forest is taken from cropland and grasslands (natural

is taken? what about Settlements and Wetlands area?

and pastures). In the example there is no spatially explicit nor- the last column should contain information on the use of the
3540

4

3

671

671

data, so replace "Formula" with "Use"Iordanis Tzamtzis- in the first row must be made clear that the area reported by

Accepted with
Modification

ancillary information about wetlands and settlements. So, otherland-use conversions are not part of the example. In many
countries, the only available spatially explicit information is thethe dataset refers to conversion of forest land to non-forest land

deforestation map. Clarified that the area reported by the dataset

only (i.e. conversion of native forest to secondary forest or torefers to the conversion of forestland to non-forest land only. It

forest plantations is not classified as deforestation). So it ishas been redrafted as "Only the conversion of native forest land-

proposed to redraft as follows: "only conversion of native forest

use to non-forest land-use are monitored".

land to non-forest land use are monitored"- replace "2002" with year X- Grassland data to be revised once table completed with Forest
land, Settlements and Wetlands
Comments on table 3.7 (Vol4_Chp3_L671-671) apply also tofigure 3.2. Further, again, this is just one example of the various
3542

4

3

673

675

cases may occur of integrating different sources of data. I thinkthat IPCC Guidelines should provide universally applicable

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted with
Modification

See Author's note for comment ID 5384

Andreas Gensior

Accepted with
Modification

See Author's note for comment ID 5384. However, in many countries this is
the only available information. If complete data on land-use conversions
are available for the 6 land-use categories, then there is no need to use thisapproach.

Markus Haakana

Accepted with
Modification

In the example there is no data on settlements/wetlands. So, the example
is incomplete because the data is incomplete too. This can be the case indeveloping countries, there consistent land-use maps may not be available.

Nalin Srivastava

guidance; examples are useful if from there universally
applicable guidance can be extracted.

This is a way to approach this issue. But only if there are a few,
max. 3 land use categories (LUC) (then the uncertainties
5354

4

3

673

675

are relatively low). But what if you have at least to include all 6
LUCs or more? The number of possibilities multiplies up
to a point of complete confusion and the results are extremely
uncertain.
I don't see this figure as a good example of deforestation

5384

4

3

673

675

decision tree. It seems to take account only net change. Whatabout other land uses like conversions to settlements.

9348

4

3

673

674

Figure 3.2: First diamond: "Did deforestation occur?"

Accepted

Figure 3.2 has been deleted.

3022

4

3

674

674

Replace Did deforestation occurred? to Did deforestation occur? CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Figure 3.2 has been deleted.

4640

4

3

680

680

IPPC?

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Changed "IPPC" to "IPCC". See comment ID 5380

5380

4

3

680

680

IPPC land-use categories --> IPCC

Markus Haakana

Accepted

Changed "IPPC" to "IPCC". See comment ID 5380

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

6290

4

3

680

680

Typing mistake " IPPC"

Jongsu Yim

Accepted

Changed "IPPC" to "IPCC". See comment ID 5380

7302

4

3

680

680

IPPC should likely be IPCC

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted

Changed "IPPC" to "IPCC". See comment ID 5380

9350

4

3

680

680

"IPCC"

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

Changed "IPPC" to "IPCC". See comment ID 5380

3544

4

3

681

683

It is unclear what the text is about

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted with
Modification

This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

9352

4

3

682

683

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted with
Modification

This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

3704

4

3

683

683

delete the point

Alicia Villamizar

7304

4

3

684

684

Sentence broken/incomplete

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification

This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.
This section has been re-written in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Accepted

Redraft the sentence to: "allocate national land use categories to land use
categories in the IPCC"

Accepted

Deleted reference to land-cover

Replace "Unlikely to" with "cannot". Replace "." after "products"
with ",".

wording is not adequate. National land use categories shall not
140

4

3

685

685

be refined. SUGGESTION: redraft the sentence. "allocate
national land use categories to land use categories in the IPCC

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

SUGGESTION: delete reference to land cover categories. It is

CRISTINA GARCIA

confusing. The text should only refer to land uses.

DIAZ

688

"IPCC"

Erik Næsset

Rejected

Comment does not apply to line 688

689

689

Delete "of omission or commission" (superfluous verbiage)

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

Delete "of omission or commission"

692

692

"allow to"

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

Deleted. See comment ID 3546

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Deleted initial clause

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

Sentence redrafted to include suggested change

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

141

4

3

686

687

2240

4

3

688

9354

4

3

9356

4

3

Also a Tier 1 temporary cover losses must always be
distinguished from permanent cover losses, and associated land
3546

4

3

692

694

use changes; since methods and defaults applied are different.
Thus, the sentence should be redrafted by deleting the initialclause (if the data and methods available allows to make such a
distinction,)

9358

4

3

695

695

9360

4

3

699

699

"report an equivalence table between the categories used in thenational land-use classification…""2006 IPCC Guidelines"

This section has been re-written in response to other comments
and we believe the revised text has addressed this issue.

SUGGESTION: delete this section, or improve it and move it to
142

4

3

702

721

section 3.2., after line 99. As it is written and with its location, it CRISTINA GARCIA

Accepted

This section has been deleted.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

This section has been deleted but all references to forestland have been
updated as "Forest Land", to be consistent with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines

Alicia Villamizar

Accepted

This section has been deleted.

provides more confusion than clarification in relation to land use DIAZ
vs. land cover.

3548

4

3

702

721

3706

4

3

703

703

Please use the agreed nomenclature i.e. "forest land" and"grassland"
It will be necessary to include both concepts in the refinement
glossary

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To line

632

4

3

711

711

7942

4

3

711

711

Comment"not able": Products are not able.
"... products do not ..."
as in some cases RS products are not be able to distinguishbetween similar land-uses, for example (add in and delete be)ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

This section has been deleted.

Abdul Nayamuth

Accepted

This section has been deleted.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

This section has been deleted.

Abdul Nayamuth

Accepted

This section has been deleted.

CARLOS SANQUETTA AcceptedThis section has been deleted.

Alicia Villamizar

Accepted

This section has been deleted but all references to forestland have been
updated as "Forest Land", to be consistent with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines

Jongsu Yim

Accepted

This section has been deleted.

Abdul Nayamuth

Accepted

This section has been deleted.

Not a good example.
Temporal grassland is part of arable land.
634

4

3

712

712

annual grassland may well be treated as cropland (see Table
3.8).
Better: temporal grassland may be confused with permanent
grassland.
crops and annual grasses may look the same and cannot be

7944

4

3

712

712

easily categories into cropland or grassland; and (to readcategorised)

3024

4

3

713

713

Replace may looks to may look.

the mangrove vegetation, normally wooded, can be confusedwith herbaceous vegetation due to its high structural plasticity,
within the limits of its latitudinal development, through the useof RS. If this natural response is not known to the physical-

3708

4

3

713

713

natural conditions proper to its optimal extremes for its growth,
the carbon estimates obtained through this tool could be
assigned to another type of vegetation. Even though theregistration of the emission may be precise, the allocation to thetype of land cover (in this case mangrove vegetation) would be
wrong

consistency of wording : "forestland" -> "forest land". The other

6292

4

3

713

713

7946

4

3

713

713

9362

4

3

713

714

"…may look similar…". "grassland"

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

This section has been deleted.

636

4

3

715

715

Suggest "IPCC land uses" to "IPCC land use categories"

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

This section has been deleted.

3026

4

3

735

735

Minimum area (0.05 to < 1ha)?

CARLOS SANQUETTA AcceptedThis table has been redrafted in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

3028

4

3

735

735

CARLOS SANQUETTA AcceptedThis table has been redrafted in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

pages or chaptersagro-forestry and silvo-pastoral (forest grazing) systems which
may looks similar to both forestland and (read look)

Standardize fonts and use Large Capitals for Land Use
categories.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted with
Modification

This table has been redrafted in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Accepted

Text modified as suggested

Accepted with
Modification

This table has been redrafted in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Accepted with
Modification

This table has been redrafted in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

DIAZ

Accepted with
Modification

This table has been redrafted in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Raul Abad Viñas

Accepted

This table has been redrafted in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

It is not clear whether Table 3.8 provides examples of decisionrules of prescribes them. It also appears that this table borrows
heavily from the KP reporting elements and rules, which are notnecessary for the Convention reporting e.g. : 1) The parameters
threshold ranges provided are for reporting under the KP; theyneed not necessarily be the same for the Convention reportingand should not be prescribed as such; 2) Forestland remaining

9364

4

3

735

735

forestland and forestland converted to other lands: it is notimportant for Convention reporting whether the cover loss on
managed forest land was due to natural or human-induced
processes- it will still be reported as Forest Land Converted toother land-use category (as opposed to deforestation in KP
reporting); 3) Forestland remaining forestland, Cl-CL and GLGL: why should 10/5 years be prescribed as the period forclassification?

143

4

3

735

736

Table 3.8.. SUGGESTION: replace the name of the table. Change CRISTINA GARCIA"rules" by "examples"
table 3.8. line on FL-FL. SUGGESTION: delete. The references

144

4

3

735

736

to 10 years and temporary forest is very confusing, and don't fit
with the title of the column.
table 3.8. line on CL-CL and GL-GL. SUGGESTION: delete. The

145

4

3

735

736

references to 5 years and rotations is very confusing, and don't
fit with the title of the column.

DIAZ
CRISTINA GARCIADIAZ
CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

table 3.8. line on WL. SUGGESTION: delete. Not all WLs areinventories in Ramsar, not all countries are signatories of
146

4

3

735

736

Ramsar (currently 169 Parties). It is also not clear why a country
should differentiate wetlands and water area, if in their national

CRISTINA GARCIA

classification they are considered together.

Although it has been already mentioned in the new text before,
perhaps it would be convenient to repeat here the utility ofstablishing a hierarchy to separate among land use categories
that are not always fully clear. Moreover, in this sense, when
2874

4

3

735

736

discussing about Forest land and Cropland/ Grassland, in thecorresponding cell "Decision", it could be added that following ahierarchy as long as the land meets the quantitative thresholds
used to define forest, that land should be classified as forest
and not under any other land use.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted with
Modification

This table has been redrafted in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Markus Haakana

Accepted

This table has been redrafted in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Mattias Lundblad

Accepted

This table has been redrafted in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Mattias Lundblad

Accepted with
Modification

This table has been redrafted in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Table 3.8. This table needs further work to remove errors andimprove its understandability. For instance:- In row number 2: forest cover can be lost also as a

3550

4

3

735

736

consequence of disturbances;- In row number 3: it is out of the practicability to establish fireby fire what the ignition cause is (e.g. human accidental, humanintentional, not human); further the ignition is only one of thecauses that determine the forest cover loss
Forestland remaining forestland; 10 years Temporary forest-->Not 10 years but country specific, varies in different conditions

5382

4

3

735

736

and countries until the area gets tree cover again. Any
temporary forest belongs to FL, there is no separate sub classneeded. And generally spelling of Forestland is "Forest land".
It must be clear if this table is a list of examples or if it is the

9674

4

3

735

736

only existing rules. In my view it is just examples of decisions
that can be asked by the compilers.
If the table intends to include all possible rules it should for
instance have a row explaining the issue of managed land that

9676

4

3

735

736

is degenerated to unmanaged land and also a row explaining theissue of forest land converted to other land use categories
without a loss of forest cover (for instance forest land to
grassland).

This section has been redrafted in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.
This section has been redrafted in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.
This section has been redrafted in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

3552

4

3

737

737

Replace "histories" with "historical data"

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

3554

4

3

741

741

OK, but only "if needed"

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

3556

4

3

744

745

It is not very clear. Further, clearcut areas can be quite large

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

9366

4

3

745

745

"probable" instead of "probably"

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 3556

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

This section has been redrafted in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Condensed in 3 bullet points.
See Author's note to comment ID 3710

This chapter is close to: Justin Goodwin (2009) Chapter 4: Time
638

4

3

747

747

series consistency. in: EMEP/EEA emission inventory
guidebook 2009. If so, it would be appropriate to include thesource.
The information asked is too much. It could be better

3562

4

3

752

765

640

4

3

754

754

Suggest: "ehere" to "where"

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

642

4

3

754

754

Suggest; "between data" to "between available data"

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

3710

4

3

754

754

where

Alicia Villamizar

Acceptedsummarized in max 3 points

This section has been redrafted in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.
This section has been redrafted in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

4642

4

3

754

754

ehere?

KEWEI YU

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 3710

6294

4

3

754

754

Typing mistake "ehere"

Jongsu Yim

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 3710

7948

4

3

754

754

Abdul Nayamuth

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 3710

8532

4

3

754

754

There is a typo in the first word.

Peter Aarup Iversen

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 3710

9368

4

3

754

754

"where the number…"

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 3710

2242

4

3

755

755

Erik Næsset

Accepted

This section has been redrafted in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Accepted

This section has been redrafted in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Abdul Nayamuth

Accepted

This section has been redrafted in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Erik Næsset

Accepted

This section has been redrafted in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

This section has been redrafted in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

This section has been redrafted in response to other comments and webelieve the revised text has addressed this issue.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Replaced "precision" with "higher uncertainty"

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Redrafted this sentence to note common issues and keep at a higher level
for inventory reporting

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

We have explained what pixel is (same as grid cell) and continued using"pixel" in the rest of the document. Further, this sentence has been
restructured and updated.

Accepted

Deleted "the need for information on the drivers of land use/coverchange"Accepted

Replaced the sentence by "ensure that products are applied to the samegeographic extent and time period".

ehere the number of years between data varies (for example, 5years for one period, 2 years for others (read where)

Wording: Bias is a property of an estimator or method, not aparticular estimate. A slight re-wording is all there is needed.
Trends in land use change are very tricky; I strongly suggest to

3558

4

3

760

761

set as a good practice the use of functional proxies (i.e. driver of Iordanis Tzamtzischanges) to be used for extrapolation/interpolation

7950

4

3

761

761

2244

4

3

762

762

3560

4

3

762

762

9370

4

3

766

766

3564

4

3

775

775

based on trends then the country should justify of the length of
the time-series used to develop the trend (delete of)
Why land cover. Should it not be land use?
Delete the "of land cover change"; otherwise you need to list:
land use, land-use change, land cover etc"every period" instead "every epoch"
Replace "precision" with "higher uncertainty" to be consistent
with the IPCC approach on errors
According to the IPCC Guidelines general approach, there is nota "given level of precision" that GHG estimates and raw data

3566

4

3

777

778

need to achieve; however, uncertainties need to be reduced so
far as practicable. Please redraft the sentence according to the
IPCC approach by referring to the need to minimize
uncertainties instead of meeting a given level of precision.

644

4

3

781

781

Meaning not evident.
See also use of term "pixel" for grid positions in raster data.
the drivers of the land use and land use changes are not

147

4

3

785

786

relevant for the estimation of emissions and removals.

CRISTINA GARCIA

SUGGESTION: delete "the need for information on the drivers of DIAZ
land use/cover change"
SUGGESTION: Replace the sentence by "ensure that products

148

4

3

791

791

are applied to the same geographic extent and time period". The CRISTINA GARCIA
coverage of the product is different, what shall be the same isthe area where it is applied.

DIAZ

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted

The term land remaining has been clarified in the text, the 20 year default
has been noted. The rhombic figure explicitly refers to future changes
because in some cases the current land use cannot be classified by thecurrent land cover until future land cover information is obtained. For
example, in the current year a forest may be temporarily destocked due toharvest, but in the next year will be planted to forest.

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

The figure has been revised as well as associated text. The classification ofcropland remaining cropland is implemented to address the situation in
many countries where cropland has intermittent grassland fallow periods
in which case it is better to classify the land as cropland remaining
cropland, this is why the two diamonds are required.

Erik Næsset

Accepted

Simulation word has been replaced with time-series.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Suggestion taken - Kept the text inside the diamonds.

Markus Haakana

Accepted

Explanations refined in text. The use of the terms cover and land use were
explicit - cover does not necessarily mean use - i.e., when apply guidance
regarding temporary destocking and croplands that have a grass fallow
period.

Andreas Gensior

AcceptedDefined in the text, refer line 552 - 565

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

Text has been updated and removed references to "how long a parcel ofland remains …. "Abdul Nayamuth

Accepted

The land conversion period for Cropland to Grassland explicitly addresses
this issue and can be defined by countries on a country specific basis

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

Replaced with new text

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Changed text: "into sub-categories" to "into homogenous sub-categories"

Figure 3.3 comments:- what is the "land remaining period"?
- the "land conversion" period is 20-year; and this should be

3650

4

3

800

802

reported here;

Iordanis Tzamtzis- the third rhombic figure at the top right hand side of the figure
presumes the knowledge of future changes (conversion tocropland), please clarify it.

Figure 3.3 has many incorrect/confusing diamonds (pleaserevise the whole figure) e.g.: 1) 3rd diamond in the 1st row- if
9372

4

3

800

801

the Grassland has become Cropland and is within the transition
period then it should be Grassland Converted to Cropland andNOT CL-CL.; 2) 2nd diamond from left in the 3rd row is not
requiredIn one of the boxes of the chart and in the subsequent text theterm "simulation" is used. It is not clear what is meant by
simulation. Further, if a sample-based system (e.g. an NFI withpermanent plots) is the spatially explicit data used (as per IPCC
2246

4

3

800

811

definition), how does "simulation" enter into the estimation? No
simulation should be needed if the estimates are based on
observations. Further, the term "land unit" is used. Should
perhaps be clarified that this may be a pixel, a polygon or asample plot - depending on the design of the system and thenature of the data used to support estimation.

3030

5390

4

4

3

3

801

801

801

801

Keep the text inside the diamonds. Keep land use categories in
Large Capitals.
This figure is not clear, refine explanations. Check also usage ofterms land cover and land use.
Decision tree unclear: The duration of a land conversion period

5350

4

3

801

802

is defined (default or country specific). But how long doesa "remaining period" last?

9374

4

3

812

812

7952

4

3

814

814

9376

4

3

814

814

646

4

3

818

819

"how long a parcel of land remains…"
how to class areas of land that include fallow or pasture cover inbetween cropping or harvesting cycles (read classify)"how to classify…"
Suggest: "into sub-categories" to "into homogenous subcategories"

Comment
ID

Volume3434

4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted

Updated text, optical meant multispectral imagery. SAR data is mostly
available for recent years but not historical years back to 1990.

Erik Næsset

Accepted

Updated text to clarify that optical meant multispectral imagery

Roland Hiederer

Accepted with
Modification

Sentence deleted.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted with
Modification

Data and assumptions re-worked to clary this statement

True, given timely optical data can be acquired, but that is less
3

828

830

likely in moist tropical forests than in drylands. SAR data can be Doug Kingacquired more often in moist tropical forests.
What is an "optical" method? To use binoculars on a ground plot
to identify the tree top in the canopy to be measured for height?

2248

4

3

829

829

Keep in mind that this text should be applicable to situations
where data comes from ground surveys. Right? Stratification
may be based on sample data only (double-sampling forstratification).

648

4

3

831

831

It would appear that this is not the result of a specific effort tostratify a category, but is part of distinguishing categories.
Table 3.9 should be worked. Further the first row is incorrect.
Indeed, a forest cover clearing is always a conversion if followed

3644

4

3

858

859

by a change in the use of land, regardless if it occurs inmanaged or unmanaged forests. A forest harvesting is never aland use conversion, even if it occurs in unmanaged forest land.

3032

4

3

865

866

Improve redaction. ... strata=?

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 9378

ensure that the strata =have the attributed required to make
7954

4

3

865

865

estimates of emissions and removals (for example (delete = and Abdul Nayamuth

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 9378

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

Deleted "=..". "attributes" instead of "attributed"

Dirk Nemitz

Noted

Similar situations can appear in other sectors. Here the issue is tailored tothe case of land-use data.

Accepted

Removed reference to city-level GHG accounting.

read attributes)
9378

4

3

865

865

Delete "=..". "attributes" instead of "attributed"
Is this section specific to AFOLU, or do similar situations appear

7286

4

3

887

902

in other sectors? Would this rather belong into the general
section?
SUGGESTION: Delete the sentence beginning by "a typical" until"for activity reporting)". Not relevant for this refinement.

149

4

3

888

891

Guidelines are for National GHG emissions inventories. If andhow these can be applicable to projects or subnational schemes
shall not be considered here.

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZComment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted

References to CDM and REDD activities were removed. However, reference
to project based activities have been addressed in a box in Chapter 2.
Modified text accordingly.

First, annex 2.A.1 as presented is inconsistent with UNFCCC,
which shall be avoided in IPCC GLs! Second, the section mixes
different types of activities which don't belong together, andthus increases risks for errors and misunderstandings. Lastly,
the purpose of the section remains rather unclear. Sources andreferences are scarce, and a single expert meeting report will
not be sufficient to build such a section. There is also quite
7284

4

3

888

892

some application of statements that might be true when
considering all sectors, but applying the same statement to the

Dirk Nemitz

AFOLU sector alone is unjustified. The same is true here: citylevel doesn't seem to be referring to AFOLU, and neither does
CDM, corporate or project level. REDD-plus is quite different,
but upscaling as a whole seems to be quite difficult, given that
REDD+ is implemented at a jurisdictional level, and upscaling
would thus require applying data from one forest type to anotherforest type. Detailed comments are contained in section 2.A.1
3034

4

3

890

890

3036

4

3

890

890

3712

4

3

890

890

Replace calculation by calculations.
CDM will probably change in near future. I think CDM should not
be cited as an example in this context (nor REDD-plus).
calculations

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 3712

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 7284

Alicia Villamizar

Accepted

Sentence deleted.

Maya Hunt

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 7284

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 3712

Accepted

This section has been modified to clarify a number of cases wherepermanent and temporary land cover changes may occur due to natural
disturbance events

Not sure it's appropriate to reference REDD-plus and CDM 7806

4

3

890

890

may date the guidelines, and /or prejudge decisions under theParis Agreement.

9380

4

3

890

890

"calculations"
SUGGESTION: add "or disturbances" after "only temporary due

150

4

3

907

907

to management", as management is not the unique cause of
temporary forest cover loss.

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZComment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Alicia Villamizar

Accepted

Include an example of extreme events that can lead land changes(permanent or temporary).

Alicia Villamizar

Noted

An example of extreme events that can lead land changes (permanent or
temporary) is included.

Erik Næsset

Accepted

Clarify

Rejected

Attribution of change data obtained from remote sensing is essential step
to confirm land use change, therefore, this para needs to remain here.

Alicia Villamizar

Accepted

Table 3.10 has been deleted.

Markus Haakana

Accepted

Table 3.10 has been deleted. Relevant information included in a new Table
3.1a.

Before finally, include an example of extreme events that canlead land changes (permanent or temporary) i.e. landslides fromheavy rains that can cause changes in the surface soil that inturn lead to a change in the vegetation cover or even eliminate
it. In mountain lands mass movements (or mass-wasting) could
lead to the down-slope movement of Regolith (loose
uncemented mixture of soil and rock particles that covers the

3714

4

3

912

912

Earth's surface) by the force of gravity without the aid of atransporting medium such as water, ice, or wind. Under these
conditions the land cover is susceptible to change both, in
extension and in cover. Other example: areas along coastlines
become subject to flooding as a result of tsunamis, hurricanes,
storms, and unusually high tides. In addition, long term
processes like subsidence and rising sea level as a result of
global warming can lead to the encroachment of the sea on to
the land. These changes

they must be monitored because they can lead to changes in
3716

4

3

912

912

the floristic composition of exposed coastal areas and,
therefore, in changes, both in the extension of the land and in its
coverage.
The reference to phenology suggests that some kind of remote

2250

4

3

912

914

sensing is involved. However, for those adopting Approach 3
methods with ground data, this may be a bit misleading.
Perhaps clarify the assumptions being made here.

151

4

3

915

923

3718

4

3

929

929

5392

4

3

929

929

SUGGESTION: delete. Not added value.
Table 3.10 I suggest the inclusion of other types of examples:i.e. lands thatYears are country specific

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZComment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

Where different emission factors/annual carbon stock changes

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Maya Hunt

Accepted

Table 3.10 has been deleted.

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 3568

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Table 3.10 has been deleted. Relevant information included in a new Table
3.1a.

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 3568

are used for 'Land in conversion ' versus 'land remaining land', amajor determinant of the accuracy of the estimates of annual
emissions and removals resulting from the land use change will
be how long the land stays in the 'Land converted to' category. It
is therefore a potentially significant omission in these Guidelinesthat the only real advice on transition points appears to be thatgiven in this table (plus another couple of brief mentions),
where it says, "Default is 20 years, but can be varied depending
on country circumstance." There would be value in adding a new
section or paragraph to this chapter, that elaborates further on
considerations in setting an appropriate transition point, if the
7808

4

3

929

929

default of 20 years is not used. For example, if the key intentionof the transition point it to demarcate the point in time where
the land is deemed to have reached its new carbon stockequilibrium, resulting from a land use change, then it may bevery useful for the guidance to provide advice on how the carbon
equilibrium point can best be calculated. In New Zealand, we
will use attainment of the long-term average carbon stock of the
new land use as the appropriate point to transition 'land
converted to forest' to 'forest remaining' forest', from 2021
onwards. It may be that identification of the long-term averagecarbon stock change might be a versatile and unbiased method
to work out the most accurate transition point for all land use
conversions. It is particularly useful for forestry however, where
there is a desire to apply a different transition point for slow
Table 3.10: Conversion of managed land to unmanaged land is
not consistent with the principles underpinning the MLP and as

9382

4

3

929

929

such should not be allowed (e.g. naturally regenerated/setaside after 10 years cannot be considered unmanaged andtaken out to the reporting framework)
Table 3.10 should be worked (e.g. a forest land converted toother land can't be classified as a harvested land; forest

3568

4

3

929

930

regrowth requires a reclassification of the land to forest).
Further the first row is not an example, it is an additional
guidance that must be discussed.
Page 3.34 - The first row in Table 3.10 dealing with managed

5924

4

3

929

930

land converted to unmanaged land should be updated based on Vincent Camobreco
the final language used on page 3.6, lines 115-121

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' notePeter Aarup Iversen

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 3568

Table 3.10 The managed to unmanaged land example is not so
8534

4

3

930

930

good if there is another discussion whether managed land canbe transferred to unmanaged land. There should be consistency.

3038

4

3

932

932

Error! Reference source not found.

CARLOS SANQUETTA AcceptedThis text is no longer relevant in light of updates made, therefore deleted.

7306

4

3

932

932

Reference unclear/missing

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted

This text is no longer relevant in light of updates made, therefore deleted.

152

4

3

933

933

AcceptedBox 3.4 has been deleted.

5396

4

3

933

933

Accepted with
Modification

See comment ID 3570

3040

4

3

933

946

SUGGESTION: add the word "Example" before "approach" in the CRISTINA GARCIA
title of box 3.4.

DIAZ

Land use classification should not be dependent on ownershipMarkus Haakana

I did not understand the reasoning of this box. Maybe otherreaders do not understand it either.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Box 3.4 has been deleted.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

AcceptedBox 3.4 has been deleted.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

This section has been re-written to clarify the intent.

Accepted with
Modification

This is only partly correct. Double counting of lands can occur, but this will
generally lead to misallocation of lands between different categories. The
bigger issue is how this misallocation can lead to bias in the emissions
estimates. The other issue raised here is the gap between samples: if it is
too large we will simply miss changes and this needs to be highlighted as
an issue. Text has been revised to clarify the intent.

RejectedYes, its possible to detect multiple changes using a permanent design.
Theoretically using a five-year inventory cycle a sample unit may change
land use every five-year. I practice, even registered in the field, it’ssometimes hard to assess if a land use change has occurred or not. Text
has been updated to reflect this point.

The text of box 3.4 isn’t clear. Further, suggesting that a land isjust forest because of a legal decision/regime is just the
opposite of what good practice should be. Indeed the land
categorization is aimed at assigning the most appropriate
3570

4

3

933

946

method and factors for estimating C stock changes andassociated GHG fluxes. To assign to a non-forest land themethod and factors defined for estimating C stock changes in aforest is just biased and the opposite of a good practice. Thus, I

3572

4

3

948

948

suggest deleting this box
Add "and track" after "detect"
I do not see that the risk of double-counting for any approach.
The difference (but not related to the approaches) may be thatmultiple land use changes occur during the time between two
consecutive inventories of the same sample unit and will not be

9678

4

3

948

960

captured in the inventory. For instance if using a 10 year
sampling interval example: Cropland in year 0 is planted by trees

Mattias Lundbladin year 1 (CLtoFL) but deforested in year 8 (FLtoS). This will bereported as CLtoS in year 10. As I understand it there is norequirements related to the difference in time between to setsof information (independent on the Approach).
Is this true in the case of sample data even if the sample data
2252

4

3

949

949

are repeated observations over time for the same spatial units(e.g. permanent and georeferenced sample plots)?

Erik Næsset

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To line

3574

4

3

949

950

Comment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Deleted "...methods or where maps or samples of land use aredifferenced".

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Rejected

See Author's note to comment ID 9678. Text is not wrong. There can be
double counting of lands leading to misallocation of land categories. The
sum will not be the same where they move around. The total land area
should remain the same though. At most we change to an issue of
misallocation.

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 3574

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 9678 and 3576. this is a more correctinterpretation and we need to include this suggestion. Text updated
accordingly in this revision.

Erik Næsset

Accepted

This is true. Text revised as noted.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

We have revised Figure 3.4 (now 3.3 New) and also related text as noted inother comments.

Markus Haakana

Accepted

Section 3.4.1. (Use of different approaches ......) has been revised
significantly. It highlights the importance of differentiation between
emissions and removals that occur in the year of the activity from lag
emissions/removals that may occur years after a change in land-use.
Overarching calculation of emissions and removals are described inVolume 4, Chapter 2, Overview of carbon stock change estimation.

believe that this are other kind of approaches.Suggets to change Mattias Lundblad

Rejected

Authors believe this title is appropriate.

Delete "...methods or where maps or samples of land use aredifferenced". It is meaningless
Delete the text. There is not any double counting of areas.

3576

4

3

950

954

However, instead of a single process two processes, which sum
is equivalent to the single process, are counted. So the text inthese rows is wrong.
"differenced"?? Please use terms that make sense not just to

9384

4

3

950

950

the remote sensing community but to other user groups (e.g.,inventory compilers)
the example of double counting is not true in all cases. In mostinventories (if not in all), each hectare is included in one, and

153

4

3

951

953

only one, land use category. This can be easily confirmed

CRISTINA GARCIA

checking the total area of GHG national inventories.

DIAZ

SUGGESTION: delete the example, or link it to possible
misallocation of areas, but not to double counting.
2254

4

3

959

960

An estimator or method can be biased, but not a particularestimate. A slight revision needed. See also line 1099
Figure 3.4 should be amended accordingly to the previous
comment (Vol4_Chp3_L950-954). Further: what is a "map

3578

4

3

961

963

differencing method"? In any case, methods for land
representation are classified by IPCC under 3 approaches, thus
saying Approach 2 it is enough.

5394

4

3

1049

1049

Check if other chapters are more appropriate for emissions thanland representation chapter

It must be clear that this section refers how generic methods forcarbon stock change calculations relate to approaches to track
land use and land use change. The reader may be confused to
9680

4

3.4.1

1049

1051

the heading to "How methodological Tiers when estimating
emissions and removals due to land use change relates to thedifferent approaches for representation of land" or similar.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 5394

Raul Abad Viñas

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 5394

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 5394

Mattias Lundblad

Noted

The sentence has been modified for improvement, but not in the same way
as suggested here.

Vincent Camobreco

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 5394

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Rejected

See Author's note to comment ID 5394

Mattias Lundblad

Accepted withmodification

The sentence has been deleted, instead of rephrased.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 5394

Nalin Srivastava

Acceptedlag is the correct use

Is it appropriate to characterise the methods in this way?
The stock difference method is not just used by direct
measurements, but also for mineral soils under a Tier. Emission

650

4

3

1055

1056

factors are not only used in Tier 1 and 2, but for managed
organic soils in any Tier. Tier 3 are not always gain-loss
methods.
In subsequent sections gain-loss methods are associated with
Approaches, not Tier methods.

I suggest removing the text in brackets in this sentence because
2876

4

3

1055

1056

gives the idea that Gain-Loss method corresponds always with
Tier 3 and Stock-difference with Tier 1-2.
This sentence contains multiple errors. The gain and loss

3580

4

3

1055

1056

method is a Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 method, as well as thestock-difference method can be, according to C pools and land
status (conversion vs remaining)
Suggets to change the sentence to "The change in carbon
stocks for a land-use or a land-use change category can be

9682

4

3.4.1

1055

1056

estimated using the stock difference method or the gain-loss
method. The estimate can be based on different Tiers using
emissions factors, direct measurements or models or any
consistent combination of all three."Please confirm the accuracy of the statement that Tier 3 models
use a gain-loss method. From my understanding, Tier 3 process
5926

4

3

1056

1056

models can be used to predict carbon stock values for each year
in a time series and then this information can be used toestimate carbon stock change using the stock difference
method.

3582

4

3

1057

1058

9684

4

3.4.1

1057

1058

Delete this sentence. There is no purpose to have it
Also the stock-difference method need land-use data and otherdata. Rephrase.
Following previous comments (Vol4_Chp3_L1055-1056) please

3584

4

3

1059

1060

redraft as follows: "When considering how to apply methods for
estimating GHG emissions and removals using activity data fromdifferent Approaches, it is important to differentiate between:"

9386

4

3

1063

1063

"lagged emissions"Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

affected by natural events such as volcanic eruptions, tsunamis,
subsidence, slr, which can cause changes in the floristic
3720

4

3

1065

1067

composition, coverage and extent of the affected lands. In these Alicia Villamizar

Notedcases the number of years before land moves to a remaining
category could be minor than 20 years, even less than 5 years.
this flexibility necessarily requires standardization in order toensure that the estimates derived from its use are possible to
3722

4

3

1065

1067

compare with the estimates of all the countries Parties of the

Alicia Villamizar

Accepted

This appear to be a comment. Revised clarifies that the methods for
estimating emissions and removals will need to be tailored to the available
land-use data.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

All equations were removed and reference instead made to section 2.3.1.2
and the equations therein.

Mattias Lundblad

Accepted withmodification

These subsections have been substantially re-drafted in SOD.

Mingshan Su

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 3652

UNFCCC that have used different combinations of these 3
Approaches
Comments:- gain-loss method should be quoted at the singular (although it
may be implemented with a large number of different models);- the units of variables of equations 3.1 and 3.2 are missing;- although this section is about gain-loss method, both
equations 3.1 and 3.2 are stock differences;- equation 3.1 cannot be applied to SOC changes (since no
information on the new land use to which the land has been
converted);
3652

4

3

1068

1101

- equation 3.1 is accurate only if the stock is completely lost andonly if the average stock value is constant at time 1 (in practice
it applies to Biomass and DOM pools for deforestation, i.e.
conversion to a land use without trees), otherwise the equation
doesn't ensure mass balance;- equation 3.2 should be amended if applied to SOC, since T
isn't equal to the dependence time of equation 2.25;- equation 3.2 mixes C stock changes due to area change and C
stock changes due to gain and losses occurring in landremaining. So, it is a violation of the general structure of the
IPCC guidance.
May be changed due to suggestions above. Suggest including a

9686

4

3.4.1

1068

1153

table or a graph explaining differences and relationships. The
different approaches can be combined with other methods thangain-loss.
Please check the formula in line 1082 to 1084 and the formula in

75

4

3

1082

1097

line 1085 to 1088. Variables in the left side of the equations are
same, the denominators in right side are same but thenumerators are different. The dimensions are different.

Comment
ID

Volume2256

4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Erik Næsset

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 3652

RAEHYUN KIM

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 3652

Anna Romanovskaya

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 3652

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

See Author's note to comment ID 3652

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted with
Modification

Combined discussion related to Approach 1 with Approach 2, highlighting
issues in applying such methods.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Text modified as suggested

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Text modified as suggested

Roland Hiederer

NotedClarification text developed around spatially explicit and Approach 2/3 has
led to the deletion of the term spatially referenced.

Erik Næsset

Accepted

Clarification text developed around spatially explicit and Approach 2/3 has
led to the deletion of the term spatially referenced.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted with
Modification

Clarification text developed around spatially explicit and Approach 2/3 has
led to the deletion of the term spatially referenced.

These equations/variables can hardly be correct. Cpi cannot be
3

1082

1097

defined in the same way in eq 3.1 as in eq 3.2. In 3.1, it looks
like Cpi is a measure of carbon per unit area, in 3.2 a measure of
total C. Please verify the correctness of the eqs.

8840

4

3

1082

1084

Equation 3.1 maybe need to correction '[C_Pi x A_iCur] - [C_Pf x
A_iPrev]'
There is no any units for variables, please add. However, it is

1626

4

3

1083

1097

better to put equation in the Chapter 2. Here - to give areference to it only.
Are these reference C stocks per unit area or the total C stocks?

9388

4

3

1093

1094

In either case, how can they be used in these two equations at
the same time? It doesn’t make sense.

3588

4

3

1102

1113

3586

4

3

1107

1107

3590

4

3

1116

1117

What is the purpose of the text? It is confusing (what's theguidance?). I suggest its deletion
Replace "lag emissions" with "lag emissions and removals
The option 1 just means to apply Approach 2 (and this section is
on applying approach 3); so it should be removed.
what would be the difference between "spatiality referenced"

652

4

3

1119

1119

and "spatially explicit"? Spatial data has an intrinsic spatialreference (which may or may not have not be reported).
The terms spatially explicit and spatially referenced are notmeaningful in the way they ae used here. Spatially explicit isdefined by IPCC to mean georeferenced data (including sample

2258

4

3

1119

1119

data) while spatially referenced then is simply redundant. If you
mean spatially continuous (as opposed to sample data that are
spatially discontinuous), then say so. But looks like thisparticular text can live well with "spatially explicit" as the only
term used here - without any further details.
The text "When developing spatially referenced data fromspatially explicit data" is not clear. I may guess that according to
the language used may refer to deriving statistical information

3592

4

3

1119

1119

from wall-to-wall images. However, if this is the case, I do notunderstand why such guidance applies only to this case.
Avoiding double counting is a fundamental guidance within all
sectors and categories, why does it need to be specified for thatspecific case?

Comment
ID

Volume654

4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Roland Hiederer

Rejected

This is not true: GIS systems will not be able to cope with large number of
combinations in spatially explicit systems. This is only going to become
more complex.

Accepted

This is a good point and we need to maintain this consistency. The
challenge with biomass maps remains how to accurately represent otherpools when using them.

Accepted

Text has been deleted as further details on this topic are covered in
Chapter 2.

This is not generally the case, as stated.
3

1122

1123

The use of a GIS facilitates this situation, managing thesituation is not particular complex. Much more complex is the
management of different Approaches.

Reading Chapter 2, one concludes that biomass maps are only
valid for aboveground biomass. This should be made clear, andavoid reflections about possible uses of remote sensing
technologies for other pools. The section should be limited to
154

4

3

1136

1153

current usefulness of biomass density maps from remotesensed data. This is crystal clear in lines 324 to 326. The rest of

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

the section should be built on this affirmation. SUGGESTION:
redraft section to focus on those utilities of remote sensing thatcan be already used with guarantees.
9390

4

3

1143

1143

Replace "based on" with "using"

Nalin Srivastava

3042

4

3

1146

1146

Specify the Section.

CARLOS SANQUETTA AcceptedThis info is not included in SOD - needs to updated.

1664

4

3

1147

1153

Anna Romanovskaya

Accepted

This is core aspect of assessing a biomass map. It will be covered in thebiomass chapter 2.

9392

4

3

1150

1150

"national land-use classification system"

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

Text modified as suggested

3594

4

3

1152

1153

The text does not make sense. Please revise

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Text modified as suggested

3724

4

3

1152

1152

where

Alicia Villamizar

Accepted

Text modified as suggested

7956

4

3

1152

1152

Abdul Nayamuth

Accepted

Text modified as suggested

8536

4

3

1152

1152

Peter Aarup Iversen

Accepted

Text modified as suggested

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

Text revised. The key point is that often plots that are used to estimate EFs
are not actually in the areas mapped. This can be due to mapping errors forexample. In this case we need to be sure that the plots used to estimate
the EFs are covered by the maps used to scale them. However, we havedecided to remove this as it can be covered in the biomass mapping
section.

Erik Næsset

Accepted

No action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement. Existing text from 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

Biomass map data should be verified against of groundmeasurements before of using it in the inventory.

where data is used to estimate biomass for use as an emissions
factor, then only use data that is also defined (read where)
There is a typo in the first word.
Please reword: "where data is used to estimate biomass for use

9394

4

3

1152

1153

as an emissions factor, then only use data that is also definedas the same land-use category." It doesn’t make any sense.

2260

4

3

1173

1175

Do you actually mean spatially continuous here? (in addition to
spatially explicit, which also includes sample data)

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Erik Næsset

Accepted

No action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement. Existing text from 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

This section has been revised focussing the discussion on estimation of
uncertainty.

Accepted

Text modified as suggested

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Sentence deleted.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Sentence deleted. This section has been revised focusing the discussion on
estimation of uncertainty.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

This section has been revised focusing the discussion on estimation of
uncertainty.

Accepted

This text has been removed and reformulated to highlight issues related to
uncertainty and validation.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

The description of CI is not relevant here as it is defined in the Glossary of
the 2006GL. This text has been deleted and added new text on issues
related to uncertainty and validation.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

This text has been removed and reformulated to highlight issues related to
uncertainty and validation.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

This text has been removed and reformulated to highlight issues related to
uncertainty and validation.

Table 3.11: 1) Approach 1: "Sampling error": "sampling
variability" is a better term. "Error" suggests that something iswrong, which is not the case. The uncertainty is due tovariability among different samples. 2) Approach 3: as per

2262

4

3

1177

1178

definition of Approach 3 (spatially explicit data), sample data
may very well form the basis for Approach 3. Thus the text
"minus any sampling uncertainty" is simply incorrect. If
inference is based on the sample alone or a model-assisted
approach (design-based sample plus remote sensing data), thenthe sampling variability is an issue.

After having gone through some explanations why land use and
656

4

3

1179

1234

land use change differ it is not obvious why they are treated ascomparable.
To a large part the issue is also dealt with in Annex 3A.2.4.

155

4

3

1181

1181

3596

4

3

1181

1183

658

4

3

1186

1186

3598

4

3

1186

1186

SUGGESTION: replace "emissions inventories" by "GHG

CRISTINA GARCIA

inventories", as they include emissions but also removals.

DIAZ

This definition is also included within the 2006 Guidelines. So,
please delete this text
Rather "accuracy" in this context.
Please use "uncertainties" instead of "precision"? This the usual
language of IPCC Guidelines
A standard error and confidence interval is not used to assess
uncertainty for sample-based estimates in particular, but for any

2264

4

3

1187

1190

estimate - regardless of mode of inference (may also me model- Erik Næsset
based inference, bootstrap of Monte Carlo-based techniquesetc).
This is s limited explanation of the nature of CI.

660

4

3

1187

1192

As presented it may not be useful to explain the significance of
estimating confidence intervals. Precision should be changed toaccuracy.
According to comment Vol4_Chp3_L1186-1186, please delete

3600

4

3

1191

1192

662

4

3

1193

1193

664

4

3

1196

1196

S.P. & S.M. not in bibliography. See also Table 3.12

Roland Hiederer

Noted

666

4

3

1197

1197

More cost-effective than what?

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

this sentence
Not useful to treat land use and land cover change in the sameway.

This section has been updated and the reference is no longer relevant,hence deleted.
This section has been updated including deletion of reference to costeffectiveness.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To line

668

4

3

1198

1199

670

4

3

1202

1202

3044

4

3

1203

3726

4

3

1203

Comment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Further guidance provided in Annex 3.A.2.4

Suggest: "provide" to "provides".

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

This text and the table have been deleted.

1203

Standardize fonts.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Table deleted.

1203

Table 3.12 acquisition (use lower case)

Alicia Villamizar

Accepted

Table deleted.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Table deleted.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

This text has been deleted in the revised text.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted with
Modification

This text has been deleted in the revised text.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Updated text to include this suggestion

Erik Næsset

Accepted

This text has been deleted in the revised text.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

RejectedLine 1233 does not contain any reference to "map differencing"

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

This text has been deleted in the revised text.

One should then also explain how the transition error matrix isconstructed.

In the context of the discussion this table is not terribly helpful.
It does not quantify what the levels of uncertainty refer to.
672

4

3

1203

1204

It does not quantify coarse-, mid- or high-resolution.
It mixed Land-use and land cover, which is not acceptable in thecontext.
What kind of bias? And why? Please clarify. Further, the

3602

4

3

1223

1224

LULUCF inventory includes also removals, so it is much betterreferring to "GHG estimates" and "GHG inventory" than to"emissions estimates" and "emissions inventory"
The text is unclear. Further, please note that maps are not the

3604

4

3

1227

1229

only source of information for land representation (one could
argue that they are the less desirable source of information forland representation)
It would be more preferable and accurate to say "ensure that all

3606

4

3

1230

1231

the land categories, subcategories and strata are sampled". In
this section uncertainty of activity data is discusses, and notthat one of emissions factors
Please rephrase with due attention to the fact that bias is a

2266

4

3

1233

1233

property of an estimator or method and not a particularestimate. Only a minot revision is needed to capture this point.
The "map differencing" term is oftenly being used. If this term is

3608

4

3

1233

1233

to be inserted, is necessary somewhere to be explained what it
does mean

3610

4

3

1234

1234

3046

4

3

1237

1237

I do not see such principles listed anywhere. Please list them or
use a reference to the place where they are listed
Explain LCLUC.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Updated text - refers to land cover, rather than LCLUC.

Roland Hiederer

Rejected

Further verification indicates that this statement is not accurate regarding
AVHRR; in any case, the table does not specify spatial resolutions for ESA
CCI LC products; no changes seem warranted

ESA CCI LC Spatial resolution or grid size: 300 m
674

4

3

1243

1244

Spatial resolution for 1992 - 1999 years is 1100m (AVHRR
HRPT), resampled to 300m grid size.

3728

4

3

1318

1320

change size of letters

Alicia Villamizar

Accepted

Font sizes harmonized

3612

4

3

1355

1355

I would add "strata" just after "homogeneous areas"

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Text modified as suggested

3730

4

3

1359

1360

change size of letters

Alicia Villamizar

Accepted

Font sizes harmonizedComment
ID

Volume5928

4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Vincent Camobreco

Accepted

Text modified to explain minimum mapping unit

Doug King

Accepted

Text modified as suggested

Doug King

Accepted

Text modified as suggested

Doug King

Accepted

Text modified as suggested

Accepted

Text modified as suggested

Accepted with
Modification

Text was modified to explain this point generally in terms of noise sources,
including atmospheric absorption; in the case of Landsat 8, sensor
radiometric resolution can be as high as 14-bits but the most reliable 12bits are retained in the data; so in that case, this process has already beentaken into accountAccepted

Text amended as suggested.

It would be helpful to provide some explanation of what is a
3

1370

1370

“minimum mapping unit”. How does a country determine what
the minimum mapping is for the country?
I would add that spatial resolution is generally inversely related
to spatial coverage; high resolution sensors cover smaller areas

3436

4

3

1372

1372

and vice versa. This has direct implications for required
processing, time, and expertise required, all of which contributeto total cost.
...with the caveat that a level of redundancy can be reachedwhere increasing numbers of narrow spectral bands does not

3438

4

3

1377

1378

improve information content for the given application. Often
identification of a limited subset of key bands is a better
approach than using many bands.

The following statement is not complete enough: "The revisit
period of a satellite sensor is usually several days (e.g., 16 days
for Landsat 8)." Should state that temporal resolution has
generally been related to image coverage and spatial resolution;
3440

4

3

1380

1381

i.e., sensors that cover the Earth more frequently, on the orderof a day (e.g. MODIS), have had the largest coverage and lowest
spatial resolution. However, this is changing with recent andplanned satellite constellations (e.g. Nano-satellites; Radarsat
Constellation Mission, etc.).

"high temporal resolution" is not adequate, this could mean
"daily" "weekly"… and this would probably don't improve the
156

4

3

1384

1386

quality of the inventory and would create an additional burden ofwork. SUGGESTION: replace "high temporal resolution" by

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ"adequate temporal resolution".

Sensors are designed to encode the received radiance signal toa given bit-depth (e.g. Landsat 12-bit). That doesn't mean thesensor can sense 12-bits reliably. The actually sensor
3442

4

3

1388

1390

sensitivity in terms of detectable radiance differences, or signal- Doug King
to-noise ratio is generally less than the bit-depth of the data.
Maybe this is too fine a point and not relevant to the generalreadership.

3444

4

3

1400

1400

I would change this to "appropriate spatial resolution and image
extent/coverage" because the two are related.

Doug King

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Doug King

Accepted

Text amended as suggested.

Erik Næsset

Accepted

Text amended as suggested.

Accepted

Text amended as suggested.

I would change this to: "Availability of, or capability to performaccuracy assessment." i.e. if processes such as classification

3446

4

3

1402

1402

are carried out by the user organization, personnel withexpertise and computing capabilities to do accuracy assessment
are needed.

This text may profit from some update. Much has happened inrecent years on digital cameras, and many nations have regularprograms with full coverage and pixel size well below 0.5 m.
2268

4

3

1405

1410

Perhaps also useful to make a reference to use of manuallyinterpreted land use - a methodology implemented by FAO in
many tropical countries in recent years. That would also link
nicely back to what is said about "reference data" (withreference to GFOI).

Given we are now in 2018, I would change this to: "The mostcommon multispectral sensor systems used for regional tonational LULC mapping have a spatial resolution of 10 – 30
meters. Panchromatic imagery of higher spatial resolution is
also readily available". i.e., improved systems have been
3448

4

3

1417

1417

launched since 2006 (e.g. Sentinel). This wording sets the scale Doug King
to distinguish such sensors from MODIS scale, which is also
very common now but not used a lot for regional LULC mapping,as well as from high resolution 1-5m sensors with 10-20km
coverage that are also common but not used much for regional
and larger area mapping.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted

No action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement. Existing text from 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

Erik Næsset

Accepted

Text amended as suggested.

Doug King

Accepted

Text amended as suggested.

I would re-word to something like: "Synthetic aperture radar(SAR) sensors transmit and receive microwave signals thatmostly interact with/respond to surface structure, roughness
and moisture. A major advantage of such systems is that they
can penetrate clouds and haze, and acquire data during
darkness. They may therefore be the only reliable source of
remote sensing data in many areas of the world with quasipermanent cloud cover. Radar wavelength, incidence angle, and

3450

4

3

1419

1425

polarisation or polarimetric information are all important factors Doug Kingin distinguishing land cover or vegetation types. SAR systems
may be able to distinguish land cover categories (e.g.,forest/non-forest, or sub categories based on vegetation
structure), or model/predict above ground biomass, although
there are at present limitations at high biomass due to signal
saturation. Addition of SAR imagery to optical imagery can aid in
discrimination of vegetation classes that have similar spectralreflectance but different structure."

Perhaps mention the most essential piece of information for
2270

4

3

1426

1432

forest application: derivation of 3D data, which is useful forbiomass and also for land characterization.
I would re-word to something like: "Light detection and ranging(LiDAR) is an active sensor similar to SAR. Light at a specificwavelength is transmitted to the surface and some isreflected/scattered back to the instrument. However, in contrast
to SAR, LiDAR is used mostly to determine the distance to thereflective surface from the time the pulse takes to return to thesensor. By using millions of pulses transmitted across thesurface, the relative elevation of each reflecting point can bederived, producing a 3-d point cloud that can be analysed for

3452

4

3

1427

1432

surface elevation and vegetation structure and composition. In
addition, although currently less commonly implemented, theintensity of the reflected energy can be used to evaluate
properties of the surface, as for optical imaging. LiDAR
generally has a narrow swath width, particularly with airborne
systems (satellite systems have not yet proven reliable over thelong term). It therefore requires significant time and expense toacquire full coverage of large areas. In dynamic landscapes
where higher temporal resolution is needed, such data are best
suited for high resolution sample-based analysis."

Comment
ID

Volume3454

4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Doug King

Accepted

Text modified as suggested

Rejected

Model-assisted estimation do not account for sensor changes, geolocation
errors or other improvements in satellite data analysis. Add further
clarification to explain why this point is important and relevant.

Doug King

Rejected

While remote sensing data is used to detect land cover but the focus of thischapter is to turn this info into land use, therefore we think changing theheading is not appropriate.

Doug King

Accepted with
Modification

Added citations to leading remote sensing texts (e.g., Jensen 2016) in thesecond paragraph. Subsequent refinement in this section retained andimproved - tailored for inventory compilers.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted with
Modification

Text modified as suggested

Simone Rossi

Accepted

Text modified as suggested

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

expanded - national forest inventory

Roland Hiederer

Accepted with
Modification

Text has been updated re the use of visual interpretation to balance thediscussion - both limitations and uses have been addressed in this para.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Text modified. Deleted the word "slivers" and explained this in plain
EnglishRoland Hiederer

Accepted

Text modified as suggested

While I agree overall with what is written here, it needs revision
3

1434

1439

to make it clearer and to correct grammar and wording issues. I
also suggest a reduction of technicality to make it more
understandable by the intended readership.

There is one particular approach to estimation that does notneed any re-calibration (nor other technical remedies) toaccommodate consistency in time series, namely use of
remotely sensed data in a model-assisted estimation (which is
2272

4

3

1450

1475

mentioned in an example in one of the boxes of Vol4, chap 3). In Erik Næsset
model-assisted estimation, consistency is implicitly maintained
the probability sample. Perhaps mention this case withreference to the relevant box. There are numerous examples in
the literature.

3456

4

3

1491

1491

I would call this section Land Cover-Land Use Classification
Is this generic description of classification needed for this

3458

4

3

1502

1536

document? It can be found in many undergraduate remotesensing texts. Perhaps a sentence or two would suffice with 1-2
citations of textbooks.

3048

4

3

1504

1504

Random forest, support vector machines and neural networks
are called Learning Machine techniques.
These are open source packages. If the goal is to quote open

9948

4

3

1506

1506

source packages it's ok, otherwise why quote QGIS and not
ArcGIS?

676

4

3

1509

1509

Has NFI (National Forest Inventories) been specified?
This is not related to the visual interpretation of RS data.

678

4

3

1517

1518

5ha is the minimum area of change reported in Corine LC
products. However, CLC products are not always derived fromvisual image interpretation.
The term "slivers" refers to inaccuracies in the delineation of

680

4

3

1518

1519

vector data, not raster images.
Here more appropriate is the use of gaps and overlaps.

682

4

3

1526

1526

Suggest: "reference data expert knowledge" to "reference dataor expert knowledge"

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

Accepted with
Modification

Updated text

Doug King

Rejected

No action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement. Existing text from 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

Doug King

Rejected

No action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement. Existing text from 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

Doug King

Rejected

This paragraph includes additional information not discussed anywhere
else in this section.

Doug King

Accepted

Sentence deleted.

Doug King

Accepted

Focus is on image classification using time series data. Analysis is a genericterm.

Doug King

Accepted

Addressed in the Time-series classification section.

Rejected

No action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement. Existing text from 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Line 1537 refers toimage classification, whereas the discussion in this paragraph refers toevaluation of mapping accuracy.

it is true that any improvements in data shall not createinconsistency in the time series, but the language is notadequate. It is not possible to apply data processing methods
retrospectively, therefore, saying that these should be applied to

157

4

3

1535

1536

the entire time series is doesn't reflect a realistic requirement.
SUGGESTION: refine the language saying that "anyimprovement in data processing methods SHOULD BE
REFLECTED in the entire time series to improve the accuracy
and consistency of output data""Subtraction" of two LULC maps is not correct. Classes 8-4 and

3460

4

3

1556

1558

Classes 5-1 produce the same result: 4. This method involves"cross tabulation" of the two maps to produce a from-to matrix.
"Cross tabulation" or an equivalent term should be used.

3462

4

3

1562

1563

It is also less sensitive to error propagation than comparing(cross tabulating) two classified maps.
Much of this repeats or states in a different way what is in the

3464

4

3

1571

1578

paragraphs above. It could be merged with those paragraphs
and condensed.

3466

4

3

1580

1580

3468

4

3

1581

1581

Replace specific term (destocking) with something
understandable across many fields.
I would re-word it as Time-series Analysis
These two paragraphs focus on using phenology data anddetection/identification of disturbance. I would add temporal

3470

4

3

1591

1601

trend analysis as a 3rd important type. Several specific methods
having been developed that identify and quantify long term
trends in vegetation quantity or health, whereas most
disturbance analysis seeks to find relatively sudden changes.
I would move this section up to just before line 1537. All thetext above line 1537 is on classification as this section is. Lines

3472

4

3

1602

1619

1537-1552 start the text on LULC change and should begrouped with the temporal sections starting on 1553. i.e., have
two major sections: One on Classification, the other on
Temporal analysis.

Doug King

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Erik Næsset

Accepted with
Modification

Updated text. Replaced GPS with satellite navigation systems. Rest of thesection doesn't warrant update.

A slight update may seem merited - the text is a bit old-fashion.
Most field surveys adopt protocols by which all data are

2274

4

3

1620

1654

recorded electronically in field and often communicate directlywith databases. Further, GPS is not the only available GNSS
system. China, Russia and EU operate similar systems or they
are used in combination with the the US GPS.

3050

4

3

1662

1824

Check References and their format.

It would be good to mention in this section the case of REDD+CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Reference format is consistent with the recommended style.

projects and how important is for these to align accounting with
IPCC guidelines. This has caused a lot of problems in REDD+
countries. Same thing when REDD+ MRV and reference levels
9240

4

3

3495

3591

setting has in some cases not followed IPCC guidelines.
Perhaps worth mentioning how methodological guidance for

Nasikoa Aguilar-

Accepted

Box included in Chapter 2, Volume 4.

Nalin Srivastava

Accepted

This has been corrected and clarified as "forest canopy cover over 10%"Eray Özdemir

Rejecteddefinitions are included in Chapter 3

For SOD, the current format will be used, but this may be reconsidered at alater drafting stage.

Amuchastegui

parallel parallel processes such as the FCPOF diverges from
IPCC guidance and how this can cause major issues in the
9396

4

3

2278

4

4

future.

Annex

Table 3A.1.1: Classification scheme (Column D): "canopy cover3A.1

of 10%"

generalThere should be a forest definition and a methodology for Other
Wooded Lands (degraded forests, macquis etc.)

Noted

Noted

7200

4

4

1

839

Would be clearer to state at all instances where mineral soil and organic
soil are mentioned that organic soil is not refined, but treated in the
Dirk Nemitz
wetlands supplement (instead of adding an empty entry with reference
to the wetlands supplement to the end of each sub-chapter)

2542

4

4

1

839

Volume 4 chapter 4 with my comments

6296

4

4

2

2

consistency of wording : "Forest lands" -> "Forest land". The other pages
Jongsu Yimor chapters

Accepted

4644

4

4

21

47

letter case, subscript

KEWEI YU

Accepted

3052

4

4

23

23

Replace introduction by Introduction.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

3054

4

4

28

28

Use subscript in Non-CO2.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

3056

4

4

43

43

Ratio of Below-Ground Biomass to Above-Ground Biomass (R).

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

7184

4

4

63

65

Duplication of content in lines 89-91

Dirk Nemitz

Noted

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

Tanja Sanders

Noted

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

Tanja Sanders

Noted

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

Klaus von Wilpert

Please check the numbers for carbon (t C ha-1) as they differ
10

4

4

66

67

from those provided in Vanguelova et al 2016 by the factor two
while the reference provided does not provide clear numbers

14

4

4

66

157

Large influence is given to species composition which is not yet
mentioned and should not be assumed under forest management

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To line

11

4

4

67

67

Comment
this seems rather simplified - should this be a space issuechange to: "depending on large spatial variability of forest soils".

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Tanja Sanders

Noted

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

Robert de Ligt

Noted

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

Robert de Ligt

Noted

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

Karachepone Ninan

Noted

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

Klaus von Wilpert

Noted

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

Robert de Ligt

Noted

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

malini Nair

Accepted

Robert de Ligt

Noted

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

Robert de Ligt

Noted

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

Robert de Ligt

Noted

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

Assuming you mean decomposition 'rates' here? Further, theuse of the term litter here may be confusing given the IPCC
pools and that the inputs would come from deadwood and litter.
10250

4

4

70

70

Further, fine root turnover is not considered litter by IPCC
definitions, but will be a major driver of soil carbon stocks.
Perhaps use the more generic term 'dead organic matter' or'input from turnover of living biomass.
Provide a reference that the majority of input is from

10252

4

4

72

74

aboveground biomass rather than root turnover. Otherwisechange to living biomass
Changes in disturbance regimes…… What about climate change

756

4

4

81

83

and impacts of extreme weather events on forests/soil organic
C stocks ? Isn't this also a factor to be considered ?
In regions with high acid deposition rates the C-output oftenly is

2534

4

4

83

83

dominated by the protolysis of formerly stable organic
compounds and subsequent export of dissolved organic carbon(v.Wilpert and Zirlewagen, 2007).

10254

4

4

84

84

10164

4

4

90

90

10256

4

4

90

90

Provide a reference for the loss of soils C from draining soils:
there should be plenty around
Again decision tree is mentioned, but if you are refereeing to theprevious flow chart, it is not a decision tree
Will likely be pickled up in editing, but replication of point thatlitter is not dealt with in this section
This needs to be clearer: as pointed out further down, the areaof forest land at the start and end of a period does not equal
forestland remaining forestland. Land can (and likely will) have

10260

4

4

93

95

moved out (deforestation) and in (reforestation). These areas
have different C stocks and C stock changes. You need the areaof forest land that has remained forest land between two
periods: the rest will be in the 'land converted to forestland'.
You do not necessarily need to stratify by soils and climate: if

10258

4

4

93

98

you are using Approach 3 spatially explicit approaches with Tier
3 models then the grid data themselves are generally used todrive models. But care on the use of the word 'must' in line 98

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Tanja Sanders

Accepted with
Modification

A sentence referring to the new Box 4.3a on forest management effects
was added to the original unaltered text.

Robert de Ligt

Noted

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

Robert de Ligt

Noted

The model is not currently applicable to forest land, thus the method isremoved from the Chapter 4. Comments on the model have beenaddressed in the revised text of Chapter 2

From literature it seems unlikely that management has no
impact on soil C (comp. Kyoto Protocol Article 3.4); therefore to

12

4

4

113

127

assume a change of SOC stocks being 0 seems of high risk.
While this is mentioned in line 125 there is no solution
presented. Please also change the paragraph starting line 116 toa provide a clearer structure of the sentence.
I realise that this is original 2006 GL text but presumably it
should say the areas at the start and end of the year. I would
suggest to re draft this sentence as its current wording makes it
unclear. E.g.:" ..converted from and to Forest Land, then it is

10242

4

4

118

119

good practice to estimate soil C stock change by taking thedifference in soil C stock at the start and end of the inventory
year. This can be done by calculating the carbon stock using thearea of Forest Land remaining forest land at the start of theinventory year and the carbon stock using the area of Forest
land remaining forest land at the end of the inventory year"

10248

4

4

135

135

Three-Pool Steady-State C Model - Is this not an empirically constrained
Tier 3 model? Many Tier 3 models rely on a set of basic pools in
combination with turnover and decomposition, is this not the same?

CRISTINA GARCIA DIAZ

Noted

The model is not currently applicable to forest land, thus the method isremoved from the Chapter 4. Comments on the model have beenaddressed in the revised text of Chapter 2

Nalin Srivastava

Noted

The model is not currently applicable to forest land, thus the method isremoved from the Chapter 4. Comments on the model have beenaddressed in the revised text of Chapter 2.

Tanja Sanders

NotedThis change is out of scope, but a sentence referring to the new Box 2.7 on
Tier 3 soil C modelling was added to the text.

Dirk Nemitz

Rejected

Reference is made under title Organic soils under each section and IPCC
2013 Wetland Supplement is an approved product by the IPCC and can bereferenced by this IPCC report.

Noted

IPCC 2013 Wetland Supplement is an approved product by the IPCC andcan be referenced by this IPCC report.

158

4

4

135

139

avoid calling "pools" to the 3 sub-pools proposed to avoid
misunderstanding. SUGGESTION: write "into three different sub-pools""active sub-pool", "slow sub-pool", "passive sub-pool"

9398

4

4

135

139

Remove this tier 2 approach (Three-Pool Steady-State C Model) and allsuch subsequent references in this and other chapters- it doesn’t serve
any purpose as explained above.

13

4

4

142

157

7186

4

4

158

159

Is it possible to mention the variation in C estimates due to thestratification method?
This information should be given at the beginning of the chapter, whenorganic and mineral soils are introduced
The reference to 2013 WLs supplement can be problematic for
its adoption under UNFCCC. This supplement was not accepted
as mandatory for GHG inventories. If there is an intention to

160

4

4

159

159

propose text from the supplement, the text itself should be

CRISTINA GARCIA

included in the draft, so it can be analysed as part of the

DIAZ

refinement. SUGGESTION: delete all references to 2013 WL
supplement and include the relevant text instead of thesereferences.

Comment
ID

159

Volume4

Chapter

4

From line

172

To lineComment

Expert176

The depth for evaluating soil C stock changes can be not only extended,
but reduced. As long as it is consistent with the depth considered in theother factors (Flu, Fi, Fmg). SUGGESTION: change "extended" by
CRISTINA GARCIA DIAZ
"different" in line 172. Change "extending" by "consistency with" in line
178

Response

Authors' note

Accepted

Corrected

Noted

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

Management practices….refined according to national
758

4

4

178

180

circumstances. Please give some examples to illustrate what

Karachepone Ninan

these national circumstances may be.
3060

4

4

182

182

Delete and before Hoover, 2003.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Rejected

The punctuation is correct as it is now.

4646

4

4

182

182

2001; and?

KEWEI YU

Rejected

The punctuation is correct as it is now.

8842

4

4

190

190

It need to use same term 'SOC_REF'.(not 'SOC_ref')

RAEHYUN KIM

Accepted

Corrected

15

4

4

192

192

Tanja Sanders

Accepted

A reference was added into the text

Sandro Federici

Accepted with
Modification

Text was modified and it was added that studies had typical rotation
lengths.

e.g. ICP Forests provide such information for Europe deVos et al2015, Fleck et al 2017
Could you clarify what's the cause of the following: "For example
an increase in soil C stocks after an initial decrease has been

2058

4

4

193

194

observed for a group of studies on Spodosols from a cool andhumid climate with longer monitoring periods, up to eight
decades or more (James and Harrison 2016)." Is it an increasein the rotation cycle length?
Standardize literature citation. A comma sometimes is used

3062

4

4

193

194

before the year of the publication, sometimes is not. Be

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Corrected

consistent throughout the text.
Doesn’t change in seasons have an impact on Soil C Stocks ? It
760

4

4

194

Box X.X. would be useful to present some evidence on this aspect for the Karachepone Ninan

Rejected

Seasonal changes are generally not observable with current measurement
methods

benefit of researchers and practitioners
6302

4

4

194

194

Vol4_Chp4_L194_194_Yim

Jongsu Yim

Rejected

The reference is valid for the topic but, for studies dealing with harvesting
intensities we chose to refer to papers that are meta-analyses or reviews.

9400

4

4

195

197

DELETE

Nalin Srivastava

Noted

The model is not currently applicable to forest land, thus the method isremoved from the chapter 4. Comments on the model have beenaddressed in the revised text of Chapter 3

Noted

IPCC 2013 Wetland Supplement is an approved product by the IPCC
plenary and can be referenced by this IPCC report.

The reference to 2013 WLs supplement can be problematic for
its adoption under UNFCCC. This supplement was not accepted
as mandatory for GHG inventories. If there is an intention to
169

4

4

204

204

propose text from the supplement, the text itself should be

CRISTINA GARCIA

included in the draft, so it can be analysed as part of the

DIAZ

refinement. SUGGESTION: delete all references to 2013 WL
supplement and include the relevant text instead of thesereferences.

Comment
ID

Volume762

4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Noted

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

Dirk Nemitz

Noted

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

Dirk Nemitz

Noted

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

Karachepone Ninan

Accepted with
Modification

Text was modified and an example was added

Dirk Nemitz

Noted

The model is not currently applicable to forest land, thus the method isremoved from the Chapter 4. Comments on the model have beenaddressed in the revised text of Chapter 2.

Abdul Nayamuth

Noted

The model is not currently applicable to forest land, thus the method isremoved from the Chapter 4. Comments on the model have beenaddressed in the revised text of Chapter 2.

….climate data such as United Nations Environment
4

213

214

Programme. Please give the link or web link to this climate data Karachepone Ninan
for the benefit of researchers/practitioners.

7188

4

4

214

214

7190

4

4

216

216

UNEP source should be added to references, preferably with ahyperlink
FAO Soils Map of the World source should be added toreferences, preferably with a hyperlink
native forests…. I have not checked the definitions in this reportbut is this the same as natural forests. Does conversion to a

764

4

4

222

222

new forest type refer to planting exotic species or say shiftingfrom broad leaved forests to coniferous forests or raisingplantation crops like teak, eucalyptus, etc in place of naturalforests?

7194

4

4

239

239

Grammar strange ("occur with of wood")from the C input amount, which could occur with of wood from

7958

4

4

239

239

766

4

4

246

246

correct "understory" to "understorey"

Karachepone Ninan

Noted

The model is not currently applicable to forest land, thus the method isremoved from the Chapter 4. Comments on the model have beenaddressed in the revised text of Chapter 2.

6304

4

4

248

250

Vol4_Chp4_L248_250_Yim

Jongsu Yim

Noted

The model is not currently applicable to forest land, thus the method isremoved from the Chapter 4. Comments on the model have beenaddressed in the revised text of Chapter 2.

7192

4

4

250

250

Full stop missing

Dirk Nemitz

Noted

The model is not currently applicable to forest land, thus the method isremoved from the Chapter 4. Comments on the model have beenaddressed in the revised text of Chapter 2.

Noted

The IPCC 2013 Wetland Supplement is an approved product by the IPCC
and can be referenced by this IPCC report.

salvage logging operations and other removals of (delete of)

The reference to 2013 WLs supplement can be problematic for
its adoption under UNFCCC. This supplement was not accepted
as mandatory for GHG inventories. If there is an intention to
170

4

4

260

260

propose text from the supplement, the text itself should be

CRISTINA GARCIA

included in the draft, so it can be analysed as part of the

DIAZ

refinement. SUGGESTION: delete all references to 2013 WL
supplement and include the relevant text instead of thesereferences.
3064

4

4

315

315

Use subscript in Non-CO2.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Corrected

4648

4

4

315

315

CO2 subscript

KEWEI YU

Corrected

3066

4

4

348

349

Use Mha instead Million for the sake of consistency.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Rejected

Accepted

Change not implemented, because Million ha is used also in otherchapters.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Noted

The IPCC 2013 Wetland Supplement is an approved product by the IPCC
and can be referenced by this IPCC report.

The reference to 2013 WLs supplement can be problematic for
its adoption under UNFCCC. This supplement was not accepted
as mandatory for GHG inventories. If there is an intention to

171

4

4

392

392

propose text from the supplement, the text itself should be

CRISTINA GARCIA

included in the draft, so it can be analysed as part of the

DIAZ

refinement. SUGGESTION: delete all references to 2013 WL
supplement and include the relevant text instead of thesereferences.

it is not clear what "consistency" means in the context of thereference values across land uses. How can this consistency be
proven? These data usually come from different types of studies
and data basis. Something that can be consistent in one place interms of magnitude can be illogical in other place. In addition to
161

4

4

415

417

this, coordination of teams doing soil C inventories, that usually
are made for other purposes, with private funding, etc. it is

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

Noted

impossible for Governments. SUGGESTION: delete the sentencestarting with "However". At most, the sentence can be redrafted
specifying that data should come from robust data bases and

The text was clarified by adding a reference to Chapter 2 (2.3.3.1) and afurther clarification that reference values in the Tier 1 method represent
native lands (i.e. non-degraded, unimproved lands under native
vegetation). An approach of native conditions as a reference stock can be
adopted for Tier 2 as well, but other reference conditions can also bechosen. The consistency and coordination referred in the text mean that in
calculating soil carbon stock changes in land-use change cases, the samereference stock should be used for each climate zone, soil type, and set ofmanagement systems that are present in a country (which has been
multiplied by e.g. management factors to represent stock on cropland or
grassland etc).

studies.

The depth for evaluating soil C stock changes can be not only
extended, but reduced. As long as it is consistent with the depth
162

4

4

418

421

considered in the other factors (Flu, Fi, Fmg). SUGGESTION:
change "extended" by "different" in line 418. Change "extending"

CRISTINA GARCIA

Accepted

Corrected

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted

Corrected

Anna Romanovskaya

Accepted

We agree with the comment, this has been clarified in a new box in the theChapter 2.

Noted

The IPCC 2013 Wetland Supplement is an approved product by the IPCC
and can be referenced by this IPCC report.

Accepted

Corrected

DIAZ

by "consistency with" in line 419
7196

4

4

427

427

Comma to be deleted
The text is not very clear. If we compare C stocks -in kg C/ha forthe certain depth -- these data could be compared between

1628

4

4

429

435

land use types even if soil density is different. If we trying tocompare c CONTENT - in C% - in that case there is a need toconsider additionally a soil density.

The reference to 2013 WLs supplement can be problematic for
its adoption under UNFCCC. This supplement was not accepted
as mandatory for GHG inventories. If there is an intention to
163

4

4

445

445

propose text from the supplement, the text itself should be

CRISTINA GARCIA

included in the draft, so it can be analysed as part of the

DIAZ

refinement. SUGGESTION: delete all references to 2013 WL
supplement and include the relevant text instead of thesereferences.
3614

4

4

460

467

Please replace "sector" with "land-use category"

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

This statement is not correct. Under Tier 1 the difference instocks is calculated using the time dependence of the stockchange factors - commonly 20 years (see Vol 4 Chap 2 pg 2.30).
10244

4

4

460

461

There is a disconnect between the Tiers and Approach 1 as it is Robert de Ligt

Noted

not possible to correctly apply the stock change factors because
it is not possible to estimate to track the time since land use

Authors' note
In 2.3.3.1 Soil organic C estimation methods (Land remaining in a land-use
category and land conversion to a new land use) this topic is further
elaborated, including clarifications and examples such as a case of multiple
land-use changes within the 20-year period. A reference to Chapter 2 wasadded to this section in Chapter 4, together with other clarifications suchas the need to have stock estimates for forest land in land-use change
calculations.

change.
164

4

4

470

470

SUGGESTION: replace "this rate will vary" by "this rate COULD

CRISTINA GARCIA

vary"

DIAZ

Noted

The model is not currently applicable to forest land, thus the method isremoved from the chapter 4. Comments on the model have beenaddressed in the revised text of Chapter 2

Noted

The model is not currently applicable to forest land, thus the method isremoved from the chapter 4. Comments on the model have beenaddressed in the revised text of Chapter 2

Noted

The model is not currently applicable to forest land, thus the method isremoved from the chapter 4. Comments on the model have beenaddressed in the revised text of Chapter 2

Noted

The IPCC 2013 Wetland Supplement is an approved product by the IPCC
and can be referenced by this IPCC report.

the final use of the C extracted from the forest doesn't havedirect effect on the C stock changes in the forests. If they are
165

4

4

472

472

used for energy, decoration, gardens,... doesn't have a direct

CRISTINA GARCIA

impact in the emissions and removals in forest land inventory.

DIAZ

SUGGESTION: replace "energy use of harvested residues" by"extraction of harvested residues from the forest".
4650

4

4

475

475

good practice in italic

KEWEI YU

The reference to 2013 WLs supplement can be problematic for
its adoption under UNFCCC. This supplement was not accepted
as mandatory for GHG inventories. If there is an intention to
166

4

4

492

492

propose text from the supplement, the text itself should be

CRISTINA GARCIA

included in the draft, so it can be analysed as part of the

DIAZ

refinement. SUGGESTION: delete all references to 2013 WL
supplement and include the relevant text instead of thesereferences.
3068

4

4

492

492

Replace Supplements by Supplement

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Corrected

Robert de Ligt

Noted

This change is out of scope with approved table of contents by the IPCC
plenary.

Accepted

text has been changed as suggested. The term "gap filling" is used, andinterpolation or extrapolation are mentioned as example of gap fillingThis text only works for lands moving from a remaining toconversion category. However, in many countries there may be
multiple transitions (for example, FL-GL, then GL back to FL 15
10262

4

4

495

515

years later). You cannot use the reference stock in this case:you need to use the stock at the time of the second conversion
back, or the results will be biased. This is being address in othersections on soils carbon.

167

4

4

537

585

SUGGESTION: replace references to interpolation or extrapolation to"filling the gaps" or "gap filling", as there are more methods proposed by
CRISTINA GARCIA DIAZ
the IPCC to complete time series that would need to be revisited for thedevelopment of consistent time series.

Comment
ID

2536

Volume4

Chapter

4

From line

541

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

541

Such trends in time should be based on the data sets of forest
environmental monitoring and should be actualized after every sampling
campaign. Soil inventory e.g. is in Germany repeated on a 8x8 km grid
every 15 years (Wellbrock et al. 2016). Even the 8x8 km sampling does
not allow to relate the soil data directly to the forest area. The
point/area-transfer has to be realized by statistical transfer models using
Klaus von Wilpert
landscape characteristics as predictors which are continuously available
in space (Zirlewagen and v.Wilpert, 2010, v.Wilpert et al., 2017).
Hartmann et al. (2016) demonstrated that with this method the smallscaled and representative distribution of SOM- trends between 1992
and 2007 could be derived for the German Federal state Baden-Wü
rttemberg.

Accepted with
Modification

the suggestion focuses on interpolation. While it is valuable, since thissection focuses on a specific method of extrapolation (now the text is moreclear on that), we consider that this suggestion may be better placed in Vol
1 ch 5.

Accepted

text has been changed as suggested

Accepted

text has been changed as suggested

2060

4

4

557

558

This should be: "It is good practice that the model used forinter/extrapolation utilizes information on the methodological elements Sandro Federici
above that is consistent with those used in the rest of the time series."

4652

4

4

557

557

good practice in italic

Accepted with
Modification

the text now clarifies that we refer to harvest volumes, not area. We also
specify that it is good practice to assume the continuation of management
practices when no data is available for harvest volumes or suitable proxies.

Accepted

the box introduced at the SOD

KEWEI YU

10246

4

4

561

562

It is not clear if this sentence refers strictly to statistics on harvest areas
or if it also means that there is no suitable proxy data as well. I.e. if there
was not statistics on harvest area, but there were statistics on log
Robert de Ligt
volumes, this would be a suitable proxy to use and could arguably bebetter than assuming "continuation of management practices".

3070

4

4

585

585

Specify the box.

768

4

4

590

590

stock difference method… Are these concepts defined and elaborated in
the appendix to this report or one of the earlier chapters. Will be useful Karachepone Ninan
for practitioners.

Accepted with
Modification

A reference to the section 2.3, where the stock difference method is
explained, has been added

Noted

table completed in SOD

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

CARLOS SANQUETTA

9838

4

4

615

615

It seems very difficult that default parameters in table 4.4 are notprovided. The expert review should check the default data, thegovernment review not the appropriate stage to consider new
Anke Herold
parameters for the first time as government experts should not check for
accuracy of the data, but readability, clarity etc.

76

4

4

618

619

The reference in Table 4.4 is better to put in Reference Section beginning
Mingshan Su
at line 729.

Noted

3072

4

4

618

618

Improve table format.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

4654

4

4

618

618

Table 4.4, ha-1 superscript, ha-2?, ha-0?

KEWEI YU

Accepted

incorrect superscripts "ha-2" and "ha-0" will be corrected to "ha-1"

619

When updating table 4.4, beware that the current version contains two
problematic points:
1) The values from Mokany et al (2006) for tropical moist forest are notspecific to "deciduous" forests sot the term "deciduous" should bedeleted.
Valentin Bellassen
2) The values from Mokany cover 3 continents, are more recent andbased on a larger dataset than the older Fittkau and Klinge (1973). In myview, The Fittkau and Klinge (1973) reference should be dropped and the
Mokany et al (2006) values should be preferred for all tropicalrainforests.

Accepted1) the term "deciduous" deleted and "tropical moist forest" is usedinstead;2) Accepted, the values from Fittkau & Klinge(1973) dropped (as this reference does not provide information on thenumber of samples used to generate the value and so the uncertainty). The
update table include Mokany et al (2006) and some new additional
data/references for tropical forests

5340

4

4

618

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

6298

4

4

618

619

In the table 4.4, the Asia in temperate domain is missing.

Jongsu Yim

Accepted

Asia continent in the temperate domain inserted in the updated table

Accepted

estimates considered and felt into the ranges

Accepted

The "Asia" continent inserted in "temperate" domain

7384

4

4

618

619

Suggested data and additional references for default values for root-toshoot ratios for Australia and New Zealand based on recent studies:"Paul, K.I., Larmour, J., Spech, A. et al. 2018. Testing the generality of
below-ground 1 biomass allometry across plant functional types at thecontinental scale. Global Change Biology. In review." andMax Collett"Ledo, A., Paul, K.I., Burslem, D. et al. (2017). Tree size and climatic water
deficit control root to shoot ratio in individual trees globally. New
Phytologist, 217: 8–11."
See suggested default values in supporting documentation.

8844

4

4

618

619

Please, insert 'Asia' as a continent in 'Temperate' sector.

Noted

estimates considered and felt into the ranges

RAEHYUN KIM

9408

4

4

618

619

Table 4.4. It is surprising not finding national estimates which made insome cases important studies to derive this relations. For instance inSpain: Montero G, Ruiz-Peinado R, Muñoz M (2005) Production debiomass y fijación de CO2 por los bosques españoles. Monografías INIA:
Serie forestal 13. Instituto Nacional de Investigation y Tecnología Agraria
y Alimentaria, Ministerio de Investigation y Ciencia. Madrid. ISBN 84Iciar Alberdi
7498-512-9 (in Spanish); Ruiz-Peinado R, Del Rio M, Montero G (2011)
New models for estimating the carbon sink capacity of Spanish softwood
species. Forest Systems, 20(1):176–188.; Ruiz-Peinado R, Montero G, Del
Rio M (2012) Biomass models to estimate carbon stocks for hardwood
tree species. Forest Systems, 21(1):42–52.

77

4

4

627

628

The reference in Table 4.7 is better to put in Reference Section beginning
Mingshan Su
at line 729.

Noted

column to be added to identify numbered references to reduce long list

Rejected

In most cases weighted means are impossible as data for carrying out thatanalysis are limited

data checked and value updated as appropriate

2898

4

4

627

628

Table 4.7: when multiple values are available for the same class (e.g.,Temperate domain, Oceanic ecozone, Continent Europe) a simple
average of all values may not always be the best choice, and analternative could be a weighted average, giving to each value a weight
proportional to its representativeness, such as the area sampled on the
ground

2900

4

4

627

628

Table 4.7: the biomass value for Temperate domain - Temperate Oceanic
Valerio Avitabile
forest - Europe - Primary of 81,46 t/ha seems a bit low for a primary
forest and may need to be double-checked

Accepted with
Modification

3074

4

4

627

627

Replace Tropical by Tropical (vertical heading). Improve table format.

Accepted

Valerio Avitabile

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted

the references used and values revised where appropriate

7382

4

4

627

628

Suggested data and additional reference for above ground biomass
values in natural forests in Australia by climate zone:
Roxburgh, S., Karunaratne, S., and Paul, K.I.. (2017). A revised aboveground maximum biomass layer for Australia’s national carbon
accounting system. Report prepared for the Department of theEnvironment and Energy. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Max Collett
Research Organisation (CSIRO). Canberra.
This recent study developed estimates of above-ground biomass inundisturbed natural forests at any location across Australia based on an
extensive database of 5739 site-based records combed with the Random
Forest ensemble machine learning algorithm using a variety ofenvironmental variables.

8846

4

4

627

628

'TTropical'

RAEHYUN KIM

Accepted

8848

4

4

627

628

I'm not sure which one is correct ',' or '.' in the column which is
Aboveground biomass [tonnes d.m. ha-1]).

RAEHYUN KIM

Accepted

Units will be corrected where necessary

8850

4

4

627

657

Please, use same units in tables. i.e. ha-1, yr-1

RAEHYUN KIM

Accepted

units corrected where necessary

78

4

4

647

648

Noted

Column to be added to identify numbered references to reduce long list

79

4

4

656

657

Acceptedsources listed at the Reference Section, as requested.

3076

4

4

656

656

Improve table format. Check the italic scientific names.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

6300

4

4

656

657

Vol4_Chp4_L656_657_Yim

Jongsu Yim

Notedmaterials not found and only in Korean

8868

4

4

656

657

Please, explain about 'E', 'S', 'N', SE', 'W', 'C' in the column which is
Region/Country.

RAEHYUN KIM

Accepted

a footnote on the Table was provided to explain the meaning of theseletters.

Section 5.2.4. The following text could be inserted: as regards N crop
residues burnt on-site (i.e. "Field Burning of Agricultural Residues" - 3F
CRF category - volume 4 chapter 5 section 5.2.4 Non-CO2 greenhousegas emissions from biomass burning) a cross check with the amount ofNbeddingMS of the Equation 10.41 "Managed manure N available forapplication to managed soils" and the categories "Crop residue N,
including N-fixing crops and forage/ pasture renewal, returned to soils,(FCR)" (included in the 3D CRF category - volume 11 chapter 11 section
Eleonora Di Cristofaro
11.2.1.3) and "Open burning of waste - other: agricultural waste" (5C CRF
category - volume 5 chapter 5 section 5.3.2 Amount of waste openburned), relative to the amount of agricultural residues burnt on-siteother than the amount of agricultural residues that is removed for otherpurposes (e.g. bedding) or returned to soils or open-burnt should be
done. See box reported in Crop residues (see comment above regarding
crop residues). This is important to eliminate the possibility of double
counting.

Accepted with
Modification

cross-cutting issue that was clarified, but the suggested text isn't veryclear.

Accepted

Section 4.6 has been deleted.

Noted

Section 4.6 has been deleted.

4154

4

4

666

666

168

4

4

676

718

3616

4

4

679

710

The reference in Table 4.9 is better to put in Reference Section beginning
Mingshan Su
at line 729.
The reference in Table 4.11 is better to put in Reference Section
Mingshan Su
beginning at line 729.

not mandated, and pre-empts future development of guidelines. CRISTINA GARCIA
SUGGESTION: delete section 4,6,
Please use "stock changes" instead of "flux"? Probably "netstock change" is a better option.

DIAZ
Iordanis Tzamtzis

Comment
ID

Volume3078

4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' noteStandardize literature citation. A comma sometimes is used
4

679

717

before the year of the publication, sometimes is not. Be

CARLOS SANQUETTA Noted

Section 4.6 has been deleted.

Anke Herold

Accepted

Section 4.6 has been deleted.

Raul Abad Viñas

Noted

Section 4.6 has been deleted.

Sandro Federici

Noted

Section 4.6 has been deleted.

KEWEI YU

Noted

Section 4.6 has been deleted.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Noted

Section 4.6 has been deleted.

consistent throughout the text.

potential new methods seems highly hypothetical and text is
extremely confusing. It seems that the method would add large
uncertainties instead of reducing them and the section is notable to demonstrate the scientific robustness of such approach.
9840

4

4

679

717

Please delete entire section. Replacing an approach that works
and is implemented since many years with a highly hypothetical
approach is extremely dangerous for consistent time series ofemission and removals estimates and not helpful for therobustness of GHG inventories.

I suggest providing also the factors that determine the C
outputs, which as mentioned rely on decomposition rate. For
example temperature, moisture, pH, biological activity. In this
2878

4

4

686

688

way, there would be a better comparison and use of “while”
among inputs and outputs given that the factors that determine
the C inputs as litter and harvest rates are there mentioned (i.e.
productivity and management).

2062

4

4

688

690

4656

4

4

710

710

3080

4

4

717

717

2068

4

4

719

720

This information seems inconsistent with what discussed in box
X.x at rows 193-194. Could you reconcile it?
multi-layered?
Delete a unnecessary close parenthesis after Steward et al.
2007.

"carbon gains and losses of perennial woody crop may also occur insubsequent years up to 20 years (at maximum)". Note that this text isinconsistent with the harvesting cycles provided e.g. in table 5.1 which
may be longer than 20 years.
Please convey the following comment as a general comment:"The IPCC Guidelines, including the proposed text for refinement, mix 2
concepts that are substantially different:- one is the dependence time, i.e. the time a C stock need to achieve its
new (long-term) equilibrium level (for woody crops this is the harvesting Sandro Federici
cycle). The dependence time may vary significantly among C pools andland uses;- the other one is the conversion period, i.e. the time a land converted toa new use/management system needs for achieving a level of C stocks
and a dynamic of those stocks characteristic (and comparable with that)of all other land under same use/management. The conversion period
has been set to 20-year by IPCC and for the sake of comparability should
be taken constant for all land uses and all countries."

Noted

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

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

7198

4

4

731

752

Better to keep references in one single list

Dirk Nemitz

Rejected

Authors believe the current style is appropriate.

3104

4

4

754

754

Soil organic carbon instead Soils organic matter? Replace matrix bymatrix.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Acceptedcorrected matrix typo, check consistency of soil carbon terminology.

8870

4

4

812

812

1000 y' maybe need to change '1000 year'.

RAEHYUN KIM

Rejected

Seems irrelevant because there is no such a word in the line 812.

2538

4

4

839

839

Literature citations suggested

Noted

6876

4

4

1455

1455

The author name should be rewritten in standard format

6878

4

4

1512

1512

The author name should be rewritten in standard format

Klaus von Wilpert
Seyed Muhammadreza
Tabatabaei
Seyed
Muhammadreza

6880

4

4

1538

1538

the point and comma should be replaced from Manca G,. To Manca G.,

Tabatabaei
Seyed Muhammadreza
Tabatabaei

8852

4

4

1563

1563

For clarification, 'diameter' change to 'DBH' or 'diameter of breast
height'.

820

4

5

2

2

4658

4

5

24

6836

4

5

6840

4

3084

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

Corrected typo.

RAEHYUN KIM

Rejected

The term "diameter" as used here is intended to be general and may referto a tree measurement at breast height, root collar, or some other height.

There is no chapter title!!

Wilfried Winiwarter

Noted

The chapter title is the same as the 2006 GL

24

4?

Accepted24

24

the text should be like other parts in table of contents (e.g.:5.2;5.3,...)

5

30

37

The word Tier in lines 30 and 37 is in different formats (tier vs. Tier)

KEWEI YU
Seyed Muhammadreza
Tabatabaei
Seyed Muhammadreza

4

5

31

31

Replace uncertainty by Uncertainty

6558

4

5

31

31

uncertainty assessment - the letter "u" is lowercase.

6838

4

5

31

31

U in uncertainty should be in capital letter

6842

4

5

31

38

The word Uncertainty in lines 31 and 38 is in different formats(uncertainty vs. Uncertainty)

Stoécio Maia
Seyed Muhammadreza
Tabatabaei
Seyed Muhammadreza
Tabatabaei

4660

4

5

31

46

letter case for uncertainty, tier

KEWEI YU

6844

4

5

32

47

The words Dead organic matter in lines 32 and 47 are in different
formats (Dead organic matter vs. Dead Organic Matter)

6848

4

5

45

52

The word Tier in lines 30 and 37 is in different formats (tier vs. Tier)

6846

4

5

46

46

U in uncertainty should be in capital letter

Seyed Muhammadreza
Tabatabaei
Seyed Muhammadreza
Tabatabaei
Seyed Muhammadreza

6850

4

5

61

61

the points between ANNEX 5A.1 and the title should be deleted

3086

4

5

63

63

Subscript for CH4.

6852

4

5

63

63

the points between ANNEX 5A.2 and the title should be deleted

6854

4

5

65

65

the points between ANNEX 5A.3 and the title should be deleted

6856

4

5

79

82

There is no space between equation number and its title!!

Muhammadreza
Seyed Muhammadreza
Tabatabaei
Seyed

6858

4

5

86

91

There is no space between figure number and its title!!

Seyed

3088

4

5

91

91

6860

4

5

94

6862

4

5

1840

4

5

Tabatabaei
CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Noted

Accepted
Tabatabaei
Seyed Muhammadreza
Accepted
Tabatabaei
CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted
Seyed

AcceptedWill be addressed, at least, in the final copy-edit work.

editorial
editorial

Accepted
Accepted

editorial

Accepted

Corrected

Subscript for CH4.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Corrected

117

There is no space between table number and its title!!

Seyed

Accepted

Corrected

120

125

There is no space between box number and its title!!

Seyed

Accepted

Corrected

135

135

insert 'tea,' after 'coffee,'Yao Huang

Accepted

added to list (which is not intended to be all inclusive anyway)

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Valentin Bellassen

Accepted with
Modification

Countries using Tier 1 have aggregated N input data which are notappropriate for the suggested method. An exponential method can beaddressed at higher tiers by countries wishing to do so. Text added.

The essence of the publications by Bouwman, later mentioned(l. 227-228) as the rationale for updating EF1 default values isthat the N2O emissions from N inputs are a quadratic or
exponential - rather than linear - function of N inputs.
Accordingly, in this equation, (FSN + ... + FSOM) * EF1 should
be changed to (FSN + ... + FSOM) * EF1a + (FSN + ... +FSOM)^2 * EF1b or exp(EF1a + (FSN + ... + FSOM) * EF1b).
Default values for EF1a and EF1b can be derived from thealready quoted Bouwman publications or from more recent
existing publications/calculators updating them such as:
5338

4

5

139

139

Gerber, J.S., Carlson, K.M., Makowski, D., Mueller, N.D., Garciade Cortazar-Atauri, I., Havlík, P., Herrero, M., Launay, M., O’
Connell, C.S., Smith, P., West, P.C., 2016. Spatially explicit
estimates of N2O emissions from croplands suggest climate
mitigation opportunities from improved fertilizer management.
Global Change Biology 22, 3383–3394.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13341
Hillier, J., Walter, C., Malin, D., Garcia-Suarez, T., Mila-i-Canals,
L., Smith, P., 2011. A farm-focused calculator for emissions fromcrop and livestock production. Environmental Modelling &Software 26, 1070–1078.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.03.014

2064

4

5

164

165

Such guidance (i.e. If harvest and immature areas are unknown, it isassumed C uptake in growth is balanced by emissions due to crop
turnover in cropland remaining cropland) needs to be complemented.
Indeed, in case the area of perennial crops is increased during the past
period X [where X is equivalent to the harvesting cycle minus 1] then a
net C accumulation in all new areas (i.e. area increment in the period X)
has to be reported.

6560

4

5

164

165

For me, this part is confusing.

Stoécio Maia

Acceptedparagraph reworded.

3090

4

5

171

173

Standardize use of bold fonts.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

duplicated values in table corrected.

2066

4

5

227

228

There is something wrong in table 5.1- The maximum stock of Moist tropical should be 8*6.1=49;- The maximum stock of Wet tropical should be 5*10=50

Sandro Federici

Accepted

duplicated values in table corrected.

228

In the table, biomass accumulation rates for tropical wet andtemperate/subtropical do not keep the linear relation with values of
Maturity cycle and Maximum AGB at harvest, as done by the values in
the other domains. This needs to be checked, and in case, to add some
explanation.

Raul Abad Viñas

Accepted

duplicated values in table corrected.

2880

4

5

227

Sandro Federici

Accepted with
Modification

Text reworded; this section is CL remaining CL; the case of expanding areaof CL is dealt with under Land converted to CL. But the proposed text is
not correct, since Tier1 requires the activity data on renewal, so if no data
is available should assume harvested area is 1/rotation length * total area

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted

there was a mistake in define the units for Lmean in the table - it should be
tonnes C ha-1.

change justified in footnote.

2882

4

5

227

288

The heading of the penultimate column (Lmean) would need to beclarified to point out that is the mean C loss when the woody crops are
removed at unknown age (this is clarified in the line 269-270 of thischapter). The fact that it is expressed by year could lead to confusions
with annual losses that occur due to mortality or pruning of branches,
Raul Abad Viñas
etc.. My argument is supported also by the fact that the only different
between the use of Lmax and Lmean seems to be the age, know or
unknown, when the crops are removed. Therefore, it is confusing to seethat the units used for Lmax and Lmean are different. I suggest to
remove from the units of Lmean the "year".

6044

4

5

227

228

Footnotes 2 and 3: since the 2006 chapter indicates that the data arefrom Schroeder and the values are quite different in some cases,
additional explanation may be helpful.

Mark Sperow

Accepted

6046

4

5

227

228

Since agroforestry seems to preclude monoculture systems (per Lines
134-136) should a footnote be included to prevent confusion?

Mark Sperow

Accepted

235

Since all countries are not listed when there are missing data or the
row/column does not apply to the country, is it necessary to include
Africa under each ecological zone? If it is, should other continents also be
included when data are absent from them? It would be a way to identify Mark Sperow
areas where additional research may be needed. For example, since
Australia is only listed under tropical moist deciduous forest, is that the
only ecological zone for the country?

Acceptedremoved those with no data

236

I believe the parenthetical statements for Tropical shrub land in Africa
are reversed for the improved fallow 1 and 2 years. The above-groundbiomass for the two year fallow should be higher than the one year.

Mark Sperow

Accepted

text revised

6048

6050

4

4

5

5

234

234

1666

4

5

235

237

At Tab. 5.2 please for the "Orchards systems" , Mediterranean typeclimate, ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS =39.5 Tonnes/Ha range from 35.2
t/ha to 47.7 t/ha

Giuseppe Montanaro

Noted

Table 5.2 just describes the systems, it does not include quantifications

1668

4

5

235

237

At Tab. 5.2 please for the "Orchards systems" , Mediterranean typeclimate, BELOW-GROUND BIOMASS =36.8 Tonnes/Ha ranging from 32.8 Giuseppe Montanaro
to 44.5 t/ha

Noted

Table 5.2 just describes the systems, it does not include quantifications

7960

4

5

235

236

last column Table 5.2 (GPG 2006 or GPG 2003 or GL 2006)

Abdul Nayamuth

Accepted

text revised

3092

4

5

236

236

Use italic for Latin names of species.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

3094

4

5

239

239

Instead plantations use the term tree plantations.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

6052

4

5

239

240

3096

4

5

240

241

3656

4

5

240

241

I think that the numbering is confusing with the capital "I" instead ofMark Sperow
lower case so that the list is "i, ii, iii", etc.).
Standardize literature citation to be consistent throughout the text (andCARLOS SANQUETTA
other Chapters).
What's the difference between table 5.1 and table 5.4? Why not to put
together?

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted
Accepted
Rejected

the mandate was that default values in both of these tables will be
updated; monocultures and agroforestry systems are considered different

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

The mean biomass carbon stock for rubber monoculture for allcontinents in tropical, wet humid comates is not clear. If the mean isbased upon the cited sources, it may not be correct or it is indicating
alternative means from other studies. Please clarify how analysists
should interpret these values..

Mark Sperow

Noted

revised estimate for rubber plantations provided

Acceptedformatting corrected

6054

4

5

240

241

6864

4

5

241

241

6874

4

5

241

241

7962

4

5

269

269

3098

4

5

290

291

1842

4

5

320

320

80

4

5

339

339

6866

4

5

339

339

7964

4

5

342

342

7966

4

5

360

360

7968

4

5

361

361

6562

4

5

363

367

The header of table 5.4 is being repeated in the last page which is not
Seyed Muhammadrezanecessary
Tabatabaei
The author name should be rewritten in standard format (Anil Kumar
Seyed Muhammadreza
Yadava)Tabatabaei
Table 5.1 to 5.4 in the case that carbon removal has occurred by land use
Abdul Nayamuth
change where the age of the perennial crop (read has)Instead plantations use the term tree plantations.
cite a recent publication 'Wesemael et al., 2010' after Ogle etal., 2005"5.1.1.1 5.2.3.1 CHOICE OF METHOD" should be "5.2.3.1
CHOICE OF METHOD"
There is two number for the title!! 5.1.1.1 should be deleted
When estimate ∆CG, it is good practice to reflect the difference of thegrowing period and/or carbon density under (read estimating)and ∆CL, country can be use country specific factors. Alternatively
default estimation consistent with Tier 2 in (delete be)settlements remaining settlements are also possible to be applied. For
both case, the information on on green space (delete on)
It is important to relate this paragraph to what is written inchapter 2.

Accepted
AcceptedCARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

Yao Huang

Noted

Mingshan Su

Accepted

Corrected

Seyed

Accepted

Corrected

Abdul Nayamuth

Acceptedtypo corrected

Abdul Nayamuth

Acceptedtypo corrected

Abdul Nayamuth

Acceptedtypo corrected

Stoécio Maia

Accepted

It would appear that in the 2006 Guidelines the 3-pool model

5

364

367

change and an example. As presented one may be uncertain

Refinement

Roland Hiederer

Noted

Yao Huang

Noted

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

It could be useful to the reader to provide a comment on the4

No action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019

The proposed steady-state model cannot be implemented as a Tier 3
approach. It is not appropriate to be prescriptive in how a country would
complete a Tier 3 inventory. There are examples of modelling being usedwithin Tier 2 approaches (e.g. in the calculation of methane emissions fromruminants). Although Tier 2 approaches can be a simple extension of a Tier
1 approach through the use of country specific parameters, it is not arequirement.
(no change)

would have been classified as a Tier 3 method.
724

typo corrected

whether Roth-C or Century may fall into this type of model.
Subsequent specifications for data are very close to those ofRoth-C, including the time-steps.

Models with country-specific parameterization, calibration andvalidation should be encouraged to use in Tier 3 method.
Please insert 'Country-specific or region-specific models are
1844

4

5

371

371

encouraged to use, but must be validated with independent
observations from country or region-specific studies that cover
the range of soils, climates and field managements (Huang etal., 2009; Yu et al., 2012; Farina et al., 2013).' before 'Key
criteria...'Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To line

7970

4

5

372

372

Comment
in other chapters’ default assumption. The guidance on Tier 2
and Tier 3 are enhanced to clarify how to choice (read choose)

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Abdul Nayamuth

Noted

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

Noted

The IPCC 2013 Wetlands Supplement is an approved product by the IPCC
plenary and can be referenced in this IPCC report. However, we added
more specific references to the sections in the Wetlands Supplement.

The reference to 2013 WLs supplement can be problematic for
its adoption under UNFCCC. This supplement was not accepted
as mandatory for GHG inventories. If there is an intention to
172

4

5

380

380

propose text from the supplement, the text itself should be

CRISTINA GARCIA

included in the draft, so it can be analysed as part of the

DIAZ

refinement. SUGGESTION: delete all references to 2013 WL
supplement and include the relevant text instead of thesereferences.

Can the empirical analysis be based on modelled data? It could
8892

4

5

405

408

be useful if the IPCC specify that country specific stock change
factors can be derived from measured and modelled data? See

Signe Kynding Borgen Accepted

example in the article above.

173

4

5

410

412

it is not clear what "consistency" means in the context of the reference
values across land uses. How can this consistency be proven? These data
usually come from different types of studies and data basis. Somethingthat can be consistent in one place in terms of magnitude can be illogicalin other place. In addition to this, coordination of teams doing soil C
CRISTINA GARCIA DIAZ
inventories, that usually are made for other purposes, with private
funding, etc. it is impossible for Governments. SUGGESTION: delete thesentence starting with "However". At most, the sentence can beredrafted specifying that data should come from robust data bases andstudies.

Accepted with
Modification

Wording clarified in Chapter 2 and removed from here.

Signe Kynding Borgen

Accepted with
Modification

This has been removed so issue resolved.

CRISTINA GARCIA

Accepted with
Modification

Wording clarified in Chapter 2 and removed from here.

Accepted with
Modification

Removed sentence with bias to improve clarity.

Consistency of the reference values across land-use classes isonly an issue if the same Tier 2 method is used for all class.
8894

4

5

410

411

Consider adding "if the same Tier 2 method is used." to finish
the sentence that starts " However, reference values must be....."The depth for evaluating soil C stock changes can be not only
extended, but reduced. As long as it is consistent with the depth

175

4

5

413

416

considered in the other factors (Flu, Fi, Fmg). SUGGESTION:
change "extended" by "different" in line 413. Change "extending"DIAZ

by "consistency with" in line 413
Term "bias":
686

4

5

415

415

Not bias as in introducing a systematic difference, but
potentially introducing an inconsistency or a distortion of results.

Roland Hiederer

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Roland Hiederer

Accepted with
Modification

Addressed in revisions in Ch3

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Corrected

Roland Hiederer

Noted

Roland Hiederer

Accepted with
Modification

Issue addressed in revisions to Chapter 2 instead of this chapter.

Anna Romanovskaya

Accepted with
Modification

Addressed in revisions in Chapter 2 instead of this chapter.

Acceptedtypo corrected

One may argue the general validity of this statement based on
the results presented in the article cited.
The authors compared a Tier 1 method with the results fromobtained by RothC as Tier 2, but with a very limited range of
688

4

5

417

419

conditions.
Depending in land use, soil type and climate one may just as
well find the opposite relationship.
What may be deducted from the results of the work cited is thata Tier 2 method could provide more accurate data than a Tier 1
method. more would be stretching the results beyond its limits.
This paper is not referenced in the bibliography.
Referenced:

690

4

5

419

419

Villarino et al., 2017
This is a different article and not the correct reference at thisplace.
This sentence refers to a rather theoretical condition.

692

4

5

420

421

Unfortunately, hardly any soil survey samples continuously or
determines soil bulk density in the field.
It is therefore not very practical.
The whole paragraph is not very helpful in providing guidance to

698

4

5

420

431

applying a Tier 2 method. At least a reference should be cited,
the method goes back to 1968.
It is suggested to remove without replacement.
The text is not very clear. If we compare C stocks -in kg C/ha forthe certain depth -- these data could be compared between

1630

4

5

420

431

land use types even if soil density is different. If we trying tocompare c CONTENT - in C% - in that case there is a need toconsider additionally a soil density.

7972

4

5

420

420

Use default values for Bbefore from respective land-use category chapter
Abdul Nayamuth(Forest Land, Grassland, etc) and assume (read BBefore)
Use default values for Bbefore from respective land-use

7972

4

5

420

420

category chapter (Forest Land, Grassland, etc) and assume

Abdul Nayamuth

AcceptedRoland Hiederer

Accepted with
Modification

Issue addressed in revisions to Chapter 2 instead of this chapter.

Abdul Nayamuth

Acceptedtypo corrected(read BBefore)
Soil weight changes?
694

4

5

421

421

It is the density that changes with depth, .i.e. the mass per unit
volume.

7974

4

5

424

424

Multiply the result by 44/12 to obtain the amount of CO2 equivalents
emitted (the sum obtained in Step (read CO2)

Comment
ID

Volume696

4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Roland Hiederer

Accepted with
Modification

Issue addressed in revisions to Chapter 2 instead of this chapter.

Abdul Nayamuth

Acceptedtypo corrected

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Changed to Table 2.6

Abdul Nayamuth

Noted

Referred to TSU.

Noted

The IPCC 2013 Wetlands Supplement is an approved product by the IPCC
plenary and can be referenced in this IPCC report. However, we added
more specific references to the sections in the Wetlands Supplement.

This recommendation may be questioned for a method that
5

427

429

uses changes in soil organic C-stocks and where land remains
in a category.

7976

4

5

430

430

survey (read surveyed)
The table referenced contains

700

4

5

433

434

DEFAULT VALUES FOR ORGANIC CARBON CONTENT FACTOR
OF BIOCHAR BY PRODUCTION TYPE..
Not obvious, which table should be referred to,(to obtain BBefore and BAfter), apply Equation 2.16 to each

7978

4

5

438

438

non-empty cell of the land-use change matrix, add (readBBefore and BAfter)

The reference to 2013 WLs supplement can be problematic for
its adoption under UNFCCC. This supplement was not accepted
as mandatory for GHG inventories. If there is an intention to
174

4

5

440

440

propose text from the supplement, the text itself should be

CRISTINA GARCIA

included in the draft, so it can be analysed as part of the

DIAZ

refinement. SUGGESTION: delete all references to 2013 WL
supplement and include the relevant text instead of thesereferences.

UPDATED - TABLE 5.6 (CONTINUED
702

4

5

453

454

Footnote 2: NA denotes ‘Not Applicable’, is presented as "n/a"Roland Hiederer

AcceptedMark Sperow

Acceptedin the table.
6056

4

5

453

454

6868

4

5

453

453

Within the description of Input, .."when there is due to removal…" seems incorrect. Removing "due to" conveys the intent.

there is a long space between table note number and its text at Seyed
the end of table

Muhammadreza

Corrected

Noted

A sub-division of categories by "rice cultivation, perennial
704

4

5

532

532

cropping systems, and set-asides" is not a sign of using Tier 2.
These are already covered by Tier 1 as sub-categories. they are

Roland Hiederer

Accepted with
Modification

Added "within-country" in example.

NotedThis method is not the same as the default equation separating soil organic
matter into three pools that are differentially impacted by management,
compared to the default equations that address C impacts as if SOM is one
homogeneous pool. More information is provided in Chapter 2 elaboratingon the differences.

not an indication of using s Tier 2 method.
One fails to see how this differs from what has been specified
for a Tier 1 or Tier 2 in the 2006 version of the IPCC Guidelines.
706

4

5

540

545

These are the components of the Factors Fmg and Fi.
It begs the question: why present this now as a separate
method?

Roland Hiederer

Comment
ID

Volume7980

4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' noteland uses (i.e., FLU, FI, and FMG) to ensure consistency.
5

543

543

Variable depths between reference stocks and stock (read FLU, Abdul Nayamuth

Noted

FI and FMG)

Term "method":
Methods or factors?
As written this sentence encourages countries to deviate from
708

4

5

546

546

the methods that are specified in the IPCC guidelines.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Changed to country specific factors and activity data

Mingshan Su

Accepted

Changed N to C and added at conversion factor between dry matter and C.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Revised to be C.

Anna Romanovskaya

Accepted

Revised to be C

This cannot possibly be meant here.
One may therefore suggest to change the sentence to reflect
the intended message.
Section 5.2.3.3 describes choice of activity data in soil
81

4

5

546

570

carbon(5.2.3) but the formula in line 548-570 is to calculateannual amount of N in crop residues (Cinput). Please check it.
Equation 5. 1 Cropland litter carbon input for three-pool steadystate C model

710

4

5

548

548

This appears to be an adaptation of Equation 11.16, Chapter
11.2.1.3., which is for N, not C.
One needs the C:N ratio to convert N in plant material to C. This
seems to be well hidden in the equation.

1632

4

5

548

548

3100

4

5

548

570

Should be C input, not N
Standardize fonts of the equation to be consistent with otherparts of the text (and other Chapters).

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Corrected

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Revised to be C.

Raul Abad Viñas

Accepted

Revised to be C.

Andreas Gensior

Accepted

Revised to be C.

Mark Sperow

Accepted

Included Carbon Fraction

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Revised to be C.

Cinput:
712

4

5

551

551

Ninput???
"Annual amount of N"???
Should not the term "C input" deals with carbon? The

2884

4

5

551

551

description and units refer to Nitrogen. It would need to bechecked.

5346

4

5

551

551

it must be C here instead of N
Is "Cinput" actually defined as identified? It seems an equation
was copied from another source but not all variables wereredefined for the new use. Please verify. If Cinput is the carbon

6058

4

5

551

552

input to the soil (not N as identified) should there be a multiplierin the equation to capture the portion of above and belowgroundbiomass that is carbon? As the equation is now, it seems to me
that all above and below ground biomass that is not removed orburned is considered to be C input. Is this correct?

714

4

5

552

552

kg N yr-1???

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

5348

4

5

552

552

it must be t C yr-1

Andreas Gensior

Accepted

Revised to be C.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Revised to be C.

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Tier 3 clarified as precise application of models

Noted

The IPCC 2013 Wetlands Supplement is an approved product by the IPCC
plenary and can be referenced in this IPCC report. However, we added
more specific references to the sections in the Wetlands Supplement.

It is not apparent to the read what this paragraph refers to.
The parameters listed are not needed for the application of the
716

4

5

570

578

Equation 5.1, which is in any case for N, not C,
nor is their relevance or use explained elsewhere.
Please explain where the parameter would be used or remove
the paragraph without replacement..
With the introduction of a 3-pool model this sentence has

718

4

5

580

582

become ambiguous. It does not clarify when a model would becounted as a Tier 3 method and when Tier 2.
The reference to 2013 WLs supplement can be problematic for
its adoption under UNFCCC. This supplement was not accepted

176

4

5

585

585

as mandatory for GHG inventories. If there is an intention to
propose text from the supplement, the text itself should be

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

included in t
3102

4

5

641

656

Use subscript for ha-1.

3622

4

5

641

656

Is difficult to follow. Please, provide it in a tabular format

4662

4

5

643

653

ha-1, superscriptCARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted
Accepted with
Iordanis Tzamtzis
Modification
Accepted
KEWEI YU

Corrected
Separated out equation into steps to address this comment.
Corrected

Why is the parenthetic comment "(…10 yrs earlier in 1990)"
included? The inventory is 20 years and the ending year is 2000,
6060

4

5

644

656

so the 1990 reference does not make sense (from 1990 to 2000 Mark Sperow
is only 10 years). Did the authors intend to estimate only the 10
year period? if so, that is not clear from the text. Please clarify.

Accepted with
Modification

The 10 year is correct but it changed to final total soil carbon stocks basedon the inventory year.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Section 5.2.4. The following text could be inserted: as regards N
crop residues burnt on-site (i.e. "Field Burning of Agricultural
Residues" - 3F CRF category - volume 4 chapter 5 section 5.2.4
Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning) a
cross check with the amount of NbeddingMS of the Equation
10.41 "Managed manure N available for application to managed
soils" and the categories "Crop residue N, including N-fixing
crops and forage/ pasture renewal, returned to soils, (FCR)"

4154

4

5

666

666

(included in the 3D CRF category - volume 11 chapter 11
section 11.2.1.3) and "Open burning of waste - other:

Eleonora Di Cristofaro Noted

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

Peter Aarup Iversen

Noted

Seems irrelevant because there is no mention of such default value in theline 767.

Sandro Federici

Noted

Default (Tier 1) assumption is the period up to 20 years.
The wrong section titles will be corrected.

agricultural waste" (5C CRF category - volume 5 chapter 5
section 5.3.2 Amount of waste open-burned), relative to theamount of agricultural residues burnt on-site other than theamount of agricultural residues that is removed for otherpurposes (e.g. bedding) or returned to soils or open-burnt
should be done. See box reported in Crop residues (seecomment above regarding crop residues). This is important toeliminate the possibility of double counting.
The default value of 10 tonnes of dry biomass per hectare forannual crops is only true during a short period before harvestand has the effect that conversion to and from another land use
such as forest is biased. It seems more reasonable to have a
8542

4

5

767

weighted value taking into account that the land will have lessbiomass during significant periods of the year. The current
practice means it only makes sense to do afforestation if we
consider a 10 year period where it ought to have a positive
mitigation effect after 2-3 years.
As for the previous comment (rows 719-720) a perennial crop

2070

4

5

828

828

6062

4

5

843

846

Are these section titles out of place? Please verify.

Mark Sperow

Accepted

8538

4

5

867

867

I think the text: not unknown should be changed to unknown.

Peter Aarup Iversen

AcceptedRoland Hiederer

Accepted

may be accumulating carbon for a period longer than 20 years

Term "more":
720

4

5

894

894

...may include ...
it is stated elsewhere that this is not a per-requisite for Tier 2,
so more would not seem right.

Added

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

Response

Authors' note

Noted

The IPCC 2013 Wetlands Supplement is an approved product by the IPCC
plenary and can be referenced in this IPCC report. However, we added
more specific references to the sections in the Wetlands Supplement.

Accepted with
Modification

Wording clarified in Chapter 2 and removed from here.

Accepted with
Modification

Wording clarified in Chapter 2 and removed from here.

Accepted with
Modification

Wording clarified in Chapter 2 and removed from here.

Noted

The IPCC 2013 Wetlands Supplement is an approved product by the IPCC
plenary and can be referenced in this IPCC report. However, we added
more specific references to the sections in the Wetlands Supplement.

The reference to 2013 WLs supplement can be problematic for
its adoption under UNFCCC. This supplement was not accepted

177

Expert

4

5

911

911

as mandatory for GHG inventories. If there is an intention to
propose text from the supplement, the text itself should be

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

included in t

it is not clear what "consistency" means in the context of thereference values across land uses. How can this consistency be
proven? These data usually come from different types of studies
and data basis. Something that can be consistent in one place interms of magnitude can be illogical in other place. In addition to
178

4

5

952

954

this, coordination of teams doing soil C inventories, that usually
are made for other purposes, with private funding, etc. it is

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

impossible for Governments. SUGGESTION: delete the sentencestarting with "However". At most, the sentence can be redrafted
specifying that data should come from robust data bases andstudies.

The depth for evaluating soil C stock changes can be not only
extended, but reduced. As long as it is consistent with the depth
179

4

5

955

958

considered in the other factors (Flu, Fi, Fmg). SUGGESTION:
change "extended" by "different" in line 955. Change "extending"

CRISTINA GARCIADIAZ

by "consistency with" in line 955

Every model fails at the determination of the correct (annual)value! Therefore we should know the target value. If weknow this, I do not think it makes any difference whether we areworking on a Tier 1 or 2 method. The annual rate is not in line
5362

4

5

959

961

with reality, since everything that is known so far and is spread

Andreas Gensiorin the literature, the balance in the case of LUC fromgrassland to cropland will be reached after ca. 20 years, in thereverse case after ca. 200 years. So, when using a symmetricalsystem, the annual rates are always wrong.

The reference to 2013 WLs supplement can be problematic for
its adoption under UNFCCC. This supplement was not accepted
180

4

5

982

982

as mandatory for GHG inventories. If there is an intention to
propose text from the supplement, the text itself should be
included in t

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZComment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Roland Hiederer

Noted

Tier 2 that is refining of default equation is included with Tier 1.

Noted

The IPCC 2013 Wetlands Supplement is an approved product by the IPCC
plenary and can be referenced in this IPCC report. However, we added
more specific references to the sections in the Wetlands Supplement.

Accepted with
Modification

Separated equations on line to improve clarity.

Noted

The IPCC 2013 Wetlands Supplement is an approved product by the IPCC
plenary and can be referenced in this IPCC report. However, we added
more specific references to the sections in the Wetlands Supplement.

Noted

Rice BOG has taken this suggestion into consideration in developing thesecond-order draft.

This section varies from 5.2.3.3 for Tier 2.
It only lists the 3-pool Steady-State Model as Tier 2 and no

722

4

5

1014

1026

longer contains a Tier 1 with copuntry-speficic factors as apossible Tier 2.
It is therefore not consistent with other sections of the sector
dealing with the same issue.

The reference to 2013 WLs supplement can be problematic for
its adoption under UNFCCC. This supplement was not accepted
181

4

5

1032

1032

as mandatory for GHG inventories. If there is an intention to
propose text from the supplement, the text itself should be

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

included in t
3624

4

5

1096

1101

Is difficult to follow. Please, provide it in a tabular format

Iordanis Tzamtzis

The reference to 2013 WLs supplement can be problematic for
its adoption under UNFCCC. This supplement was not accepted
182

4

5

1104

1104

as mandatory for GHG inventories. If there is an intention to
propose text from the supplement, the text itself should be

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

included in t
360

4

5

1159

1185

The effect of soil type on paddy CH4 emission is apparent (e.g., high inpeat soil and low in acid sulphate soil and volcanic ash soil). I'm not sure Kazunori Minamikawa
why default SFss are not provided as a table.

4664

4

5

1168

1168

In box 5.2, CH4 subscript

KEWEI YU

Accepted

editorial

3106

4

5

1168

1169

Subscript for CH4.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

editorial

Tier 3 has been applied to several countries. In addition to the
362

4

5

1195

1197

existing references, I'd like to recommend including a latest
article that provides with detailed information about paddy CH4

Kazunori Minamikawa

Accepted with
Modification

emission calculation in Japan's NIR using DNDC-Rice model.

SOD has been updated to include text stating, "A few countries such as
China (CH4MOD) (Huang et al., 2004), United States (DAYCENT) (Cheng etal., 2014) and Japan (DNDC-Rice) (Katayanagi et al., 2016), used thisapproach in their submitted national communications to the Conference of
the Parties (UNFCCC, 2017)".

In the updated table 5.13, regional EFs will be provided. I'd like
364

4

5

1214

1214

to recommend reviewing a latest article that summarizes paddy
CH4 emission (EF and SFw) from 4 Southeast Asian countries

Kazunori Minamikawa Noted

The values for the EF and SFw highlighted by the reviewer are consistent
with the values in the SOD.

by 3-year field monitoring.
4666

4

5

1214

1214

In box 5.3, CH4 subscript

KEWEI YU

Accepted

editorial

2072

4

5

1214

1215

In box 5.3, replace "standard deviation" with "standard error"

Sandro Federici

AcceptedHarmonized with uncertainty values for default emission factors, which are standard errors.

3108

4

5

1214

1215

3110

4

5

1221

1221

Improve box format and style to be consistent with others in thetext, including other Chapters.
Subscript for CH4.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

editorial

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

editorial

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

In a double- or triple-cropping of rice, the soil in a pre-season isoften flooded/wet for the next cultivation. Even if the flooded
pre-season is shorter than 30 days, paddy CH4 emission can be

366

4

5

1222

1232

high due to the earlier development of soil reductive conditions. Kazunori Minamikawa Rejected
I recommend revising the criteria of "flooded pre-season (>30

Shorter pre-season flooding may affect CH4 emission, but we could not
develop a scaling factor for global scale based on the existing data.

d)" to be shorter (e.g., >15 days) or add a new disaggregatedcase SFp."
3112

4

5

1232

1232

3114

4

5

1272

1321

3116

4

5

1272

1321

3626

4

5

1272

1321

4668

4

5

1298

1298

3118

4

5

1371

1773

6872

4

5

1375

1375

6882

4

5

1542

1713

Subscript for CH4.
Give a box number and heading. Subscript for CH4. Use
exponent instead /. Ex:
Equations/explanations are not very much understandable.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

editorial

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

editorial

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted with
Modification

Box was converted into a table to improve the transparency and ease ofunderstanding

Is difficult to follow. Please, provide it in a tabular format

Iordanis Tzamtzis

period )SFp(, for

KEWEI YU

Accepted with
Modification

Box was converted into a table to improve the transparency and ease ofunderstanding

Accepted

editorial

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

editorial

Seyed

Accepted

editorial

Noted

Will be addressed, at least, in the final copy-edit work.

Missing parentheses etc. Please improve it.

???? And many other format problems

The new references need to be in the same format of theoriginal ones. Standardization required.
The author name should be rewritten in standard format

Journals name or volume are Italic or Bold which is not commen Seyedin the rest of report

Muhammadreza
Yao Huang

Noted

Need further information about purpose and location for citation in text.

Yao Huang

Noted

Need further information about purpose and location for citation in text.

Yao Huang

Noted

Need further information about purpose and location for citation in text.

Yao Huang

Noted

Need further information about purpose and location for citation in text.

1846

4

5

1551

1552

add the reference: Farina R, Coleman K, Whitmore AP (2013)
Modification of the RothC model for simulations of soil organic C
dynamics in dryland regions. Geoderma, 200-201:18–30

1848

4

5

1558

1559

add the reference: Huang Y, Yu Y, Zhang W et al. (2009) Agro-C: Abiogeophysical model for simulating the carbon budget ofagroecosystems. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 149(1):106–129
add the reference: Yu Y, Huang Y, Zhang W (2012) Modelling

1850

4

5

1600

1601

soil organic carbon change in croplands of China, 1980–2009.
Global and Planetary Change, 82–83:115–128
add the reference: Wesemael BV, Paustian K, Jeroen
Meersmans J et al. (2010). Agricultural management explains

1852

4

5

1600

1601

historic changes in regional soil carbon stocks. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica, 107(33):14926–14930

3120

4

5

1714

1737

Standardize fonts.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Corrected

4670

4

5

1743

1749

decimals for the number

KEWEI YU

Noted

Nomenclature is for range of depth and is not a number

4672

4

5

1761

1761

decimals for the number

KEWEI YU

Noted

Nomenclature is for range of depth and is not a number

3122

4

5

1769

2970

The references need to be in the same format of others in thetext.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Corrected

Comment
ID

Volume6568

4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Stoécio Maia

Noted

Authors' note

Looking at the list of papers used to derive land use and
5

1769

1769

management factors, I have not found two papers that I havepublished that can certainly be used.

6884

4

5

1770

2436

The author(s) name should be rewritten in standard format

Seyed

Accepted

Corrected

6886

4

5

2439

2894

The author(s) name should be rewritten in standard format

Seyed

Accepted

Corrected

6888

4

5

2896

2970

The author(s) name should be rewritten in standard format

Seyed

Accepted

Corrected

6870

4

5

2986

2986

the equation should be rewritten

Seyed

Accepted

editorial

Roland Hiederer

Accepted

Additional justification provided in Chapter 2 instead of this chapter.

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Corrected

NotedTransferred to biomass C

Ernesto Viglizzo

Noted

However, the FLU of 1.0 is relative to the reference SOC stock. There is notenough justification that soil C continually increases above the reference
SOC stock as implied by FLU > 1.

misunderstanding. SUGGESTION: write "into three different

CRISTINA GARCIA

sub-pools" "active sub-pool", "slow sub-pool", "passive sub-

DIAZ

Accepted with
Modification

Reworded to subdividing total soil C into three different pools based on
different turnover rates.

General comments:• Some welcome simplifications of computations for soil organic
C-stocks for Tier 2.
684

4

5

• The introduction of a Three-Pool Steady-State C Model for

generalTier 2 lacks justification and examples. It also begs thequestion if the model would have been treated as Tier 3 in the2006 IPCC Guidelines and what consequences such a reclassification has.

4674

4

6

36

23? -need to delete number

It would be useful to apply in Grasslands (an also in Croplands)
an approach similar to that of Forests, providing default data on
AGB, AGB/BGB ratios and net annual growth of AGB that canbe converted into belowground net biomass growth as ameasure of annual C sequestration in soil. Many authors state

211

4

6

48

49

that BGB is an important biomass fraction for soil C storage that Ernesto Viglizzo
was underestimated in scientific literature. A recent review
demonstrates that belowground C deposition by roots supplies
important amounts of C to the soil. C is allocated below theground very fast after photosynthesis (Pausch & Kuzyakov,
2018. Global Change Biology 24:1-12).

The paragraph "After a finite transition period, one can assume
a steady state for this stock" raises uncertainty because
literature demonstrates that stability occurs under non-use
212

4

6

88

89

conditions, and most grasslands are subjected to permanentuse. So, when and where has an equilibrium point beenreached? It is difficult to know. Therefore, a unified factor of 1 toexpress C stock stability may be questionable and should be
revisedavoid calling "pools" to the 3 sub-pools proposed to avoid
183

4

6

103

106

pool"

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

Response

Authors' note

Noted

The IPCC 2013 Wetlands Supplement is an approved product by the IPCC
plenary and can be referenced in this IPCC report. However, we added
more specific references to the sections in the Wetlands Supplement.

Ernesto Viglizzo

Noted

We thank the reviewer for helpful information. However, the FLU of 1.0 isrelative to the reference SOC stock and the supplied references do notindicate how SOC is changing relative to that stock. Consequently there is
not enough information provided to support that grassland soil C
continually increases above the reference SOC stock as implied by FLU > 1.

KEWEI YU

Noted

Nominal is the appropriate adjective.

The reference to 2013 WLs supplement can be problematic for
its adoption under UNFCCC. This supplement was not accepted

184

Expert

4

6

122

122

as mandatory for GHG inventories. If there is an intention to
propose text from the supplement, the text itself should be

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

included in t
Regarding the default factor=1 (no C change) for FLU (Table
6.2) is questionable (see supp Vol4_Chp6_EFV_Csequestration
213

4

6

142

143

in soil). Relevant evidence from literature indicates that C
sequestration in soils is very common in grasslands beyond thetheory of C steady state. The use of an unified factor of 1 for
FLU deserves revision.

4676

4

6

149

150

nominal, nominally?
The depth for evaluating soil C stock changes can be not only
extended, but reduced. As long as it is consistent with the depth

185

4

6

155

157

considered in the other factors (Flu, Fi, Fmg). SUGGESTION:
change "extended" by "different" in line 155. Change "extending"

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

Acceptedby "consistency with" in line 156
4678

4

6

162

162

good practice in italic

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Corrected

8872

4

6

179

180

It need to use same term 'F_LU', 'F_I', and 'F_MG' in Table 6.2.

RAEHYUN KIM

Accepted

The term has been modified appropriately.

Ernesto Viglizzo

Noted

Transferred to biomass C

Ernesto Viglizzo

Noted

Transferred to biomass C

Raul Abad Viñas

Accepted

Given that AGB is subjected to human appropriation anddisturbance, why not using an alternative estimation method
214

4

6

179

180

based on BGB data to estimate annual change of C
accumulation in soils? (see comment above: Vol4_Chp6_ lines
48-49).
The use of BGB can provide an annual "instantaneous
photograph" of C change in soils and could avoid us from the

215

4

6

179

181

calculation way based on a multi-year change of C stocks. No
doubt that this would demand an estimation of BGB-C leakage,
which is affected among other factors by the grassland type(spp), the thermal climate and the grazing conditions.

2886

4

6

180

181

The title of the table should refers to Grassland (grasses,
forages, etc) and not to crops.
The reference to 2013 WLs supplement can be problematic for
its adoption under UNFCCC. This supplement was not accepted

186

4

6

183

183

as mandatory for GHG inventories. If there is an intention to
propose text from the supplement, the text itself should be

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

Noted

The IPCC 2013 Wetlands Supplement is an approved product by the IPCC
plenary and can be referenced in this IPCC report. However, we added
more specific references to the sections in the Wetlands Supplement.

Noted

Nominal is correct

included in t
4680

4

6

257

257

nominal?

KEWEI YUComment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

4682

4

6

273

273

good practice in italic

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Corrected

Sandro Federici

Accepted

C input method changed to include effects removals, fires, and manure

Anna Romanovskaya

Accepted

Added square root sign in equation.

Anna Romanovskaya

Accepted

C input method changed to include effects removals, fires, and manure.

Equation 6.1 should include C from manure as well. Please, add. Anna Romanovskaya

Accepted

C input method changed to include effects removals, fires, and manure.

fires is a frequently used management practice, and it has a
2074

4

6

273

283

significant impact on the C input in grassland soils (i.e. it
reduces it). I suggest its impact be included in the calculation of
C inputs to SOC (i.e. analogously to equation 5.1 for cropland).

1634

4

6

276

283

It is not clear what is "square-root of the long-term mean annual
precipitation". Please, explain.
NPP could not be equal to C input on grasslands - there are

1636

4

6

276

283

losses of NPP with grazing and hay harvest. These should be
subtracted from NPP.

1638

4

6

276

283

3124

4

6

276

283

Standardize style and fonts to be consistent with otherequations across the text.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

The reference to 2013 WLs supplement can be problematic for
its adoption under UNFCCC. This supplement was not accepted
187

4

6

286

286

as mandatory for GHG inventories. If there is an intention to
propose text from the supplement, the text itself should be

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

included in t
3618

4

6

346

363

Is difficult to follow. Please, provide it in a tabular format

Iordanis Tzamtzis

The reference to 2013 WLs supplement can be problematic for
its adoption under UNFCCC. This supplement was not accepted
188

4

6

452

452

as mandatory for GHG inventories. If there is an intention to
propose text from the supplement, the text itself should be

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

Noted

The IPCC 2013 Wetlands Supplement is an approved product by the IPCC
plenary and can be referenced in this IPCC report. However, we added
more specific references to the sections in the Wetlands Supplement.

Accepted with
Modification

Separated equations on own lines to improve clarity.

Noted

The IPCC 2013 Wetlands Supplement is an approved product by the IPCC
plenary and can be referenced in this IPCC report. However, we added
more specific references to the sections in the Wetlands Supplement.

Accepted with
Modification

Wording clarified in Chapter 2 and removed from here

included in t

it is not clear what "consistency" means in the context of thereference values across land uses. How can this consistency be
proven? These data usually come from different types of studies
and data basis. Something that can be consistent in one place interms of magnitude can be illogical in other place. In addition to
189

4

6

492

494

this, coordination of teams doing soil C inventories, that usually
are made for other purposes, with private funding, etc. it is
impossible for Governments. SUGGESTION: delete the sentencestarting with "However". At most, the sentence can be redrafted
specifying that data should come from robust data bases andstudies.

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZComment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

Response

Authors' note

CRISTINA GARCIA

Accepted with
Modification

Wording clarified in Chapter 2 and removed from here

Accepted with
Modification

Wording clarified in Chapter 2 and removed from here

Noted

The IPCC 2013 Wetlands Supplement is an approved product by the IPCC
plenary and can be referenced in this IPCC report. However, we added
more specific references to the sections in the Wetlands Supplement.

Accepted with
Modification

Separated equations on own lines to improve clarity.

Noted

The IPCC 2013 Wetlands Supplement is an approved product by the IPCC
plenary and can be referenced in this IPCC report. However, we added
more specific references to the sections in the Wetlands Supplement.

The depth for evaluating soil C stock changes can be not only
extended, but reduced. As long as it is consistent with the depth

190

Expert

4

6

495

498

considered in the other factors (Flu, Fi, Fmg). SUGGESTION:
change "extended" by "different" in line 495. Change "extending"DIAZ

by "consistency with" in line 496
The text is not very clear. If we compare C stocks -in kg C/ha forthe certain depth -- these data could be compared between
1640

4

6

502

514

land use types even if soil density is different. If we trying to

Anna Romanovskayacompare c CONTENT - in C% - in that case there is a need toconsider additionally a soil density.
The reference to 2013 WLs supplement can be problematic for
its adoption under UNFCCC. This supplement was not accepted
191

4

6

523

523

as mandatory for GHG inventories. If there is an intention to
propose text from the supplement, the text itself should be

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

included in t
3620

4

6

652

661

Is difficult to follow. Please, provide it in a tabular format

Iordanis Tzamtzis

The reference to 2013 WLs supplement can be problematic for
its adoption under UNFCCC. This supplement was not accepted
192

4

6

664

664

as mandatory for GHG inventories. If there is an intention to
propose text from the supplement, the text itself should be

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

included in t
4684

4

6

881

898

decimals for the number

KEWEI YU

3126

4

6

881

905

Standardize fonts in accordance with the rest of the text.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

3128

4

6

915

1022

The references need to be in the same format of others in the text.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

6570

4

6

Stoécio Maia

Accepted

Hilary Kennedy

AcceptedI also did not find a work with grazing factors for Brazil, which
can be useful in updating the factors.

Accepted

General comment, all tables, figure and equation number,
5462

4

7

generalreference to annex and its tables/figures and all gas subscripts
need to be checked.

5464

4

7

general

5466

4

7

generalGeneral comment. Could some contextual information be given on
flooded pastures? These are purposefully flooded? Seasonally or all
year? For what purpose. In general they sometimes seem to be explicitly Hilary Kennedy
included in the guidance and other places not referenced in theguidance, which is confusing
General comment definitions needed to be included in a
glossary.

Hilary Kennedy

We have clarified and corrected numbering of all tables, figuresand equations.

Accepted with
Modification

We have provided greater clarity around this land use.

Accepted

We have added to the glossary.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Tormod Andre Schei

Noted

This is a Review process comment for TSU.

Antonio Camacho

Noted

The final form of the document is yet to be determined.

general comment to the excel sheet: it seems not possible touse subchapter numbering but only main chapter (7) and then

2462

4

7

line numbering. This makes it difficult to, for instance, give ageneralgeneral comment to for isn't a paragraph. When writing 7.3 I get
only a date. The restrictions in the cells stopped me writing 4 in
the first cell

Through the document , the wetland supplement is referred. I
9950

4

7

1

1394

did not get it, so I don't know its content, and consequently
some of my comments could be invalid if already solved there. In
any case, I made only general comments

We agree that different wetland types are likely to have different
behaviours. However, FLOODED LAND REMAINING FLOODED

Different wetlands show very different behaviours, so
9952

4

7

1

1394

considering all flooded lands remaining flooded lands as similar Antonio Camacho

Noted

could bring to big errors in the estimations

9954

4

7

1

1394

accounted or if these are accounted in other inventories

accommodate variation in the type and state of water bodies.
Wetlands that are not managed land are not considered inAntonio Camacho

Noted

Introduction should clearly guide the reader regarding when to
4

7

1

1413

use the 2019 refinement and when to use the wetlands

inventories and are beyond scope. We refer to the Wetlands
Supplement (IPCC 2014) where wetlands are managed.

deserves more explanation at the beginning of this chapter
7288

be disaggregated over climate zone, among different smaller
water bodies and at Tier 2 and 3 disaggregated further toThrough the document, it is not clear what happens withemissions of natural wetlands. I think that whether they are not

LAND refers to no change in land use. Our emission factors can

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted

supplement

The 2019 revision is to be used in conjunction with the 2006 GL.
The final format is yet to be determined.

3130

4

7

7

7

Replace peatlands by Peatlands.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

8874

4

7

10

10

inset 'Flooded' before 'Land'

RAEHYUN KIM

Accepted

Editorial

8876

4

7

21

21

QA/QC' is common than 'qa/qc'.

RAEHYUN KIM

Accepted

Editorial

3132

4

7

41

41

Replace emission by emissions.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

4686

4

7

61

61

Rdgas?

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Editorial

4202

4

7

66

100

Carolyn Maxwell

Noted

I would find it helpful if the framework of Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3
was explained in the introduction somewhere

This is explained in other parts of the Guidance and is out of
scope for the individual chapters.

Not only hydrological patterns, as considered for the definitionof managed wetlands, but also other anthropogenic effects can
9956

4

7

68

72

strongly modify GHG from wetlands, for example eutrophication
driving to higher methane emissions. This could be as relevantThis is explained in detail later in the text. CH4 emission factors
Antonio Camacho

Accepted

can be strongly influenced by nutrient status and modifiers ofemission factors are provided.

as the effects of hydrological alterations (see references). Is
that referred elsewhere?
4204

4

7

69

72

I found it hard to work out whether rivers with regular baseflow was
included in these definitions. Text elsewhere clearly suggests they should Carolyn Maxwell
be included

NotedRivers not included. No action can be taken because comment is out of
scope of 2019 Refinement

Comment
ID

Volume3658

4Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Alicia Villamizar

Noted

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

Alicia Villamizar

Noted

These lines are from the 2006 GL. CO2 emission of conversion of coastal
wetlands to other land uses are considered in the Wetlands Supplement(IPCC 2014).

Noted

No action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement These lines are a part of the 2006 GL. CO2 emission of
conversion of coastal wetlands to other land uses are considered in the
Wetlands Supplement (IPCC 2014).

Antonio Camacho

Noted

These lines are from the 2006 GL. No action can be taken because
comment is out of scope of 2019 Refinement. CO2 emission of conversionof coastal wetlands to other land uses are considered in the Wetlands
Supplement (IPCC 2014).

Alicia Villamizar

Noted

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

Alicia Villamizar

Noted

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

Alicia Villamizar

Noted

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

Carolyn Maxwell

Noted

No action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement These lines is a part of the 2006 GL. However, added "watersupply"Antonio Camacho

RejectedNatural rivers are out of scope.

Guangcheng Chen

Noted

Editorial

Antonio Camacho

Accepted

Parts of this table were carried over from the 2006 GLs and have now beensuperseded by the Wetland Supplement; table has now been updated

Following Ramsar Classification System for Wetland Type, the
7

70

71

Marine/Coastal Wetlands include intertidal forested wetlands,
where are included mangrove swamps.
In this sense, mangrove swamps converted to rice and palm oil

3660

4

7

70

71

cultivation and shrimp-farming (i.e.) are managed wetlands. By
these uses C removals from mangroves and CH4 emissions
could be high.

Please provide further guidance on how the definition ofmanaged wetlands intersects with that of managed coastal
wetlands, as covered in the 2013 Wetlands Supplement. Under
7392

4

7

70

72

the Wetland Supplement, some accountable activities may not

Max Collett

involve either creating wetlands or changing the water table, forexample, the excavation of subtidal seagrass habitat due tocapital dredging.
Why emissions form unmanaged wetlands are not estimated?
9958

4

7

72

72

This can be possible, but I believe that it deserves an
explanation
Care with the use of LULUCF acronyms; in Chapter 3 vol 4 used

3662

4

7

76

76

the acronyms LULC: see Table 3.12, p 3.41; line 1205; and in p
3.47 line 1237 it is used LCLUC).

3664

4

7

76

76

3666

4

7

76

76

It is correct? or it is necessary to homogenize the abbreviations
that identify land use, land-use change and forestry?
In this chapter is used LULUCF
The biogeochemical processes that produce GHG emission exist

4206

4

7

78

80

in reservoirs or impoundments used for providing drinking water
just as they do to reservoir used for energy production,
irrigation, navigation or recreation.
Are you sure that excluding rivers is correct? Raymond et al

9960

4

7

80

80

(2013) analysis predicts global hotspots in stream and riverevasion, with about 70 per cent of the flux occurring over just 20
per cent of the land surface. (doi:10.1038/nature12760)

6476

4

7

81

81

construction of aquaculture ponds and aquaculture usage incoastal areas are included the 2013 Wetlands Supplement
The sentence that "Methane emission from peatlands is

9962

4

7

85

86

negligible after drainage during conversion and peat extraction"
can not be easily assumed. Rewetting after rainfall may promoteincreasing emissions from peatComment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

3668

4

7

87

87

include aquaculture

Alicia Villamizar

Accepted

Inserted as suggested.

6478

4

7

87

89

Guangcheng Chen

Accepted with
Modification

Changed to: Scientific level of knowledge on greenhouse gas balances ofdifferent kinds of wetlands is still, in general, rather low and uncertain, but
see Annex 7.

3670

4

7

92

92

Alicia Villamizar

Accepted with
Modification

This and other tables have been edited in view of the 2013 Wetlands
Supplement (IPCC2014)

Guangcheng Chen

Accepted with
Modification

We have updated Tables from the 2006 GL to indicate where to findguidance for different land-use activities on wetlands.

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Modified the table as suggested.

Antonio Camacho

Noted

Thank you.

106

Line 106 and some others (in which chapter?). I think it is necessary to be
more precise (here and to other parts of manuscript); how it ispresented, it is very difficult to follow the reasoning. Perhaps in the next
edition it is better to present the text with more information. Because it Irineu Bianchiniis handbook style text, the chapters could be more self-explanatory (withbox, etc.). As it is, it is necessary to consult simultaneously, at least 3
documents.

Noted

The text has been improved and Boxes have been provided.

211

General comment to 7.3 Flooded land. Flooded lands are more or lessseen as reservoirs. These are divided in less or older than 20 yrs and adecision tree is presented to address these water bodies. This seems as agood approach when dealing with reservoirs. Other anthropogenic water
bodies are given less attention. "Other flooded lands" contains, among
others, Canals. Canals are often very large continuous water bodies,many could be seen as "slowly running lakes" (?). it is unclear how canals Tormod Andre Schei
should be treated. Chapter 7.3 is a good approach to setting out
rules/methods for estimating GHG from manmade water bodies,
especially when treating "factoring out of emissions and removals thatwould otherwise occur in the absence of the flooded area". The chapter
is , however, all in all difficult to read, and do still need some refinement.
In general all fig/equation/table numbers need to be correct

Accepted with
Modification

Canals have been considered within Ramsar category. Decision tree has
been moved to a new Box and information on "factoring out" is included
within the new Box.

Accepted

Editorial

this statement is too general and meaningless; science isalways like this.
Table 7.2 include shrimp-farming and palm oil cultivation.
for table 2, should 2013 Wetland Supplement mentioned here. I
would like to suggested adding a brief guidance of how to

6480

4

7

93

93

compile the national GHG emissions for from wetlands using
both 2013 Wetland Supplement and the 2019 Refined Guidelinein the Introduction section.
In Table 7.3 the row salt exploitation sites. There is guidance for

5468

4

7

103

104

excavation of soil for salt pond construction in the Wetlands
supplement Chapter 4
Even if default methodologies are not available for salt

9964

4

7

103

104

exploitation sites, the emissions of methane in hypersaline
waters are often quite low

272

297

4

4

7

7

106

111

In general the division in two groups of reservoirs according to
9694

4

7

111

211

age (<20yrs and >20yrs) might be relevant, but is not easily
understood why this is appropriate and the difference inapproach to each group

Geir Taugbøl

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Irving William

Noted

Irving William

Noted

We have improved the usability of the text.

Irineu Bianchini

Accepted with
Modification

We provide referenced text in the Annex, but the style of the Guidance
does not require references for all material in the document.

Max Collett

Accepted

We have considered and have edited the 2006 GL tables (included anothercolumn).

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Editorial

Carolyn Maxwell

Accepted

Editorial

Antonio Camacho

Accepted

Editorial

Antonio Camacho

Noted

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

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Editorial

Irineu Bianchini

Accepted

References have been added.

The new draft guidance on methane from flooded lands is
critically important for the completeness of the IPCC Guidelines

9896

4

7

111

665

in covering all anthropogenic emissions. The authors should becommended for developing methodologies and gathering default
factors that will allow all countries to produce estimatesaccording to available data.

General comment: recommend that the authors give
9898

4

7

111

665

consideration to "usability" of the new guidance, and consider
ways to make it easier to follow for inventory practitioners who
are not experts in flooded lands.

273

4

7

118

118

(Table 7.7): It is necessary include the sources (authorships oftype of flooded lands and their human issues.

7394

4

7

118

119

Please consider the inclusion of additional column(s) to table 7.7 toinclude the relevant GHG's accounted for due to specific management
activities and the appropriate section for their tier 1 estimation. Table
4.1 in the Wetlands Supplement could serve as a template; "Flooded
land type" replacing the "vegetation types affected" column.
Alternatively, a decision tree similar to Figure 4.1 (Wetlands
Supplement) could provide additional information in support of thecurrent Table 7.7.

9048

4

7

118

119

Labelled table 7.7 should be table 7.4?

4208

4

7

121

121

9966

4

7

121

123

9968

4

7

121

123

9050

4

7

125

125

274

4

7

125

135

9052

4

7

130

130

"on" change to "of"Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Editorial

3134

4

7

135

135

Exclude period before :CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

2464

4

7

137

140

2466

4

7

142

142

Typo: should read "depending on a variety of characteristics"
not "depending on a variety of characteristic"
Salinity and temperature are also very important factors,
especially for methane emission
Temperature is a very important factors for methane emission inpeatlands
after "time scales" it would be helpful to put "with residence
times" before "ranging from"
There are many definitions and statements whose authorshipshould be mentioned.

reservoirs are sorted in younger and older than 20 yrs - thisseems ok
Canals should be lifted up into this headline. It seems unclear whether"Other flooded lands:" are considered Land Converted to Flooded Land
(LCFL) or Flooded Land Remaining Flooded (FLRFL ) land. It is also
unclear whether less or more than 20 yrs applies also to this category

Tormod Andre Schei

Noted

Tormod Andre Schei

Accepted with
Modification

We have included canals, drainage ditches in the title, consistent withRamsar classifications. We have added statement that no guidance isprovided for different age classes of Other Flooded Lands.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To line

9970

4

7

145

145

2468

4

7

146

146

9054

4

7

150

150

1642

4

7

153

154

9972

4

7

153

154

3138

4

7

156

168

Format literature citation as the rest of the Refinement.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

3136

4

7

157

157

Subscript for CH4.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

9056

4

7

157

157

methane subscript 4

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Editorial

9058

4

7

158

158

Can a range of emission rates be given to qualify what is meant by"high". Would "frequent occurrence" be a more suitable phrase than"large numbers" ?

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted with
Modification

Because they have high emission rates, not just that they occur frequently

To the issue related with aquaculture ponds I suggest also see Robb et al.
(2017): Robb DH, MacLeod M, Hasan MR, Soto D. 2017. Greenhouse gas
Irineu Bianchiniemissions from aquaculture. A life cycle assessment of three Asiansystems FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 609.

Accepted

We have cited this document in the general discussion of emissions fromaquaculture.

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Deleted sentence

Antonio Camacho

NotedThis is considered in the 2013 Wetlands Supplement which is referred tothroughout the document where appropriate

Accepted

We have included comment that construction of aquaculture ponds is
considered in the 2013 Wetlands Supplement, including the following text:
Emissions associated with construction of aquaculture ponds in coastal
wetlands are considered in the 2013 Wetlands Supplement (IPCC 2014,section XXXX). Flooded lands occurring in coastal settings due tomanagement activities such as breaching of sea defences are accounted forunder "rewetting" within the 2013 Wetlands Supplement (IPCC 2014,section xxxx).

275

4

7

162

162

9060

4

7

163

163

9974

4

7

163

164

6482

4

7

170

Comment
See this reference to stress the possible importance of oxic
water column methanogenesis

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Antonio Camacho

Accepted

We have added a section within the Annex text describing mechanisms forCH4 production and consumption

Accepted with
Modification

We have added a definition of canals in the Glossary.

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted with
Modification

Modified to: human-made water bodies, including canals, ditches, farm
ponds, flooded pastures and aquaculture ponds.

Anna Romanovskaya

Accepted

Editorial

Antonio Camacho

Accepted

We have provided further explanation.

canals are here only mentioned, as it also is in the next paragraph. Since
this is the introduction to chapter 7 there could be a definition of canals Tormod Andre Schei
here.
"farm ponds, pastures and aquaculture ponds" to "farm, pastureand aquaculture ponds
it is not clear where namely these emissions are accounted for.
Please, provide clear reference.
It is not clear what is the reason to state this. Maybe an
explanation would help here

The "emissions" here, is this on a global annual basis or on a per areabasis?
But natural wetlands, when altered, can increase very much GHG
emission. Is this considered elsewhere?

178

Construction of aquaculture ponds in coastal areas should be excluded
here

Accepted with
Modification

We have provided emission factors based on the salinity of the water body.
Coastal canals have not been considered. We have also included thefollowing text: Emissions associated with construction of aquaculture
ponds in coastal wetlands are considered in the 2013 Wetlands
Supplement (IPCC 2014, section XXXX). Flooded lands occurring in coastal
settings due to management activities such as breaching of sea defences
are accounted for under "rewetting" within the 2013 Wetlands
Supplement (IPCC 2014, section xxxx).

Noted

We considered this suggestion, but could not provide detailed
information/discussion as this is beyond the scope of this Chapter. We
included Boxes to discuss further.

Guangcheng Chen

9062

4

7

170

178

General comment, for clarity should the text distinguish flooding fromrewetting and whether flooding is only associated with freshwater? For
example in the Middle East canalisation is employed to improve newurbanised areas and these canals are flooded with seawater. Other
Hilary Kennedy"flooded lands that should be excluded occur In coastal settings due tomanagement activities such as breaching of sea defences, as this isaccounted for under "rewetting" (even though the overlying water depth
may be cms to meters depth).

276

4

7

185

185

…. (see Chapter 6, Volume 5) How already mentioned, I think it could be
avoided (when possible and, if necessary, the specific information could Irineu Bianchinibe quoted, clarified and or discussed within the boxes).

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

Expert

3140

4

7

187

187

Replace emission by emissions.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

4688

4

7

188

188

KEWEI YU

Editorial

CO2, avoid starting a sentence with an abbreviation. There areother similar cases

Response

Accepted

Authors' note

Please clarify the status of the statement, "CO2 emissions fromsoils underlying aquaculture ponds built on coastal wetland are

We removed this statement. We added some text to the section

described in Chapter 4 of the Wetlands Supplement (Coastal
7396

4

7

188

189

Wetlands)". Guidance in the Wetlands Supplement is currently
voluntary and it is unclear whether inclusion of this statement

Max Collett

Accepted with
Modification

here now represents an accounting requirement for CO2

OTHER HUMAN-MADE WATER BODIES (DITCHES, CANALS,
FARM PONDS AND AQUACULTURE PONDS) to direct compilers
to the Wetlands Supplement for aquaculture ponds and to thereservoir section for all other ponds.

emissions . Also, the statement is placed under the Nitrous
Oxide Emissions sub-heading,

We removed this statement. We added some text to the section
I do not think that there is any guidance for CO2 emissions from
9064

4

7

188

189

soils underlying aquaculture ponds. There is guidance for CO2

Hilary Kennedy

emissions from construction of aquaculture ponds.

Accepted with
Modification

OTHER HUMAN-MADE WATER BODIES (DITCHES, CANALS,
FARM PONDS AND AQUACULTURE PONDS) to direct compilers
to the Wetlands Supplement for aquaculture ponds and to thereservoir section for all other ponds.

9696

4

7

191

210

Fig 7.2 is crucial to understand and calculate the net GHG - emission
from human activities and should maybe presented earlier as a basic
approach for the chapter

Geir Taugbøl

Accepted with
Modification

We have moved Fig 7.2 (decision tree) to the Box and enhanced
explanatory text.

Tormod Andre Schei

Noted

This Fig 2 (decision tree) is now in Box with more detailed explanation.

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Editorial

Accepted with
Modification

We have moved the decision tree and the discussion of this "factoring out"
approach to a Box.

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted with
Modification

Edited to remove repetitive text from the caption, and rephrased.

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Editorial

the decision tree is good and addresses "factoring out of
2470

4

7

192

210

emissions…" in an educational manner. This is an important
figure and it should be stressed that the decision tree is a key
figure in ch 7.

9066

4

7

192

193

Figure 1 not 2

I do not think it is an acceptable approach. Factoring out of emissions or
removals those would be on the flooded land without flooding is not inline with general approaches of IPCC methodologies: any land usechange leads to estimations of the C stock changes due to thatconversion and does not include any estimations of what would be if no Anna Romanovskaya
conversion would happen. The same logic should be applied for flooded
lands: only if natural lake was existing on the flooded area - that area
could be excluded from the reporting and considered as natural. Forest
biomass should not be included in any "factoring out"

1644

4

7

199

201

9068

4

7

199

209

3628

4

7

203

210

Where not were. Deviates not deviate. Repeat of lines 204-209.
Text needs better clarity. Which are the respective chapters?
In Figure 7.2: I suggest replacing "account" with "count" to avoid
misunderstanding

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted

We have moved Fig 2 (decision tree) to a Box and provided enhanced
explanations of the approach

Irineu Bianchini

Accepted with
Modification

Edited to remove repetitive text.

Carolyn Maxwell

Accepted

Decision tree has been improved and moved to a box and all text is now
complete.

Anna Romanovskaya

Accepted with
Modification

We have moved Fig 2 (decision tree) to a Box and provided enhanced
explanations of the approach

9900

4

7

203

210

I found the decision tree very hard to follow, partly because of thecomplexity, and also because it mixes land area accounting with pre/post
Irving William
emissions calculations. Consider splitting into two, or finding other ways
to streamline.

277

4

7

204

207

There is repetition of information (Lines 199-202).

4210

4

7

209

209

1646

4

7

209

210

3142

4

7

209

210

9070

4

7

209

210

Fig 7.2. I could not assess the accuracy of the flow chart as it isunclear what is meant by "Section X, Section Y and Section Z"
Dotted area is not clear at all. I suggest deleting that.
Keep the text inside the diamonds. Check the bottom rectangle
where biomass is written in red colour.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Figure requires further incorporation of yes and no options alongarrowed lines. Why are there return lines from right hand side boxes toleft hand side diamonds? Difficult to evaluate further until sections x, y, z Hilary Kennedy
identified. Does this decision tree work for the different guidance forCO2 and CH4?

Decision tree has been improved and moved to a Box.

Accepted with
Modification

We have moved Fig 2 (decision tree) to a Box and provided enhanced
explanations of the approach

Tormod Andre Schei

Accepted

We have now distinguished between old and young reservoirs

Geir Taugbøl

Accepted

Editorial

RAEHYUN KIM

Accepted

Editorial

7.3.1 and then 7.3.2 addresses FLRFL and LCFL . Two tables
are given where the intent is to present default values; table 7.8
for CH4 and 7.11 for CO2 emission factors. As I understand it,table 7.8 gives values for all reservoirs (also other manmadewater bodies?)regardless of age. For LCFL (<20yrs) values for
2472

4

7

211

665

CO2 from table 7.11 should be added to CH4. If myunderstanding is correct this needs to be explained to thereader in a more educational way. It is not obvious that default
values, or emissions of CH4, would be the same regardless of
the age of the reservoir. And it is not obvious that the only
difference between FLRFL and LCFL is the CO2.

It seems like CH4 is independent of age (default)? Is that right?
9698

4

7

211

665

Are CO2 -emissions the only difference between Land
Converted to Flooded Land and Flooded Land Remaining
Flooded Land?

8878

4

7

213

213

inset 'Flooded' before 'Land'

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Irineu Bianchini

Rejected

Current evidence (Praire et al. 2017b) suggests that long term emissions
are not significantly sustained by flooded organic matter. But instead bycatchment derived organic inputs and are therefore not considered.

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Editorial

Accepted

We have edited. We have moved Figure 2 to a Box and increased the levelof explanation.

The discussion about the emissions derived from the refractory
resources could be more explored. For example, the refractorycompounds (carbon) are also presents in fragile vegetal
structures as well leaves, litter, etc.. According to kinetic
experiments, the C-labile usually constitute just a little fractionof the resource (e.g., leaves: 9.7%; fine branches: 6.3%; bark:
10.3%; litter: 7.0%); If the C-labile was defined from the oxygen

278

4

7

214

220

consumption criterion the percentages increase a little bit(leaves: 23.4%; fine branches: 12.2%; bark: 8.2%; litter: 11.4%).
Bianchini Jr. & Cunha-Santino (2011). In others words, evenplant resources usually considered as many sensitive todecomposition, their constituents are predominantly composedof refractory compounds. In addition to the allochthonous
material (POC and DOC), and coarse resources (trunk and thickbranches) theses “fragile original resources” also support the

9072

4

7

216

216

long term emissions.

Can "elsewhere" be identified.
somewhere early in 7.3.1.2. For clarity and as a help for thereader (chapter 7 is complicated and difficult to read!) figure 7.2

2474

4

7

222

222

should again be mentioned/highlighted since the decision tree is Tormod Andre Scheia starting point when addressing emissions and esp. " factoringout of emissions and removals.."

9902

4

7

222

224

This section could use a brief overview or introduction,

Accepted

Antonio Camacho

Accepted with
Modification

Reviewed the paper but did not seem necessary to include it in the text

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Edited to provide more clarity around degassing and other language usedin the 2006 GL.
The Figure (decision tree) has been moved to a Box and edited
appropriately.

Some papers recently highlighted the role of horizontal transport
9976

4

7

222

301

of littoral CH4, which should be considered when using default

Include this information in place of lines 156-168 Need to explain

Irving William

factors

what equation 7.10 does

Can reference to Annex 7.1 be made to explain the concepts of
9074

4

7

229

229

diffusive and ebullitive emissions with respect to reservoirs.
Does the term bubbling and diffusive emission represent thesame concept as degassing, if so can a single term be used.

279

4

7

231

231

Figure 7.1 (where?)

Irineu Bianchini

Accepted

2476

4

7

231

231

wrong fig number, should be 7.2

Tormod Andre Schei

Accepted

Editorial

4690

4

7

232

232

good practice in italic, check other places

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Corrected in other locations in the text.

4692

4

7

237

237

CH4 subscript

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Editorial

9076

4

7

237

237

CH4 subscript

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Editorial

280

4

7

239

239

Equation 7.10: I think it is missing a parenthesis in this equation. Irineu Bianchini

Accepted

All equations have been checked and corrected.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

1648

4

7

239

252

Equation 7/1 and default Efs - Rdgas - should include the effect ofdifferent CH4 fluxes depending on the depth of water column. Thatwould significantly change the rate of CH4 emission.

Anna Romanovskaya

Accepted with
Modification

We provide more detail on the importance of depth for ebullition for tier 3
approachAccepted

All calculations are for CH4.

Noted

This accommodates the 2006 GL, but this formatting has been revised in
the SOD.

5930

4

7

239

252

If I’m understanding this equation 7.10 properly it calculates annual CH4C. But for reporting purposes it would be useful to include thecalculation to convert CH4-C to CH4. For an example see Equation 11.2 Vincent Camobreco(Direct N2O emissions from managed soils) in Volume 4-1 of the 2006
Guidelines for converting N2O-N to N2O.

9078

4

7

239

243

Is it tradition to start at equation 10 (7.10)

3144

4

7

242

242

Standardize font of the equations in accordance with the rest of
the document.

Hilary Kennedy

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

All equations have been checked and corrected.

Hilary Kennedy

We have provided more clarity around the ratio, Rdegas and Rn.

Can it be clarified further what this ratio represents (i.e. why it
9080

4

7

250

252

should be incorporated). Reference to Annex 7.1. Is Rdgas thesame as Rn? Lines 925 to 926 would be useful in the main body

Acceptedof the text.
3146

4

7

254

254

Missing section heading.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Section head was on prior page - fixed thisFurther details of the Tier 2 approach in the chapter would be
5932

4

7

254

257

helpful and more consistent with how other sections of the 2006 Vincent Camobreco

Accepted

We clarified the tier progression

Irving William

Accepted

We clarified the tier progression and included guidance on the net GHG
balance approach

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

We have included some of this information in the main text (moved fromthe annex)

Replace "aerially" with "area"

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

Editorial

Typo: should read 'aerially' not "aerially"

Carolyn Maxwell

Accepted

Editorial

David Reay

Accepted

Added explanatory text to Tier 3 and to introduction

Guidelines have been produced.
The introduction of a Tier 2 as a specific model could use more
9904

4

7

254

257

explanation, including why it is considered a tier 2, and why it
would be better for a country than a Tier 1.

9084

4

7

258

265

3630

4

7

264

264

4212

4

7

264

Detailed guidance given for emissions from reservoir, but what
about damn and downstream emissions?

Note that for established impoundments, CH4 flux via plantaerenchyma can be an important pathway. Default Efs may well
37

4

7

269

274

encompass this depending on the studies used, but for Tier 2and esp. Tier 3 you'd need to know how important fluxes via thisroute are.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted with
Modification

Included discussion of reservoir operation and morphology in the
Introduction to the emissions chapter, and include discussion ofimportance in tier 2 and/or 3 description.

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

This is included in the term "downstream emissions" which is now includedin the glossary

Geir Taugbøl

Accepted with
Modification

Included enhanced discussion of reservoir operation and morphology inIntroductory section, and within tier 2 and/or 3 description

Anna Romanovskaya

Noted

Emission factors have been included in the SOD

Carolyn Maxwell

Accepted

Deleted Nm column

Carolyn Maxwell

Accepted

Editorial

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Editorial

Vincent Camobreco

Accepted with
Modification

More detail is provided on Tier 2 approaches.

Irving William

Accepted

Editorial

Accepted with
Modification

Information on the influence of trophic status has been included with moredetail in a box. Text in Tier 2 and tier 3 sections have been improved.

To get a best possible picture of emission factors fromreservoirs it is important to understand that especiallyhydropower reservoirs are designed and operated. Downstream
emissions (downstream emissions is here understood as
2478

4

7

269

270

Degassing) are not typical for a climate zone but will be decided Tormod Andre Scheiby design and operation of the power plant/dam. it should also
be noted that diffusion and ebullition pathways often is a
product of the design/morphology of the reservoir and thus may
follow from reservoir design. text should be revised

9082

4

7

269

270

Emissions here do not include degassing at the damn (line 925).
Terms need more consistent use and inclusivity.
Degassing of CH4 can hardly be standardized according toregion/climate. The operation and construction of the power

9700

4

7

269

276

plant, waterways and reservoir, as well as the hydromorphological characteristics of the water system are as
relevant. The chapter needs refinement!

1650

4

7

275

286

tables 7.8, 7.9 - empty. No possibility for review.
Table 7.8. To understand the data set these EF are based on,

4214

4

7

275

275

table should also include coarse geographical information: forexample, does the data set include information from multiple
countries/ northern and southern hemisphere etc.

4216

4

7

275

275

9086

4

7

275

276

Table 7.8 caption. I think this is not medians, I think it is means.
If not, the explanation is confusing and does not make sense.
Mean in Table, median in legend

The guidance on how to develop the Tier 2 country-specificemission factors should be included in this section, not provided
in an annex. This would be consistent with how other methods(e.g., enteric fermentation, manure management) that require
5934

4

7

286

293

detailed information and equations to develop the Tier 2emissions factors are organized i.e., the guidance on developing
the factors are in the chapter, not an annex. This information isessential in order to apply the Tier 2 method and should not berelegated to an annex.

9906

4

7

286

293

It was not clear how the Tier 2 guidance on EF's corresponds to
the Tier 2 methodology introduced in line 254.
The text is difficult to read and understand, moreover, it lacks

281

4

7

286

323

information, formulas, references, etc., which should already be Irineu Bianchinidescribed.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

9088

4

7

292

292

Annex 7.1?

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Editorial

1652

4

7

303

335

Anna Romanovskaya

Accepted with
Modification

More detail on the influence of eutrophication is provided within Tier 2
and 3 approaches.

Vincent Camobreco

Accepted

Text included as part of tier 2, when countries know what fraction of theirreservoirs fall in each trophic category.

It should be clear stated that Eutrophication - might beconsidered under Tier 3.
The information provided here seems like a refinement to the

5936

4

7

303

334

Tier 1 method and should be included there, or possibly as analternative Tier 2 approach.

4694

4

7

305

307

methane should be CH4

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Editorial

2480

4

7

318

318

give correct table - cannot find any 7.1

Tormod Andre Schei

Accepted

All Table numbering has been checked and corrected.

5938

4

7

318

318

Vincent Camobreco

Accepted

Tables have been renumbered to reflect removal of tables in earlier draft

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

We have clarified how the equation is implemented.

Tormod Andre Schei

Accepted

All equation numbering has been checked and corrected.

Carolyn Maxwell

Accepted

All equation numbering has been checked and corrected.

Carolyn Maxwell

Accepted

Numbering of all figures have been checked and corrected.

Please confirm that reference to Table 7.1 is correct, seems like
you are actually referring to Table 7.8
Does Table 7.1 (which ever table this actually is) represent

9090

4

7

318

319

emission factors for oligotrophic reservoirs? If so shouldn’t thesevalues be multiplied by 1.7 (not 0.6) for emissions formesotrophic and no adjustment for oligotrophic?

2482

4

7

320

320

4218

4

7

320

320

4220

4

7

323

323

3148

4

7

324

328

equation 7,8 ?
I cannot find equation 7.8 in the document so cannot assess thisportion of the chapter for accuracy.
I am unsure what Annex Fig.x.2 refers to, so cannot assess thisfor accuracy properly.
Standardize font of the equations in accordance with the rest of
the document.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

All equations have been checked and corrected.

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Reference to figure has been corrected and more detail has been provided.

Figure referenced Annex Fig x2 not found. Is there a referenceor has this figure been constructed by this chapters authors?
9092

4

7

324

328

Are error values on exponents available? Does some indication
regarding measurement/use of chlorophyll data have to be
indicated (summer/winter, well mixed versus stratified, surface
or sub-surface chlorophyll maximum)

9094

4

7

330

330

recommended emission factor - table ?

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

all Table numbering has been checked and corrected.

3632

4

7

331

331

A definition of "ug L-1" is needed

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

inserted (micrograms per litre)

9096

4

7

331

331

is Euler's number known to everyone?

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Included the value for Euler's number and included in the glossary

6484

4

7

332

334

would eutrophication enhance CO2 emission?

Guangcheng Chen

Noted

This is explained within the text.

Irving William

Accepted

We have added text to provide flexibility in how countries address tier 1,
including use of ICOLD data.

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

We have improved consistency in terms and added to the glossary

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Editorial. We have added explanatory text

Would ICOLD data be considered Tier 1, or only a second option
9908

4

7

343

343

if national level Tier 1 data are not available from national
statistics?
New terms introduced "outflow areas and spillways" are these

9098

4

7

351

352

the same as "downstream". Need consistency here and in
Annex.

9100

4

7

358

359

Can a bit more explanation be given as to why upstream anddownstream values need to be taken into account?

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To line

282

4

7

359

359

2484

4

7

360

361

283

4

7

363

363

3150

4

7

363

363

Replace Wetland by Wetlands.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

2486

4

7

371

372

Choice of method do not include canals only ditches etc

Tormod Andre Schei

Accepted with
Modification"Canals, drainage channels, and ditches" are a single Ramsar class and areconsidered collectively throughout the document. We have used thisterminology throughout to provide consistency.

284

4

7

377

385

Irineu Bianchini

Noted

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

3152

4

7

382

386

Comment
Some of the most relevant references to the subject could bemade explicit.
canals is not discussed to any length in this chapter. Choice of
methods for canals are unclear
2013 Wetland Supplement (IPCC, 2014); I did not found thisreference.

There are 3 documents mentioned simultaneously (thus, it isvery difficult to follow the logic of the text).
Improve equation format.

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Irineu Bianchini

Accepted

Editorial. We have added references where needed.

Tormod Andre Schei

Accepted with
Modification"Canals, drainage channels, and ditches" are a single Ramsar class and areconsidered collectively throughout the document. We have used thisterminology throughout to provide consistency

Irineu Bianchini

Accepted

This reference has been added.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Is Fn the same as the multiplication factor used in reservoirs for
4

7

382

386

status is unknown? Further advise on Fn is needed. Need toHilary Kennedy

define subscript c. Is it assumed that the surface area of theseAccepted with
Modification

ponds and channels remains constant?
8880

4

7

382

391

3154

4

7

387

391

There is no information about '_c' on 'A_w,c,n' and'EF_CH4_w,c,n'.
Standardize style and units in accordance with the rest of the
document.

All equations have been checked and corrected.
We have removed Fn from the equation, keeping the subscript w

meso/eutrophic? Is there an assumption that Fn=1 if nutrient
9102

Editorial

to distinguish different waterbody types, n to distinguish variationin nutrient status of water bodies and c = climate zone, althoughcurrently at tier 1 the data is not sufficient to disaggregate basedon these factors. Disaggregation may be possible at Tier 2 or 3.

RAEHYUN KIM

AcceptedCARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

We have added definitions of the terms used and fixed theformatting, which also made understanding the equation difficult.
All equations have been checked and corrected.
We have clarified the equation, which considers the area of

2488

4

7

389

389

the formula seems only to regard "area of small constructedwaterbody" -Tormod Andre Schei

Accepted

different water bodies over climate zones (c) and nutrient status(n) as well as the emission factors for different water bodies overclimate zones (c) and nutrient status (n).

2490

4

7

413

413

table 7.4 not foundTormod Andre Schei

Accepted

Numbering of all Tables have been checked and corrected.

Comment
ID

7398

Volume4

Chapter

7

From line

419

To lineComment

Expert420

Table 7.10 provides default CH4 EF values for human-made ponds andchannels that are universal across all climate zones. However
temperature is a significant factor in microbial metabolism and therefore
on CH4 and CO2 production. Microbial metabolism and metabolic rates
can be modelled using Arrhenius and Michaelis-Menten kinetic models(see reference below), and such an approach could be used to inform an
adjustment of the published “universal” default EF values to betterreflect the impact of local temperature conditions on the emissions fromMax Collett
these smaller water bodies. Smaller water bodies have a small thermal
mass (in comparison to large reservoirs) so that seasonal temperature
variations may have significant (seasonal) impacts on microbial activity
and CH4/CO2 emissions. A discussion on these matters, with further
guidance, could be considered for Annex 7.1
Davidson, E. A., et al., The Dual Arrhenius and Michaelis–Menten kinetics
model for decomposition of soil organic matter at hourly to seasonal
time scales Global Change Biology (2012) 18, 371–384

Response

Authors' note

We have added this reference to Annex 7.1. At the Tier 3 level we
Accepted

indicate that temperature can be used in establishing emission
factors.

3156

4

7

457

457

Missing section heading.

9588

4

7

464

464

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

Rejected

Sea level rise is not considered within the Guidance as per IPCC Guidance.

466

same comment as for 7.3.1.2: somewhere early in 7.3.2.1. For clarity andas a help for the reader figure 7.2 should again be referred to or
Tormod Andre Schei
highlighted since the decision tree is a starting point when addressing
emissions and esp. " factoring out of emissions and removals.."

Accepted

We have moved Fig 2 (decision tree) to a Box and provided enhanced
explanations of the approach

2492

4

7

466

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Section heading on earlier page - fixed format

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

To be read together with rows 1011-1051.

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Sandro Federici

Accepted with
Modification

We have added to and improved the text around these topics at the Tier 3
level. These issues have been addressed in the SOD.

This method and associated CO2 factors are a double counting
in case a complete loss of Biomass and DOM C stocks resident
on the land at the time the conversion occur is assumed. Suchassumption is indeed embedded in the IPCC methodology.
For example A forest is inundated, all biomass is reported as
lost, no C transfer of biomass to DOM is reported because ofthis pool isn't counted in the new land use. This means to countall the biomass as instantaneously oxidised. Then the ethod andfactors reported in this section count (again) the emissions of
CO2 that such biomass generates for the following 20-years.
My suggestion is to delete this section. Alternatively, you should
2078

4

7

466

523

give guidance that set as a good practice:1) to report all biomass present in the land at the moment ofinundation as completely lost (so reporting a C stock loss withassociated CO2 emissions);
2) to report a C transfer to DOM pools (i.e. a C input in the DOM
pools) equal to the Biomass C stock loss;3) to report for the following 20 years an amount of emissions
consistent with the emissions factors provided in table A5.
However, to apply such method you should demonstrate thatafter 20 years the net C stock change of pools can be assumed
to be zero (i.e. CO2 emissions are equal to annual C inputs); andso far as I understand from the text here commented, you havenot enough data to substantiate that assumption.

9104

4

7

478

478

Further did you analyse the variance associated with theand are metabolised?

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Editorial

2494

4

7

481

481

insert a "have" (?) after already

Tormod Andre Schei

Accepted

Editorial

3158

4

7

486

487

Please check the terms and the cited figure.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

3160

4

7

496

496

Specify the equation X.X.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

Irineu Bianchini

We have added to and improved the text around these topics. These issues
are addressed in the SOD.

I do not agree completely with these statements. If you know: i)the previous (mainly) vegetal typology, ii) the contribution ofeach vegetal resource (i.e., leaves, barks, fine branches, litter) toeach typology; iii) the C-labile content of each vegetal resource;
285

4

7

504

505

iv) their decay’s rates constant; v) the limnological features of
new reservoir, it is possible to estimate the some emissions(Tremblay et al. 2005; Cunha-Santino et al. 2013). All suchinformation is generally available in environmental studies
conducted prior to the formation of the reservoir.

Accepted

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' noteAnna Romanovskaya

Accepted with
Modification

We have improved description of our approach.

It is strange to say that no possibilities to estimate C losses
from flooded lands depending on preflooding land use. 2006 GLs

1654

4

7

504

505

provide data to estimate initial C stocks in forest land,
croplands etc. The assumption for flooded lands could be as a
total C losses of C in all pools (may be except soils) for flooded
lands.

2496

4

7

506

506

where is equation 7.3

Tormod Andre Schei

Accepted

All equations have been checked and corrected.

9106

4

7

506

506

where is equation 7.3?

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

All equations have been checked and corrected.

4696

4

7

507

507

CO2 subscript

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Editorial

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Editorial

Accepted with
Modification

This is a mulit-part comment. We removed statements about constructionof aquaculture ponds and reference to Wetlands Supplement (line 522)
and placed this in the appropriate section (line 585 - 592). We agree thatsalinity is an important factor influencing CH4 emissions. To increase
consistency with Wetlands Supplement we have disaggregatedaquaculture pond emission factors into "saline ponds" and freshwater
ponds.

Here, and elsewhere in the chapter, could you
9108

4

7

510

510

add section

numbers to Annex 7.1 to make it easier to find the appropriate
section.

9110

4

7

522

523

This sentence would be better placed around line 488 where you report
removal of terrestrial biomass. No Co2 emissions accounted for fromaquaculture water, only from soil during construction. No info on age ofaquaculture required in coastal wetlands. This reference suggests that
Hilary Kennedy
flooding by seawater is included? This has strong considerations formethane (lack of emission). Having read further i see that CO2 emissions
from aquaculture not included so further confusion.

7290

4

7

530

530

Counting jumps from 4) to 6), omitting 5)

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted

Editorial

1656

4

7

546

547

No data in Table 7.11

Anna Romanovskaya

Noted

Emission factors have been included in the SOD

MINGMING WANG

Accepted

We have considered alternative approaches to disaggregate further.

In Table 7.11, CO2 factors for soils after flooding of land are too
9722

4

7

546

547

coarse (e.g., Boreal, Tropical, Temperate). Need more than soil
types.

3162

4

7

551

551

... ? Is there missing text here

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

We have corrected this text.

if CH4 levels are very likely to be much higher in the first 20
9910

4

7

581

590

years, using the methods and data for FL=FL would likely result Irving William

Accepted

Editorial - we have acknowledged this in the text.

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Editorial

Accepted

We have improved the referencing throughout

in a significant underestimate. This should be acknowledged.
Keep to the term "flooding" rather than inundation? Or be

9112

4

7

585

585

286

4

7

587

587

include the bibliographic references.

Irineu Bianchini

3164

4

7

596

596

Missing section heading.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

3166

4

7

618

618

Subscript for CH4.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorialconsistent in usage

This states there are no methods for ditches and canals, but on
5940

4

7

622

624

page 7.13 starting on line 360 you provide guidance for

We have clarified that we provide no CH4 emissions factors forVincent Camobreco

Accepted

estimating CH4 from ditches and canals. Please confirm.
9978

4

7

625

663

See this reference for uncertainty of methane emission

Antonio Camacho

4698

4

7

630

630

100 km2, superscript

KEWEI YU

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted

4700

4

7

633

633

better use 50%

KEWEI YU

Accepted

LAND CONVERTED TO FLOODED LAND; the reviewer points to
the FLOODED LAND REMAINING FLOODED LAND.
We have examined the reference, but did not include it.
Editorial
Editorial

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

2498

4

7

639

639

table 7.2 - ??

Tormod Andre Schei

Accepted

all Table numbering has been checked and corrected.

287

4

7

643

646

include the bibliographic references.

Irineu Bianchini

Accepted

We have improved the referencing throughout

9114

4

7

643

646

This info would have been useful earlier

Hilary Kennedy

9116

4

7

651

652

As above

Hilary Kennedy

9118

4

7

670

670

Chapter 2 of which IPCC guidelines?

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification

We have increased the clarity of this statement. This information is now
provided earlier in the document.
We have increased the clarity of this statement. This information is now
provided earlier in the document.

Accepted

Directions to sections in other documents have been included.

Guangcheng Chen

Accepted

Editorial- inserted citation to the 2013 Wetlands Supplement"2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National
6486

4

7

671

672

Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands" is abbreviated as
Wetland Supplement in other sections

9120

4

7

679

679

Where is text relating to "refining application of default equations"?

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

This text was edited

9122

4

7

682

685

is there a reference for this type of approach?

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

We have edited this section

3168

4

7

730

814

9124

4

7

730

815

References not cited in text Avnimelech & Ritvo 2003, Cailleaud et al2015, Clow et al 2015, Guerin et al 2008, Knittel et al 2009, McGinnin et Hilary Kennedy
al 2006, Wik et al., 2016.

Accepted

We have included these references and improved the referencing andformatting throughout

9126

4

7

730

815

Abrill et al 2013 in ref list, 2005 in text. There are two Huttunen 2002's inHilary Kennedy
ref list, 2002 & 2003 in text. West 2016 in ref list, 2015 in text.

Accepted

We have included these references and improved the referencing andformatting throughout

9128

4

7

730

815

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

4702

4

7

765

765

Missing from ref list. Evans et al 2006, Vnimelch & Ritro 2003, WCD
2000, Helie 2004
CO2 and CH4, subscript

KEWEI YUWe have included these references and improved the referencing andformatting throughout

Accepted

Editorial

4704

4

7

813

813

CO2, CH4, N2O subscript

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Editorial

Tormod Andre Schei

Accepted

Have included the model in the main text.

Accepted

The references need to be in the same format of others in the
Refinement.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

We have improved the referencing and formatting throughout

Annex 7.1 is presenting the GHG Reservoir model ( G-res tool,
2500

4

7

815

815

Prairie et al., 2017b) as a tool useful in estimating reservoir GHG
fluxes. This tool could be lifted into the main chapter or at leastmentioned or referred to

We have improved the referencing consistent with IPCC

9150

4

7

815

1051

it is not clear where the references cited in the text are listed.

Hilary Kennedy

3170

4

7

821

821

(Prairie et al. (2017a)... Missing parenthesis.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

4706

4

7

821

821

(2017a)?

KEWEI YU

Accepted(2017a) is correct

4708

4

7

836

836

et al. or et al., be consistent

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Editorial

4710

4

7

840

840

CH4 subscript

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Editorial

3172

4

7

860

861

Justify text/margins.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

3174

4

7

871

877

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

9130

4

7

871

877

Are error values on equation components available?

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

The error values have been included.

9132

4

7

879

880

units for organic carbon, temperature and cumm rad.

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

We have improved this section and included units.

3176

4

7

891

891

Superscript for m3.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

4712

4

7

891

891

0.1Mm3?

KEWEI YUWe have clarified this is 10^6 cubic meters.

Standardize font of the equations in accordance with the rest of
the document.

Accepted

standards.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

9134

4

7

891

891

units?

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

We have improved this section and included units.

3178

4

7

903

904

Improve format of the table. Standardize fonts.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

3180

4

7

909

909

Subscript for CH4.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

3182

4

7

915

915

Subscript for CH4.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

9136

4

7

916

916

consistent use of Rn and Rdegas. Table 7.9 not 7.11

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Editorial

3184

4

7

919

923

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

3186

4

7

925

925

Superscript for yr-1.

Editorial

4714

4

7

925

927

y-1, or yr-1

9138

4

7

925

928

Usefully defined earlier.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted
Accepted with
KEWEI YU
Modification
Accepted
Hilary Kennedy

3188

4

7

926

926

Subscript for CH4.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

3190

4

7

927

927

Superscript for yr-1.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

4716

4

7

928

928

et al ?

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Editorial

Irineu Bianchini

Accepted with
Modification

Added some additional information about estimation, but it is not practicalto provide guidance for all areas

Standardize font of the equations in accordance with the rest of
the document.

However, these emissions can be estimated using climate zone
288

4

7

934

935

specific Rn values reported in the literature. (At least quote themain references)

Used yr-1
Editorial

9140

4

7

944

944

replace "biasing Rn low" with "underestimating"

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Editorial

3192

4

7

949

950

Improve format of the table. Standardize fonts.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

Editorial

3194

4

7

953

953

Replace (Diffuse + Bubbling) by (diffuse + bubbling).

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

3196

4

7

955

955

Subscript for CH4.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

289

4

7

956

956

Table 2 or Table A3?

Irineu Bianchini

Accepted

It was Table A3

3198

4

7

957

958

Format table in accordance with the rest of the document.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

Editorial

9142

4

7

973

985

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Editorial

8882

4

7

988

989

Please, mark a point for 'warm temperate dry' in Figure A3.

RAEHYUN KIM

Accepted

Editorial

9144

4

7

990

990

Black and white i.d. of model/field more robust in case not viewed/used
Hilary Kennedy
in colour

Accepted

Editorial

4718

4

7

991

991

%-ile? Better use percentile

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Editorial

4222

4

7

992

992

Carolyn Maxwell

Accepted

Editorial

3200

4

7

997

998

Colours do not match between Table A4a and Figure A3. I found thisconfusingFormat table in accordance with the rest of the document.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

4720

4

7

997

997

CH4 subscript, m-2 d-1 superscript

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Editorial

9146

4

7

997

997

where is equation 4

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Numbering of all equations has been corrected in the text.

3202

4

7

1008

1009

Format table in accordance with the rest of the document.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

9148

4

7

1008

1008

where is equation 5

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Numbering of all equations has been corrected in the text.

291

4

7

1034

1034

I did not found “Deemers (2016) in references.

Irineu Bianchini

Accepted

We have included these references and improved the referencing andformatting throughout

292

4

7

1038

1038

“More details are provided in Appendix 1.5 Section 1.2” Where? Irineu Bianchini

Acceptedomitted this text

fig a2 explain the features of the box plots. Black and white i.d.
of model/field more robust in case not viewed/used in colour

Comment
ID
9152
9154

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

4

7

1038

1038

appendix 1.5 section 1.2 where?

Hilary Kennedy

Acceptedomitted this text

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted with
Modification

4

7

1044

1045

can specific reference to particular guidelines be given.

Cut sentence to omit reference to guidance because it is
impossible to give useful guidance on links to specific places
covering all possibilities

3204

4

7

1049

1050

Format table in accordance with the rest of the document.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

9156

4

7

1055

1055

no table a8

Hilary Kennedy

3206

4

7

1056

1057

Improve table format.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Table numbers have been checked and corrected. Formatting made itdifficult to see the title. Corrected this.
Editorial

9158

4

7

1056

1057

ref 5 not in list

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

We have included these references and improved the referencing andformatting throughout

3210

4

7

1059

1394

The references need to be in the same format of others in the
Refinement.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

Editorial

9160

4

7

1059

1060

refs 6&7 not in table a6

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Editorial

290

4

7

1112

1128

Accepted

Editorial

4722

4

7

1220

1222

There are many definitions and statements whose authorship should be
Irineu Bianchini
mentioned.

4724

4

7

1255

9162

4

7

293

4

9164

Accepted

CO2, CH4, N2O subscript

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Editorial

1255

CH4,

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Editorial

1259

1259

area specific emissions?

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

Editorial

7

1262

1262

Is Table 7.4 the Table A9?

Irineu Bianchini

Accepted

Table 7.10, section 7.3.1.2 is in the main text, referred to section number.

4

7

1267

1267

Hilary Kennedy

Accepted

294

4

7

1272

1272

Irineu Bianchini

Accepted

Editorial

3208

4

7

1272

1273

Improve table format.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Editorial

295

4

7

1285

1285

Castilo et al. (this is out of the requested formatting)

Irineu Bianchini

Accepted

Editorial

1408

The text could be more deeply explained, and to be more conclusive. I
suggest something like presented in Prairie et al. (2017). If I understood,
there is no research enough to propose, and consequently, to support to Irineu Bianchini
the Tier 1 methodology. The manual's users need to be clarified,understanding the arguments that show the gaps of knowledge.

Accepted

We have moved this material to a Box in order to more fully explain.

Accepted with
Modification

Cite final annex and Prairie et al., 2017 and also clarify how much

296

4

7

1395

remove ","under what circumstance is cropping cycle relevant to humanmade water bodies?
The “et al” are missing in several references; Hai 2014 is not in thereferences.

We have changed the wording from cropping to aquaculture
production cycles, which can be multiple per year.

I think it is appropriate to consider impoundments as carbon (C)sequestering environments because they alter the ecosystem.
The ecosystem is changed in a way such that C sequestration
would not occur if the reservoir did not exist. For example, what
5592

4

7

1396

1408

is the fate of a C atom absorbed by the reservoir as a CO2
molecule and photosynthetically processed? One possible fateis that the C atom will escape decomposition, become refractory
and then permanently sedimented in the reservoir. If thereservoir did not exist, the C atom could have remained in theatmosphere as CO2.

Elizabeth Sikar

C could be buried in reservoirs as a result of impoundment

Comment
ID
4838

Volume4

Chapter

7

From line

To lineComment

ExpertAppendices

Kindly confirm if pending questions, raised in the 2006GLs, Vol 4
Appendices, are all covered or addressed. (Volume 4 Annex is not clear
on this.) If covered, please describe how those appendices should betreated.

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

9726

4

8

General

2908

4

8

60

60

2910

4

8

61

61

Taka Hiraishi

Replace ... biomass of wood removals to ... biomass due to wood
CARLOS SANQUETTA
removals.
Replace ... biomass of fuelwood removals to ... biomass due to fuelwood
CARLOS SANQUETTA
removals.

Response

Authors' note

Accepted

We have included new text to describe how this Chapter incorporates
information from the Flooded land Appendices (2006 GL Appendix 2 and 3)
have

Noted

no action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement

Accepted
Accepted

5588

4

8

77

199

Urban green areas are in the forefront of recent academic researcheswith plenty of journal publications, books and conference proceeding. As
the newest cited document comes from 2013, therefore literature
Attila Buzasi
background shall be widened and renewed in order to be up-to-date.
Comprehensive review of recent literature in the topic may be needed.

3212

4

8

85

85

Subscript for CO2.

96

The Brack (2002) reference is now an old study, which does not appear
consistent with findings in the global studies on urban forests referenced
in the refinement, or with other information on forest growth andsequestration from natural forests in the Canberra region (which is not a Max Collett
highly productive area generally supporting only low-biomass forests).
Suggest removing references to this study from the refinement, unless
more recent studies are available to support its findings.

Accepted with
Modificationtext modified, taking into account the reviewer's suggestion and on thebasis of additional references

Accepted with
Modificationtext modified, taking into account the reviewer's suggestion and on thebasis of additional references

Accepted

7386

4

8

95

CARLOS SANQUETTA

7388

4

8

103

104

As above, the Brack (2002) reference is now an old study, which does notappear consistent with findings in the global studies on urban forests
referenced in the refinement, or with other information on forest
growth and sequestration from natural forests in the Canberra region
Max Collett(which is not a highly productive area generally supporting only lowbiomass forests). Suggest removing references to this study from therefinement, unless more recent studies are available to support its
findings.

4726

4

8

164

164

good practice in italic

171

I would redraft as follows: "When countries consider applying datacollected in other countries, it is good practice to assess how similar theconditions (climate, urban structure, tree yes) are with the country from Sandro Federici
which data originate; where needed adjustment may be applied toresolve dissimilarities."

2076

4

8

169

KEWEI YU

Noted

literature is being search and included as most appropriatedAccepted

editorial

Accepted

text modified

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted with
Modificationtext modified, taking into account the the reviewer's suggestion and on thebasis of additional references

7390

4

8

180

181

As above, the Brack (2002) reference is now an old study, which does notappear consistent with findings in the global studies on urban forests
referenced in the refinement, or with other information on forest
growth and sequestration from natural forests in the Canberra region
Max Collett(which is not a highly productive area generally supporting only lowbiomass forests). Suggest removing references to this study from therefinement, unless more recent studies are available to support its
findings.

9724

4

8

180

181

Table 8.1 currently only provides data for USA and Australia. It is
recommended that IPCC expands the range of factors to cover otherregions / countries.

MINGMING WANG

Accepted with
Modificationtable in SOD updated

3214

4

8

199

199

Can we use data coming from personal communication to construct atable like this?

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

table in SOD updated

5274

4

8

199

200

Table 8.2 currently only provides data for trees found in North America.
It would be helpful to improve the range of factors to cover other
MINGMING WANG
regions / countries.

Accepted with
Modificationtable in SOD updated

Kochi TONOSAKI

Noted

Reference to the three-pool steady state has been removed from thischapter.

Andreas Gensior

Noted

Reference to the three-pool steady state has been removed from thischapter.

MINGMING WANG

Accepted with
Modificationtext modified to facilitate the reading and understanding of the steps

It is better to add a background to use the Three-Pool Steady1328

4

8

209

242

State C model for Tier 2, including the latest studies insettlements.

5358

4

8

287

288

I can not find the "provided default parameters"; Table 2 does
not exist in chapter 2.3.3.1.

5276

4

8

324

324

Land Converted to Settlements section seems poorly defined comparedto other sections. This emission source can be considerable due to theincreasing urbanisation and expansion of cities, and therefore it isrecommended to be refined.

3216

4

8

367

367

Replace chapter 4 (forest land) by Chapter 4 (Forest Land).

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

3218

4

8

381

381

Please cite the literature that support this table.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Rejected

5356

4

8

381

382

8884

4

8

420

421

3220

4

8

424

424

8886

4

8

543

543

3222

4

8

557

557

Missing section heading.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Noted

The title structure was modified to be the same as other related chapters

4728

4

8

587

587

good practice in italic

KEWEI YU

Noted

Reference to the three-pool steady state has been removed from thischapter.

MINGMING WANG

Noted

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

wrong link in the Table: under cropland it should be Table 5.11 instead ofAndreas Gensior
5.9
It need to change from 'Bbefore' to 'B_before' and from 'BAfter' to
RAEHYUN KIM'B_after' as same in 2006GL.
Subscript for CO2.
(i.e., FLU, FI, and FMG)' need to change as same as '(i.e., F_LU,
F_I, and F_MG).

this table just refers the relevant parameters from other chapters

Accepted
AcceptedCARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

RAEHYUN KIM

Accepted

There is still little guidance on how to account for the large

Reference to these factors was removed

carbon fluxes associated with unmanaged or "wild" lands that
5620

4

9

generalnevertheless have an anthropogenic influence, e.g. methane
release from permafrost, emissions from tropical forests due tochanging temperatures/ rainfall, and the carbon stored andsequestered in coastal ecosystems or so called "blue carbon".

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

6890

4

9

2

2

There is no chapter title!!

Seyed

Accepted

A title has been added.

7216

4

9

126

127

Dirk Nemitz

Noted

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

836

4

10

generalIn general the refinement, more descriptions and updated formulas give
Ulrike Doering
more support for doing the calculations.

Noted

Accepted with
Modification

Very few animals are on island nations of Oceania and little data isavailable. We added a footnote stating that for Oceania, Tier 1B factors
will be consistent with the low productivity emission factor of Asia.

Accepted

editorial

Give references and hyperlinks for IGBP DIS, FAO and UNEP
resources

4814

4

10

generalA general comment for Authors to consider/acknowledge whenproviding default parameters for 'Oceania' is that Australia's agricultural
systems and practices are vastly different to the rest of the region (which
Mark Hunstone
could be described as developing economies (with the exception of New
Zealand)) and more appropriately aligned with North America. A
footnote on relevant tables to this effect would be helpful.

2520

4

10

generalProof reading is needed

Accepted

Clarifying text added on page 10.43 after para Tier a1 (sentence . Theseemission factors represent the range in manure management practices
used in each region, as well as the difference in emissions due totemperature.) Also: introductory sentence 10.40 incorporated to make it
clear that housing emissions are included implicitly. Check consistentwording also for the N2O section

Anna Mikis

8180

4

10

0

0

CH4 emissions from animal housing are mentioned nowhere. It shouldbe mentioned that either i.) these are negligible (which is most probably
not the case), ii) they are included in the CH4 emissions from manure
management or iii) there is currently not sufficient data to estimate
Daniel Bretscher
these emissions. Alternatively an assessment method should be
provided. Note that for assessing NH3 emissions, emissions from housing
are usually reported separately.

8182

4

10

0

0

Table 10.16 Dairy cattle in Latin America: The average excretion rate forvolatile solids is lower than both for high productivity and low
Daniel Bretscher
productivity. This should not be the case.

Accepted

Reviewed and revised proposed values

3824

4

10

1

1

pg. 10.47 line numbers start with 1 (again). This will complicate thecorrect attribution of the comments in this chapter

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

editorial

8754

4

10

1

14

Page 10.46-10.50. Has it been analysed what animal types are currently
being reported by Annex 1 Parties to the UNFCCC to identify potential
missing animal categories and also to identify potential data sources?

Ole-Kenneth Nielsen

Accepted

Based on review of available data, all significant animal categories are
currently covered, with the exception of those mentioned elsewhere incomments.

6892

4

10

8

62

check why some cells are filled with the grey background

Alexandre Berndt

Noted

5482

4

10

13

13

On page 10.49, regarding Table 10.19 please consider to add data for theKadir AKSAKAL
animal category "geese".

Accepted
Accepted

Checked inventories available e.g. German inventory or others who reportgeese; compare with duck's values

No action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement.
There will be a check of inventories available e.g. German inventory orothers who report geese; compare with duck's values

2288

4

10

14

14

In Table 10.20 a default emission factor for ostrich is given. See
comments regarding vol 4, Annexes, line 973-973 Table 10A-20 in Annex Vigdis Vestreng
10A.2

4730

4

10

36

37

N2O, subscript, check other places

KEWEI YU

Accepted

editorial

3224

4

10

37

37

Subscript for N2O.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

editorial

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted with
Modification

Modified text appropriately … assuring however that changes are not incontradiction with mass flow approach

8184

4

10

39

41

A separate assessment of CH4 emissions for each manure management
system would also be possible. In practice it is often seen, that manurefrom different livestock species living on the same farm is managed in
the same manure system. Assessing CH4 emission per manure
Daniel Bretscher
management system would also better allow the design and eventual
implementation of mitigation measures. This should be mentioned here.
It would be even better to suggest a respective methodology (which isbasically only a rearrangement of the equations).

838

4

10

42

44

Eq 10.28: It is good that the formula is now updated.

Ulrike Doering

Noted

5898

4

10

42

53

Line values started over, this comment is for lines 42-53 on page 10.51.
Equation 10.28, difficult to understand how this value would be anannual emission factor when there is no time component to any of theequation factors.

Vincent Camobreco

Rejected

The emission factor calculated in Equation 10.28 is not annual, but per kg
of VS excreted. See comment 3890

3890

4

10

47

47

pg. 10.51, EF(T): Delete "annual" as the EF is related to the amount VS
and does not carry any time dependence in itself (VS is the entity that is Hans-Dieter Haenel
time dependent)

Accepted

Delete 'annual'
B0 is in unit m3 CH4/kg VS
0.67 is in unit kg/m3 CH4
MCF/100 and MS are dimensionless
The product gives kg CH4 kg VS-1. This is multiplied with 1000 to get g CH4
kg VS-1

3892

4

10

47

47

pg. 10.51, EF(T): Mass units (g) are incorrect. The term in brackets in Eq.
10.28 is in kg; multiplied with 1000 as done in Eq. 10.28 yields tons
Hans-Dieter Haenel
instead of grams.

Rejected

3894

4

10

50

50

pg. 10.51: 0.67 is the density of methane. Why is it simply named"conversion factor"?

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

Name it 'Density of methane'

4734

4

10

62

62

AGR(T), what T stands for? In bold?

KEWEI YU

Rejected

Reject, can't find what this refers to.

4732

4

10

81

82

CH4, subscript, check other places

KEWEI YU

Accepted

editorial

3226

4

10

81

82

Subscript for CH4.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

editorial

Accepted

Equation definitions have been modified.

3922

4

10

83

97

pg. 10.52, Eq. 10.29: Dämmgen et al. (2011) analysed that equation indetail and stated: The ash content must be that of feed rather than ofmanure and VS contained in urine is negligible. In addition I would like toHans-Dieter Haenel
state, that 18.45 is not a "conversion factor for dietary GE per kg of dry
matter" but it is the "average GE content of 1 kg of dry matter in animal
diets". A reference for the value 18.45 should be added.

3818

4

10

94

94

page 10.52. I am sure that "ASH" means not the ash content of MANURE
Claus Rösemannbut the ash content of FEED (not corrected error from IPCC 2006 GL)

Accepted

Previous text not modified, but valid point raised. Needs to be clarified.

3888

4

10

94

95

pg.10.52: "ash content of MANURE" is wrong. It must read "ash content
Claus Rösemannof FEED". This has consequences on calculations made in Annex10B.6.

Accepted

Previous text not modified, but valid point raised. Needs to be clarified.

8186

4

10

102

107

Wording. Some statements are redoubled.

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

Deleted duplication of " It is important to standardise the Bo
measurement."

840

4

10

108

199

It is very good that the Methane emissions from biogas digesters are
now included in the chapter.

Ulrike Doering

Noted

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted

Text revised

5900

4

10

111

113

This comment is for lines 111 to 113 on page 10.52. Recommend revisionof sentence, which is highlighted, to: "A single MCF value is provided formanure deposited by grazing animals onto pasture, ranges andVincent Camobreco
paddocks, as an analysis of 45 research studies showed there was no
significant difference between temperate and tropical climatic zones(see Annex 10B.6)."

5902

4

10

119

121

Page 10.52. This sentence is not clear the way it is currently written,
unclear what the message is.

Vincent Camobreco

Accepted

Editorial

3896

4

10

120

120

pg. 10.52: Delete "that".

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

Editorial

Accepted

Text to be expanded - this is a good comment

Accepted

Text to be expanded - this is a good comment

5904

4

10

131

136

Pages 10.52-10.53. Specifically for bullet on line 132, does this bullet
point include manure characteristics? Would this not be a factor toVincent Camobreco
include? If so, should be more explicit in what factors should be included
across all of these points from lines 131 to 136.

8188

4

10

131

137

Measurements and/or surveys should also include information on
natural crust formation and/or manure cover systems.

138

The AMS-III.D "Small-scale Methodology. Methane recovery in animal
manure management systems"(https://cdm.unfccc.int/Panels/ssc_wg/meetings/039/ssc_039_an07.pdf) as well as the methodology AM0073 "GHG emission reductions throughmulti-site manure collection and treatment in a central plant"(http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/DB/2N19WQ6DCXNYRNJVZQQOH
Daniel Bretscher
G7TK0Q2D8/view.html ) both account for CH4 emissions from thestorage of manure before being fed into the anaerobic digester(PEstorage,y). This is not yet reflected in the draft of the IPCC Guidelines.
The respective approach could be used to complement the current draft.
Furthermore, more guidance should be provided on where the specificemissions (from pre-digestion, leakage during digestion, storage afterdigestion) should be reported (sector agriculture, waste and/or energy).

Accepted with
Modification

Methodology modified, considering comments by the reviewer.

Accepted

Table was modified, Clarifying text added, classifying technologies to giveindications how to choose EF

8190

4

10

138

Daniel Bretscher

1356

4

10

138

199

The revised default Tier 2 method still provides a “MCF value” between 0- 100% (Table 10.21) which is no help for inventory compilers andadditionally a potential source of error and uncertainty. The MCF foranaerobic digesters has to be calculated by the inventory expert. This is
not in line with the Tier 2 approach used for all the other systems. The
derivation of MCF is based on a concept that qualifies for a Tier 3
approach. Equation 10.31 requires data (e.g. for CH4 used, produced orMichael Anderl
flared) that will not be available in most of the countries. For Tier 2 wesuggest elaborating specific default MCFs values for anaerobic digesters
that can be easily applied by inventory compilers. Biogas digesters could
be split according to different technical standards (e.g. modern digesters
with gas tight storages and digesters which do not reflect the best
available technique) resulting in different specific MCFs provided in therefined guidelines.

3898

4

10

140

140

pg. 10.53: "flared. And" must read "flared and".

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

editorial

82

4

10

144

150

please apply the usual practice of { [ ( ) ] } in page 10.53.

Mingshan Su

Accepted

editorial

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

3904

4

10

146

149

ExpertResponse

Authors' notepg. 10.53, Eq. 10.30 is, to my understanding, formally correct if one
neglects the possible existence of pre-storage (storage of manure before Hans-Dieter Haenel
being fed into the digester).

Accepted

Accept, Methodology to be modified

Accepted

Methodology modified. Comments seems fair. Proposed methods
included as alternative method in lack of data? [text of comment could be
used in the text?]

3906

4

10

146

149

pg. 10.53, Eq. 10.30: I doubt that the term CH4prod - CH4used CH4flared can be determined sufficiently well on a national level, even inso-called developed countries. (Unfortunately the IPCC 2019 Refinement
gives no guidance on how to obtain these data. Table 10.21 isn't helpful
either.) Why not use the fact that CH4prod - CH4used - CH4flared is
nothing else than CH4leakage (leakage from digester) and relate it
formally to CH4prod? As shown for the German inventory (Rösemann etal., 2017, Chapter 3.3.4.4.1, bilingual (English/German)) this leads to an
Hans-Dieter Haenel
equation that is much simpler than Eq. 10.30 and requires the inventory
maker solely to find a typical leakage rate for the national digestion
technique. Note that the term FBo,default*(1-Fvs,default) is formally thesame like the relative potential of residual gas (urge) in Rösemann et al.
(2017). The resulting MCF equation in Rösemann et al. (2017) is Eq.
(3.74) from which the contribution by pre-storage can easily be removed
in order to be consistent with the IPCC approach that is without prestorage.

5484

4

10

146

149

On page 10.53, please use a better style for equation 10.30 like the one
in equation 10.24 and please correct the closing parenthesis order.

Kadir AKSAKAL

Accepted

editorial

3900

4

10

148

148

pg. 10.53: "default" mus read "default"

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

editorial

3902

4

10

148

148

pg. 10.53, Eq. 10.30: The sequence of closing brackets after 0.67 - i.e. })] does not match the sequence of opening brackets. I assume it must read Hans-Dieter Haenel)}].

Accepted

editorial

3914

4

10

153

168

pg. 10.53: Explanation of 0.67 is missing.

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

editorial

3908

4

10

159

160

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

editorial

3910

4

10

160

161

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

editorial

Rejected

Reject, Answer to be formulated. Maybe another (better) reference
available?

Accepted

editorial

pg. 10.53: "When a gas tight storage is included" must read "When thestorage is gas tight".
pg. 10.53: I'm not a native English speaker, hence I wonder whether "issame to the storage" is correct wording.

4136

4

10

168

168

Section 10.4.2. Under the line 168 a reference could be inserted to theannex of the chapter where a methodology for estimating the manure
sent to the digesters has been reported. It is based on the amount of
biogas used to produce electricity. Starting from the manure sent to the
Eleonora Di Cristofarodigesters, the "avoided" emissions of methane are estimated, andtherefore not finished in the atmosphere. See section A7.2 Manure
management (3B) in the annex 7 of the Italian greenhouse gas inventory
1990-2015 - National Inventory Report 2017.

3912

4

10

169

172

pg. 10.53: The contents of line 172 are part of the unchanged paragraphHans-Dieter Haenel
immediately above (lines 169 to 171). Hence rephrase lines 169 to 172.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted

To see if the two equations can be merge into 1 generalized equation withsome explanatory text how to apply for only-manure systems

3916

4

10

176

179

pg. 10.54, Eq. 10.31 is clearly a generalization of Eq. 10.30 in order toapply to more than only one type of substrate (material), assuming that
all other input data do not depend on the type of substrate. This
Hans-Dieter Haenel
corresponds to the multiple application of the much simpler German
equivalent of Eq. 10.30 (see comment to Vol4_Chp10_L146-L149_HDH).
This multiple application is done in the German inventory.

83

4

10

176

180

please apply the usual practice of { [ ( ) ] } in page 10.54.

Mingshan Su

Accepted

editorial

3920

4

10

181

199

pg. 10.54: Explanation of 0.67 is missing.

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

editorial

3918

4

10

189

190

pg. 10.54: I'm not a native English speaker, hence I wonder whether "issame to the storage" is correct wording.

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

editorial

3228

4

10

197

197

Subscript for N2O.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

editorial

202

Page 10.55. Table 10.21 presents MCF values for different climate zones.
It is unclear why it has been decided to use the textual description ofclimate zones rather than the specific temperatures used in the 2006
IPCC GL? The approach in the 2006 IPCC GL was more user friendly. As aminimum, the specific definition for the used climatic zones should be
included as footnotes to the table. Also, for closed housing systems it
Ole-Kenneth Nielsen
would properly be more relevant to take into account the indoor
temperature instead of climate zone, especially for the swine
production. In heated housing a large part of the emission will occur inthe housing before the slurry is removed to storage tanks. Even instorage tanks, the temperature will be higher than the ambient
temperature. It should be described on how to consider heated animal
housing systems in selecting the appropriate MCF.

Accepted

Revised text to include description of climate zones and to refer compilers
to section on how to calculate MCFs for different temperature regimes incases that the emission factor is influenced by barn temperatures.

202

Page 10.55. Table 10.21. There are several inconsistencies with theguidance included in the 2006 IPCC GL, e.g. 1) for daily spread thehighest MCF is now listed as 0.5 % while in the 2006 GL, the highest
value was 1.0 %. The same reference is provided, 2) for dry lot thehighest MCF is now 1.5 % rather than 2 % with the same reference, 3)
the reduction for crust cover of 40 % under liquid systems are notconsistent with the values presented in the 2006 IPCC GL, 4) the lowest Ole-Kenneth Nielsen
MCFs presented are much lower than the lowest in the 2006 IPCC GL
despite the same reference being used, 5) for tropical climate and deep
bedding < 1 month the MCF has been changed from 30 % to 3 % withouta change in reference, 6) for deep bedding > 1 month the high value haschanged from 80 % to 39 % with the same reference. In general, changes
in values without changes in reference should be explained.

Noted

Inconsistencies in previous values are due to the reformatting of the table resolved in the SOD.

202

Page 10.55. Table 10.21. For liquid/slurry systems only natural crust
cover is mentioned. How about the effect of other types of covers or
fixed roofs?

Noted

No evidence currently exists to create a sound estimate of artificial cover
impacts to emissions

8746

8748

8750

4

4

4

10

10

10

202

202

202

Ole-Kenneth NielsenComment
ID

8192

8194

Volume44Chapter

10

10From line

202

202

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

203

Table 10.21 Solid storage: "Bulking agents" and "additives" arementioned here but not further specified. It might be helpful to havesome more information on these agents here (e.g. definition,
Daniel Bretscher
description, effects on emission processes) or at least some references tothe respective literature.

Accepted

Missing annex and explanation to be added. Add info on additives available
in Table 10.25 into 10.22

203

Table 10.21: The difference between "Liquid/Slurry, pit > 1 month" and"Pit storage below animal confinements" might not be clear to everyone(at least it is not clear for me). In general, a clearer description of thedifferent animal waste management systems would be helpful. Some
information is provided in table 10.22 but the terminology is not always
the same as in table 10.21. It might in general advisable to use the same Daniel Bretscher
terminology and categorization of animal waste management systems
for the assessment of CH4 and N2O emissions in all tables andthroughout the text. This is not the case so far. Furthermore, theterminology could be aligned with the terminology in the guidelines forthe assessment of NH3 and NOx emissions (EMEP/CORINAIR).

Accepted with
Modification

Description and definitions of manure management systems improved

Accepted with
Modification

No evidence currently exists to create a sound estimate of artificial cover
impacts to emissions

Accepted

editorial

8196

4

10

202

203

Table 10.21: In practice it is often seen that manure management
systems are covered. If not, the coverage (particularly of liquid systems)
might be a promising mitigation option (see e.g. Dämmgen, U., Amon, B.,
Hutchings, N.J., Haenel, H.-D., Rösemann, C. 2012: Data sets to as-sessmethane emissions from untreated cattle and pig slurry and solid
manure storage systems in the German and Austrian emission
Daniel Bretscher
inventories. Landbauforschung: vTI Agriculture and Forestry Re-search,
62 (No. 1/2): 1-19.). Covers are mentioned in the footnote of table 10.22
but it would be nice to have some more information on this matter
either in the text or directly in form of MCF-values in the table. The samemight apply for N2O emissions (although probably to a lesser extent).

3926

4

10

202

203

pg. 10.56: Anaerobic digester, rightmost column: Reference to Eqs. 10.30
Hans-Dieter Haenel
and 10.31 instead of "Formula 1" that doesn't exist any longer.

203

Table 10.21 and general: How are the different climate regions defined?
If a country is situated for more than 90 % in one climate region, is it
Claus Rösemannallowed to use only this single region for calculations? Please clarify

Acceptedsuggestion: where manure is "accumulated temporarily in mouds" or
handled in liquid-based systems.

Noted

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

3798

6894

4

4

10

10

202

211

211

Alexandre Berndt

Developed text to define climate zones and explained how to choose MCF
factors for these cases.
Annex on climate zones definitions to be added?

8102

4

10

213

216

A cross reference to Figure 10.5 could be made here.

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

Editorial, required improved text on linkages between feed intake and CH4
emissions on one side and N-excretion on the other side., Good idea, butneeds to find a better place to add text rather than the lines mentioned(which are talking about animal population).

6896

4

10

241

268

what is the suggestion about calves that gradually become ruminants?

Alexandre Berndt

Noted

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

3924

4

10

244

245

pg. 10.58: Anaerobic digester: "Volatile solid removal rates are typically >80 %." However, in lines 166 and 167 the parameter Fvs,default has a
Hans-Dieter Haenel
value of 70 %. Why this difference?

Accepted with
Modification

clarified in the text.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To line

3928

4

10

244

245

8198

4

10

251

251

268

4

10

254

256

3930

4

10

256

6898

4

10

269

5280

3800

8104

269

4

4

4

4

10

10

10

10

272

272

282

284

Comment

ExpertResponse

Authors' noteHans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

Editorial

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

Added clarifying text

The days alive, should be in terms of average, because not all livestock
stay alive until the same time andit could be related with the low growth rates

Emilio Garcia-Apaza

Noted

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

256

pg. 10.60: "principals" must read "principles".

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

Editorial

270

format: flowchart does not have good letter definition

Alexandre Berndt

Accepted

Editorial

272

More types of Livestock Productivity Classes (High or Low Productivity
Systems) add new burden for countries/cities as they are unlikely to have
MINGMING WANG
such data. It'd be helpful to also provide the default data for each region
or country if local data is not available.

Rejected

Countries are not required to use the Tier 1b approach, but it provides
additional options where data is scarce, particularly to attempt to capture
improvements to productivity over time and subsequent impacts toemissions. It is beyond the scope of the Guidelines to provide countryspecific data as it is the country's responsibility to develop their own
country-specific data. The Tier 1b is an alternative intermediary approachfor countries that have population data by productivity class. Countries
may still use a basic Tier 1A approach.

277

differing productivity classes: if it is intended that the differentiation ofhigh and low productivity systems is only valid for developing countries(for example: Tier 1b factors in Table 10.13 only exist for Latin America, Claus Rösemann
Asia,… but nor for Europe or North America) then this should be written
clearly in this section.

Accepted

A footnote was added to clarify the choices made in developing Tier 1Bfactors.

301

An exact definition of "Dairy Cow" should be provided here. A cow is adairy cow only after the (or from the moment of) first calving. This might
Daniel Bretscher
be obvious for some people but not necessarily for all inventory
compilers.

Rejected

These definitions are already clearly stated in Table 10.1

284

I think the dairy cattle and the milk production that is taken into accountfor the inventories
it is not only the one that is commercial, but also for the cows that are
Emilio Garcia-Apaza
breeding, especially in areas where the cow
population are few

Accepted with
Modification

Added line in Table 10.1 lactation periods for non dairy cows should beconsidered separately from dry periods

Accepted

Added text: Cows are not genetically improved for milk production andare either local or introduced breeds and sometimes may be crossbred but
should not be confused with multi-purpose cows that may be used formore than one production purpose: milk, meat or draft. Milk production ismostly for local market and local consumption (Faro and Idf and 2014).

pg. 10.58: Poultry manure with litter, rightmost column, last line:"productivity" must read "productivity".
N2O emissions from animal housing are not addressed. See alsocomment V.4 / Chp. 10 / Ln. 0-0 (first comment for chapter 10.4).

6900

4

10

284

284

The definition of dairy cows as "cows that are producing milk incommercial quantities for human consumption" does not conflict with
the Low productivity systems aiming the self-consumption? In someAlexandre Berndt
countries beef cows can accept to be milked but they cannot be
considered dairy. Is it reasonable to indicate any minimum daily average
production, as 3 to 4 kg per day, to be considered as dairy cow?

3748

4

10

288

288

Incomplete sentence "as are…" (section 10.5)

Joel Gibbs

Accepted

editorial

3826

4

10

288

288

pg. 10.60 delete ", as are" (relict of the old text)

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

editorial

Noted

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

Accepted

editorial

3828

4

10

289

292

pg. 10.60 If emissions from co-digested organic residues, etc... should bereported under 3.B Manure Management, the current CRF-tables will
Claus Rösemannhave to be adjusted. At the moment Germany reports such emissions
under 3.J

6902

4

10

290

290

Check reference (should be FAO, IDF and IFCN. 2014?)

Alexandre Berndt

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

3932

4

10

292

292

pg. 10.60: "ducted"?

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

editorial

6904

4

10

294

294

Check reference (should be FAO, IDF and IFCN. 2014?)

Alexandre Berndt

Accepted

6906

4

10

300

301

So "low productivity multi-purpose cows should be considered as othercattle" and will not be part of the dairy low productivity systems? Aclarification is needed here to correctly categorize the milked cows.

Alexandre Berndt

Accepted

Revisions to dairy cattle and non dairy cattle producing milk for self
consumption will be carried out to clarify the distinctions between thesecategories.

6908

4

10

307

307

suggestion: Growing cattle may be finished "young under 24 months" inAlexandre Berndt"intensive grazing with supplements" or feedlot,

Accepted

editorial

3830

4

10

308

309

pg. 10.61 replace "Equation 10.31" with "Equation 10.32"

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

editorial

6910

4

10

311

311

format: there is a parenthesis missing or excessive

Alexandre Berndt

Accepted

editorial

6912

4

10

316

316

format: check the need of "international" in italic

Alexandre Berndt

Accepted

editorial

8200

4

10

323

324

In this case the same terminology should be used in the guidelines forCH4 and N2O. See also comment V.4 / Chp. 10 / Ln. 202-203 (second
comment).

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

Consistency in terminology was checked

Rejected

IPCC does not provide guidance for Tier 3 methodology; current text
addresses the issue sufficiently.

8202

4

10

323

324

In the case where there are several manure management systems on thesame farm (e.g. a liquid slurry tank and a solid storage lot) the
distribution of VS and N to the different manure management systems
might be different. Since nitrogen is primarily excreted via urine and VS
is mostly excreted in the dung there would be proportionally more
Daniel Bretscher
nitrogen directed to liquid systems and more VS directed to solid
storage. This is quite commonly observed in practice. It would be helpful
to address this issue here and provide some further guidance,
particularly for higher Tier methods.

3832

4

10

328

329

This section is new but not marked as new. Guidance is missing on HOW
Claus Rösemannthis additional N input should be considered

Noted

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

343

It look a little complex, because it suggest categorization from different
ways, so for compilers, it should be taken
carefully, if they should take age, type of production or sex will take, or
all of them. For countries like Bolivia, with several
types of ecosystems, is necessary categorize the livestock population, in Emilio Garcia-Apaza
the beginning from the type of ecosystem,
after the sex and finally the age. But we didn`t take the type of
productivity system (high an low) because the income ofthese systems are low.

Noted

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

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

Added clarifying text as in 2006 Guidelines: Therefore, it is important tocarefully consider the fraction of manure that is managed in each type ofsystem."Claus Rösemann

Accepted

See comment 3834. The addition clarifies.

Noted

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

270

4

10

342

3834

4

10

343

343

pg. 10.61 multiple systems:"...it is good practice to estimate N2O
emissions from all systems." How should that be done? Guidance ismissing.

3836

4

10

346

349

pg. 10.61 equation 10.32 does not help in case of "multiple systems"(because for each T: MS(T,S) must sum up to 1 ("fraction of total N…"),
see definition in line354)

360

pg. 10.61: Drop the brackets around N2O-N. Drop the two indices (mm),because the conversion factor is a generally valid factor for theHans-Dieter Haenel
conversion of N2O-N into N2O.

3934

4

10

360

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted with
Modification

Calves will begin to emit when the rumen becomes active and that isdependant on the management system and can vary from country tocountry, therefore this is a country-specific parameter and will be added to
the list of information required for Tier 2 methods on page 10.13.

6914

4

10

362

362

please clarify when "Calves pre-weaning" become functional ruminants,
Alexandre Berndt
how many months old?

6916

4

10

362

362

suggestion: Replacement "beef and" dairy heifers. There are someintensive beef heifers systems.

Alexandre Berndt

AcceptedWill add replacement beef heifers in Table 10.1

6918

4

10

362

362

suggestion: categorize "Mature Does" as Breeding does for production of
Alexandre Berndt
offspring and milk production where commercial is the primary purpose

Acceptedreviewed definitions of categories.

3230

4

10

362

362

Improve table format.

Accepted

editorial

378

Information related to nitrogen excretion is not mentioned here. This
would be: Nitrogen excretion rate, Nitrogen intake, Nitrogen retention,
Daniel Bretscher
Feed protein content as mentioned in chapter 10.5.2 (depending on themethod chosen).

Accepted

Text will be revised to add brief discussion of N excretion

373

maybe a superscript number 2 is adequate here, highlighting that milk
production is only relevant for mature females

Alexandre Berndt

AcceptedWill put back footnote from 2006 guidelines, but also add a footnote inTable 10.1 that defines mature animals as females that have reproduced
and modify the footnote 1 to indicate that mature is referring to fullygrown animals. And will add back the unit for protein content.

373

Milk production is expressed here as kg/day and elsewhere (e.g. line 298,
299). There might be reasons for this. However, when expressing milk
production in kg/day it must be clarified whether this is kg per day
during lactation or kg per day during the whole year. Assuming a
Daniel Bretscher
lactation period of 305 days and a milk production of 6100 kg, daily milk
production during this period would be 6100/305=20.0 kg. However,daily milk production during the whole year would be 6100/365=16.7 kg.

Accepted

Clarified the basis for calculations of kg per day in places where it is used in
the text.

380

pg. 10.62 i am in doubt that the table 10.26 could be filled with correct
values in all cases

NotedThis table was an ambitious table and values are lacking but forconsistency with other tables, surrogate values were used for similar
manure management systems and we added new values that have beendeveloped and new column for N leaching,.

It might be helpful to already mention the cross link between feed intake
and nitrogen excretion here. It is common, that gross energy intake or
dry matter intake is recalculated in GHG inventories without alternating
the nitrogen excretion. If the changes are substantial, GEI, VS-excretion Daniel Bretscher
and Nex should always be adjusted simultaneously. If possible all threevalues should be estimated within the same model (at least for the mostsignificant livestock species).

Accepted

Added a short paragraph on good practice in assuring consistency inestimates of enteric fermentation, volatile solids and nitrogen excretion at
the end of the enhanced characterisation of livestock populations

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

editorial

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

checked in final version

Ole-Kenneth Nielsen

Accepted

Checked in final version

8106

6920

8108

3838

4

4

4

4

10

10

10

10

364

373

373

380

8110

4

10

381

389

3936

4

10

394

396

3844

4

10

410

410

8730

4

10

411

411

pg. 10.62: Figure 10.4 is ill-positioned. It should be positioned at the
beginning of Chapter 10.5.1.
pg. 10.64 at this time (see Chapter 11) the default value for EF4 is not
anymore 0.01. Value of EF4 "TBD".
Page 10.64. Reference to EF4 in Table 11.3 - EF4 is shown in Table 11.4.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Claus Rösemann

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

6922

4

10

426

427

Agree that free-ranging swine or poultry represent a small proportion of
the national inventory, but society pressure over very intensive confined Alexandre Berndt
systems is growing and farmers are adjusting.

Noted

Accepted

Developed values for leaching.

The whole paragraph was revised for FracLEACHMS values provided, asthen the estimation of indirect N2O emissions from leaching and run-off
from Manure Management moves from Tier 2 to Tier 1

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

8732

4

10

435

435

Page 10.64. Text about leaching and run off from MMS references
equation 10.34. Equation 10.34 is about volatilisation. Should beequation 10.35. The text states that leaching should only be estimatedwith country-specific information using a tier 2 or 3. Why is there not adefault value proposed? It seems that the way tier 1 is constructed N2O
Ole-Kenneth Nielsen
emissions from leaching are not included and hence the contribution
from leaching should also be estimated. Table 10.26 also seems to
implement default leaching rates for different MMS, so why notrecommend the use of this information in the absence of countryspecific information.

4138

4

10

435

435

Section 10.5.1. Equation reference error: replace 10.34 with 10.35

Eleonora Di Cristofaro

Accepted

6924

4

10

439

439

suggestion: mean daily temperature during winter season", in Celsius
degrees"

Alexandre Berndt

Noted

3232

4

10

439

439

Add (Celsius degrees).

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Noted

6926

4

10

442

442

format: insert space after Edition

Alexandre Berndt

Accepted

editorial

Accepted

Add footnote to first mention of milk production in the document toassure that milk production is equivalent to total production and not milk
sales.

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

8112

4

10

445

448

Either here or somewhere else in the text it should be clarified, that milk
production actually refers to the milk produced. This usually includes
milk used for the own household, milk fed to calves, milk sold directly to
local consumers and milk delivered to the dairy industry. Usually data is
only available for milk delivered to the dairy industry. If using this data Daniel Bretscher
for estimating milk production in the inventory, the additional milk
produced should be estimated either by making assumptions on actual
milk production of the cows or by estimating the milk used for otherpurposes than for selling to the dairy industry.

3802

4

10

449

450

Fat content (%) of milk is mentioned as required performance data,protein content is missing but was added in line 373

Claus Rösemann

AcceptedWill revise and add protein content.

3938

4

10

455

455

pg. 10.65: 10.35 must read 10.36

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

editorial

7990

4

10

455

455

Page 10.65 Line 455 - are estimated using Equation 10.35 (I think itshould be equation 10.36)

Abdul Nayamuth

Accepted

editorial. Equation numbers checked for SOD.

3846

4

10

463

464

pg. 10.64 at this time (see Chapter 11) the default value for EF5 is not
anymore 0.0075. Value of EF5 is now 0.011. (I cannot see the reason why Claus Rösemann
EF5 was changed)

Accepted

checked in final version

3732

4

10

463

466

Joel Gibbs

Acceptedrevised for clarity

8114

4

10

463

466

Daniel Bretscher

Acceptedrevised for clarity

8734

4

10

464

464

Ole-Kenneth Nielsen

Accepted

checked in final version

These sentences (on the effect of digestibility on intake and methane)
could be rewritten to reduce the risk of misinterpretation
The two sentences are difficult to understand and should bereformulated.
Page 10.65. Reference to EF5 in Table 11.3 - EF5 is shown in Table 11.4

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Noted

Does not require modification to methodology.

8116

4

10

474

477

Feed digestibility also depends on the feeding level. For high producing
dairy cows fed above maintenance level, feed digestibility usually
declines as the passage rate of the feed through the digestive systems isfaster (NRC 2001: Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. Seventh Revised
Edition. National Research Council, Board on Agriculture and Natural
Resources, Committee on Animal Nutrition, Subcommittee on Dairy
Daniel Bretscher
Cattle Nutrition. Washington D.C., USA /// Nousiainen, J., Rinne, M.,
Huhtanen, P. 2009: A meta-analysis of feed digestion in dairy cows. 1.
The effects of forage and concentrate factors on total diet digestibility.
Journal of dairy science 92(10): 5019–5030.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1833).

8204

4

10

483

483

Presumably the cross reference should rather be to table 10.23 than totable 10.24.

Daniel Bretscher

Noted

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

3234

4

10

486

486

Improve table format.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

Accept, either table 10.2 or 10.3

6928

4

10

487

487

format: insert a comma after feed intake.

Alexandre Berndt

Noted

8118

4

10

487

488

Check wording

Daniel Bretscher

Noted

84

4

10

487

494

Please check the unit of variables in the formula in page 10.66.

Mingshan Su

Noted

3236

4

10

495

495

Improve table format.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Acceptedreference to table 10.3

8206

4

10

503

504

See comment on "rule of thumb": V.4 / Chp. 10 / Ln. 793-794

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

Change 'Rule of thumb' with 'by default' in that section

8120

4

10

505

505

Mention that (weight)0.75 is called "metabolic body weight". This term isDaniel Bretscher
quite commonly used in the literature.

Noted

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

Noted

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

Noted

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

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

4130

4

10

516

516

Section 10.2.2. Under the line 516, the following text could be inserted:
When using NEa to calculate GE for cattle and buffalo, the NEa estimate
Eleonora Di Cristofaro
must be weighted by the portion of grazing animals and by the portion ofgrazing days or months in a year.

8208

4

10

517

517

Presumably the cross reference should rather be to table 10.24 than totable 10.25.

Accepted

Issue identified in 2006 corrigenda

Daniel Bretscher

2080

4

10

521

528

In equation 10.38 both elements (Nintake and Nretention) are calculatedin Kg per animal per day. Further Nretention is not a fraction(adimensional), it is a flux expressed in kg CH4 per animal per day.
Sandro Federici
Consequently equation 10.38 must be revised as follows: "Nex(T) = 365 *(Nintake(T) - Nretention(T))"

6930

4

10

526

526

Please clarify in which animal category should "non-lactating cows" be
includedAlexandre Berndt

Accepted

This table is unclear and revised to clarify.

6932

4

10

526

526

format: missing a parentheses in line "Sheep(lamb to 1 year"

Alexandre Berndt

Accepted

editorial

Noted

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

Accepted

This table is unclear and revised to clarify.

4132

4

10

526

526

Section 10.2.2. The following text could be inserted: When using NEa tocalculate GE for sheep and goats, the NEa estimate must be weighted by
Eleonora Di Cristofaro
the portion of grazing animals and by the portion of grazing days ormonths in a year.

8122

4

10

526

527

Table 10.4: The first two rows for "Cattle/Buffalo" are contradictory.
Either the first should read "Cattle/Buffalo (except lactating cows)" orthe second one should read "Cattle/Buffalo (non-lactating cows)".

Daniel Bretscher

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

8124

4

10

526

527

Table 10.4: "Cattle/Buffalo (bulls)": is the coefficient 0.370 or 0.37X?

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

The value should be 0.370

6934

4

10

527

527

format: capital letter in lowland and hill (first column)

Alexandre Berndt

Accepted

editorial

3238

4

10

527

527

Improve table format.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

editorial

Noted

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

2082

4

10

532

540

In equation 10.6, to factor C the following values have been assigned: 0.8
for females and 1.0 for castrates.
However, since MW is the mature live body weight of an adult female inmoderate body condition, the C factor to be assigned to a female should Sandro Federici
be 1.0 and that one to be assigned to a castrates should be 0.8. Further,a value for beef cows should be added. I do suggest to refer to available
literature including page A-243 of the annex to the US GHGI.

4134

4

10

538

538

Section 10.2.2. The reference to the equation from NRC 1996 (asreported in line 562 section 10.5.2) could be inserted.

Eleonora Di Cristofaro

Noted

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

8210

4

10

545

545

Are there default values for the percent crude protein provided in the
Guidelines? If not, can they be provided or would it be possible toprovide some references where such information can be found?

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

valid question, make reference to values in the Annex

3940

4

10

545

545

pg. 10.67: It is essential to state in the explanation of CP% that it means
the crude protein content IN DRY MATTER.

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

editorial547

pg.10.68/69, Table 10.23: Default N excretion rate for ostrich is missing.
Ostrich is part of the list of "4. Other livestock" in the CRF tables! Make
Hans-Dieter Haenel
sure that all default data needed for N2O emissions from deer is includedin the IPCC 2019 Refinement.

Accepted

Explore further availability of nitrogen excretion factors; check Norway and
DK inventory [assume 'deer' is a typing error?]547

pg.10.68/69, Table 10.23: Default N excretions for rabbit is 8.1 kg per
place and year, which is unrealistically high as it is in the order ofmagnitude ot the annual total of life weight gain on a rabbit place .
Maybe the value of 8.1 kg is the total of parent animals including theirHans-Dieter Haenel
offspring. This should be checked. Rösemann et al. (2017), pg. 313/314,
calculated 0.8 kg per place and year, based on a N balance using practicedata on feeding and growth of single rabbits.

Accepted

this is correct that the value includes the kits and we will explore further
availability of nitrogen excretion factors; check Norway and DK inventory[assume 'deer' is a typing error?] Revised response based on RE comment.
Data has been reviewed.

pg.10.68/69, Table 10.23: Default N excretion rate for ostrich is missing.
Ostrich is included in the list of "4. Other livestock" in the CRF tables!
Hans-Dieter Haenel
Make sure that all default data needed for N2O emissions from deer is
included in the IPCC 2019 Refinement.

Accepted

See comment 3980

Accepted

Values were carried over from 2006 guidelines and will be revised basedon new values and information

Accepted

editorial

Noted

All parameter used by IPCC are for whole year periods

3980

3982

4

4

10

10

546

546

3984

4

10

546

547

8212

4

10

547

547

3942

4

10

558

558

8126

4

10

568

573

Table 10.23: An uncertainty of 50% for the nitrogen excretion rate seems
Daniel Bretscher
very high.
pg. 10.67: Formula in brackets: Replace that "bird shit" with the proper
Hans-Dieter Haenel
mathematical multiplication operator.
See also comment V.4 / Chp. 10 / Ln. 373. In some alternative calculation
schemes milk production per day during lactation (and not during theDaniel Bretscher
whole year) is used.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

3848

4

10

593

594

pg.10.71 I do not think that all current values in Table 10.26 represent
the SUM of losses of NH3 and NOx (see comment above)

Claus Rösemann

Accepted with
Modification

All values in the guidelines are best estimates based current knowledge.
The Refinement is looking at multiple source for information, including theformer guidelines the EMEP guidelines and current and past literature.
Through the review process it will be important that reviewers challenge
specific values and we will take this comment seriously in trying to provide
numbers that are representative of different systems..

8736

4

10

611

611

Page 10.71. Reference to EF4 and EF5 in Table 11.3 - EF4 and EF5 areshown in Table 11.4

Ole-Kenneth Nielsen

Rejected

The final version will use the same table numbers as in the IPCC 2006
guidelines. Therefore the reference to Table 11.3 is correct

8214

4

10

612

612

Table 10.25: see comment V.4 / Chp. 10 / Ln. 202-203 (second comment) Daniel Bretscher

Noted

See answer to the comment mentioned

8128

4

10

616

617

Confusing. Check wording.

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

editorial

3944

4

10

634

643

pg. 10.74/75: At the beginning of this paragraph a simple statement ismissing that says Norg + TAN = total N.

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

editorial

3240

4

10

638

638

Replace does that by does that.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

editorial

Accepted

This is a paragraph taken over from the IPCC 2006 guidelines. A clarifying
text hast been added 'If bedding material comes from crop residues, theamount of nitrogen needs to be considered when calculating N2Oemissions from crop residues from managed soils by accounting for thisquantity in FracRemove(T) in Equation 11.6 of Chapter 11. '

8216

4

10

644

650

Here it would be good to make a cross reference to the methodology for
estimating N2O emissions from crop residues. If N from bedding material
Daniel Bretscher(or eventually co-substrates) is added here it should be subtracted fromthe N in crop residues.

3242

4

10

645

645

Check equation.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Noted

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

3244

4

10

650

650

Replace , sheep by ,sheep.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

editorial
Accept, N_codigestate adds to the available nitrogen for application but is
independent from manure systems. It needs to be consistent, e.g. withfood waste reported in the waste sector that is used as co-digesters,
similarly to external nitrogen sources such as compost from food waste or
sewage sludge. The formula has been clarified

85

4

10

657

659

Please revise the format of this formula in page 10.75. It is not clear"Ncodigestates" is plus what.

Mingshan Su

Accepted with
Modification

1660

4

10

658

658

The format f the equation 10.41 is not clear. Where should be added
Ncodigestates?

Anna Romanovskaya

Accepted

See comment 85

8130

4

10

658

658

Please indicate whether this data is required as percentage (e.g. 70) or
really as fraction (e.g. 0.70). According to my understanding it should be Daniel Bretscher
as percentage (e.g. 70).

Rejected

The definitions of FracGASMS, FracLEACHMS, and FracN2MS alreadyindicate the unit, %.

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

This is true; we have added EF3(,S) to be included as well when
considering all nitrogen losses FracLossMS. To increase readability,
FracLOSSMS has been re-introduced as follows (consistent to its use in IPCC
2006): FracLOSSMS = FracGASMS+FracLEACHMS+FracvN2MS+100 EF3(S)

8218

4

10

667

668

Also N lost as N2O (although probably negligible) and as N2 (can beconsiderable as suggested in table 10.27) should be addressed here.

3634

4

10

668

668

Add "by volatilization"

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

editorial

3850

4

10

669

670

pg. 10.75 What is if no Tier2 calculation method is available in the
country? I hope that in this cases FracLEACHMS = 0.

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

Verified if default values for FracLEACHMS can be provided

3946

4

10

669

670

pg. 10.75: What if no Tier 2 calculation is available? A default is needed. Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

Accept, See comment 3850

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

3856

4

10

675

675

pg. 10.75 units of Ncodigestates are missing (kg N yr-1)

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

editorial

3948

4

10

675

675

pg. 10.75: Units are missing.

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

editorial

8132

4

10

677

686

If you want to list all parameters then also "REM" and "REG" should belisted here.

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

In greyed out area, but a line was inadvertently removed, will revise.

AcceptedThanks for the suggestion

Accepted with
Modification

The information is in Table 10.8, but we revised the title to better indicate
how to calculate DMI for mature cattle

4140

4

10

684

684

Section 10.5.4. Under the line 684, the following text could be inserted:
as regards NbeddingMS a cross check with the categories "Crop residue
N, including N-fixing crops and forage/ pasture renewal, returned tosoils, (FCR)" (included in the 3D CRF category - volume 11 chapter 11
section 11.2.1.3), "Field Burning of Agricultural Residues" (3F CRF
category - volume 4 chapter 5 section 5.2.4 Non-CO2 greenhouse gas
emissions from biomass burning) and "Open burning of waste - other:
Eleonora Di Cristofaro
agricultural waste" (5C CRF category - volume 5 chapter 5 section 5.3.2
Amount of waste open-burned), relative to the amount of agriculturalresidues that is removed for other purposes (i.e. bedding) other than theamount of agricultural residues returned to soils or burnt should be
done. See box reported in Crop residues (see comment below regarding
crop residues). This is important to eliminate the possibility of double
counting.

3636

4

10

693

754

The original text included equations to estimate the DMI of mature beef
cattle. The new one doesn't seem. Please indicate clearly which equation Iordanis Tzamtzis
estimates the DMI of mature beef cattle or add a new one.

Accepted

The equations use NEmf, however in Table 10.8 for mature cattle, the DMI
is given based on feed quality as defined by DC. This section required
revisions to improve clarity, carried out for the next draft.

5908

4

10

694

703

Page 10.23. This section states that DMI for cattle can be predicted using
NEmf or DC%. In reviewing equations 10.17 and 10.18, both of theseequations use NEmf. If applying these equations, but using DC% toestimate DMI, should NEmf be replaced with DC%? If so, for improved
clarity, it would help to explain that in the text. Also, the term DC% andVincent Camobreco
DC are used throughout this section and in equations but could be
confused for two different terms (e.g. DC% could be seen as applying
factor as 85/100 while DC could be thought of as 85). Recommend
making these very explicit and consistent throughout section to avoid
any misinterpretation.

8134

4

10

695

698

Confusing. Check wording.

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

This section was revised to improve clarity, for the next draft.

8220

4

10

700

700

Table 10.26: NOx is mentioned in the header but no data is provided.

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

The volatilization rates provided are for NH3+NOx. The table header are
corrected accordingly

Accepted

With regard to NH3 and NOx see comment 8220. With regard to the EMEP
guidebook, the table will be revised for SOD.

Accepted

Header updated - to depend on the availability of FracLEACHMS data

Rejected

Also liquid poultry systems exist depending on the country

3840

4

10

700

701

pg. 10.77, Table 10.26: Heading of the tables says: "default values …
volatilisation of NH3 and NOx…" But NOX volatilisation data is not
mentioned in the table itself (only N loss due to volatilisation of NH3).
Claus Rösemann
The cited EMEP volatilisation data is probably wrong (because EMEP data
relates to TAN and not to N). what is the concrete source of the EMEP
data? Table 3.9 of the 2016 Guidebook?

3842

4

10

700

701

pg. 10.77, Table 10.26: The inclusion of leaching data is not covered by
the title of the table (only "volatilisation").

9646

4

10

700

701

In table 10.26, Liquid/Slurry Uncovered anaerobic lagoon of poultry is
40%.Basically, manure of poultry is solid state, so it seems that the figure Kazumasa Kawashima
is unnecessary in that part of table 10.26.

Claus Rösemann

Comment
ID
3852

3854

8222

3950

4794

Volume

4

4

4

4

4

Chapter

10

10

10

10

10

From line

702

702

702

702

714

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note703

pg. 10.78 Table 10.27 is problematic: the typical TAN fractions of the EEA
Guidebook (see footnote b) are TAN fractions of the excretions, not ofClaus Rösemannthe manure. Especially the TAN content of manure in solid systems
should be lower than TAN content of excretions.

Accepted

The values indicated in the Table are default fractions available from the
EMEP guidebook, which are indeed values for manure excreted. In SOD themethod to estimate FracN2MS will be changed.

703

pg. 10.78 Table 10.27 is problematic: EAA Table 3.10, cited in footnote a)is probably wrong. The N2 Efs can not be found in the cited Misselbrook
paper. In earlier versions of the EEA Guidebook exactly the same table
Claus Rösemann
was attributed to Dämmgen et al (2007) which means the German
inventory. But the German inventory never used the values in that table
and the table is definitely not from Dämmgen.

Noted

References reviewed and updated. A new method for estimating N2 losses
will be used in the SOD.

703

In table 10.27 the loss fractions are provided in % of TAN. In contrast inother tables the loss fractions are provided as % of total nitrogen. Thismight lead to some confusion. It might be advisable to always use thesame reference N-pool (as it is the total amount of nitrogen for N2O, this Daniel Bretscher
might also be a good choice for all other loss fractions). Alternatively,
both loss fractions could be presented in the tables, whenever they areclearly labelled.

Accepted

the method updated in SOD703

pg. 10.78: Table 10.27: (1) I do not understand how, for liquid systems,
values between 0.15 % (buffalo and goats) and 0.21 % (Swine andpoultry) can be the basis for an overall value of 0.3 %. The same sort ofquestion arises from the percentages provided for solid systems. (2) I
doubt principally the figures provided in the lines "Liquid systems" (i.e.
0.3 % of TAN) and "Solid systems" (i.e. 30 % of TAN). They are adopted
from the EMEP/EEA guidebook 2016. However, during the review of thedraft of that guidebook I had some correspondence with Tom
Misselbrook who is lead author of the paper cited in the EMEP/EEA
guidebook 2016 (Table 3.10) as reference for the emission factors
mentioned above. At the time, the N2 emission factors could not befound in his paper. He promised an update, but the paper should be
Hans-Dieter Haenel
checked for that. Interestingly enough, the emission factors in EMEP/EEA
guidebook 2016 (Table 3.10) are the same as the values provided in
EMEP/EEA guidebook 2013 (Table 3.8), only that the reference given in
the 2013 guidebook was Dämmgen et al. (2007), which means myworking group - and we never did provide those emission factors! On thebottom line, it seems to be quite unclear where these N2 emission
factors are from; unfortunately things couldn't be clarified before
publication of the 2016 guidebook. (3) In Footnote b typical TAN
contents are adopted from the EMEP/EEA guidebook 2016, Table 3.9.
However, it should be considered that, in the storage, solid manure hasmuch less TAN than is found in the animals' excretions (personalcommunication Tom Misselbrook).

Accepted

References reviewed and updated. A new method for estimating N2 losses
used in the SOD.

720

It is not clear what value for liveweight (BW) should be used for growing
cattle. Is this the liveweight at the start of the period, the end of the
Donna Giltrap
period or the average? Alternatively should equation 10.18 be calculated
and summed for each day of the year?

Accepted

Value should be the average body weight for the growth period, clarified
in the text.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Noted

No action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement. In greyed out section.

8224

4

10

722

725

This statement might be somewhat delicate. Nitrogen excretion rates ofmature dairy cows increase with increasing milk yield and this iscommonly observed in many countries. Manure management system
usage data (MS) might also change over time. Particularly the share ofmanure excreted on pasture increased in many Western European
Daniel Bretscher
countries e.g. due to the consumer demand for animal friendly livestock
husbandry. For the same reason loose housing systems with exercise
yards increased. These housing systems are usually associated withdifferent manure management systems than the older tight stalls.

8724

4

10

724

728

Two equations for estimations of dry matter intake is presented, one forsteers and heifers and one for heifers - which one should be used for
Ole-Kenneth Nielsen
heifers?

Accepted

This section revised to improve clarity, for the next draft.

3638

4

10

725

726

This equation is likely limited to "Steers" only

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

This section revised to improve clarity, for the next draft.

8136

4

10

733

735

It is not clear where and for what purpose the values in table 10.8 areused. Maybe the header of the table and/or the header of the last twocolumns should be corrected.

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

This section revised to improve clarity, for the next draft.

3246

4

10

734

734

Improve table format. Standardize fonts.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

editorial

8138

4

10

746

746

There is only one table 10.17. The cross reference to table 10.17a,
10.17b and 10.17c is unclear.

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

Table references are incorrect

3248

4

10

754

754

Improve table format.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

editorial

5910

4

10

754

755

Page 10.24. At the bottom of Table 10.9 there is an equation for
calculating NEma, should this be NEmf? Also, the equation for NEma is
calculated using “DC%/100”, should the DC% be changed to DC?

Vincent Camobreco

Accepted, Will use DC, not DC% in equation.

6936

4

10

793

793

format: flowchart does not have good letter definition

Alexandre Berndt

Accepted

editorial

3640

4

10

793

793

In figure 10.2 the last white box before the Tier 2 box, should not be aquestion and consequently should not have a negative answer

Iordanis Tzamtzis

Accepted

editorial794

pg. 10.27, Decision tree for CH4 from enteric fermentation: my concern
are the two bottommost text boxes on the left hand side of the Figure.
The connecting arrow between both boxes must not be labelled "No", I
think. It shouldn't be labelled at all, because in the box where this arrow Hans-Dieter Haenel
starts from there shouldn't be a question mark at the end of the text but
an exclamation mark, and hence the arrow should just form a logicalconnection between the two text boxes.

Accepted

editorial

3986

4

10

793

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Acceptedfootnotes were lost in the revised version and now be replaced.

Noted

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

8140

4

10

793

794

Figure 10.2: What exactly is a significant species? In other figures a "ruleof thumb" is provided, stating that a species can be consideredsignificant when its contribution to the emissions is 25-30%. But then it
should be clarified what a "rule of thumb" means. Based on these figures
reviewers of national GHG-inventories have to decide whether theapplied methodology of a Party is correct or if the Party should apply aDaniel Bretscher
higher Tier methodology. Personally, I think a "rule of thumb" meansthat there is some flexibility here and that under specific circumstances
it would also be possible to deviate from this rule. But I know that otherpeople find that this rule should be applied strictly. Maybe some further
guidance could be provided here. Please note that this comment also
applies to all other figures and passages where the term "rule of thumb"is used.

8226

4

10

794

795

Emissions from urine nitrogen that is not collected could also bereported under N2O emissions from manure management (e.g. liquid
systems).

Accepted with
Modification

The treatment of nitrogen more completely integrated in Chapters 10 and
11 in the SOD

Rejected

Reject, unclear what this refers toDaniel Bretscher

3954

4

10

797

860

pg. 10.80 et seq.: To me, major parts of this information seem illpositioned in Chapter 10, because they are related to the contents ofChapter 11. However, I see the need for discussing the N fluxes and theirinterrelations as a whole, because this constitutes the BASIC CONCEPT of
the entire N business. So this discussion should be positioned b e f o r e
Hans-Dieter Haenel
Chapter 10. On the other hand, specific details like a correction factor(Eq. 10.42) should be introduced where appropriate, which is, in case of
Eq. 10.42, the introduction of EF1 in Chapter 11. And i think there should
be much more guidance on how to estimate corrections or corrections
factors when using Tier 2 instead of Tier 1.

3250

4

10

803

803

Section heading missed.

8228

4

10

810

810

Presumably the cross reference should rather be to equation 10.41 thanDaniel Bretscher
to equation 10.40.

Accepted

Reference should go for an equation that is in Annex A.4. Additionalreference to corresponding equation in Chapter 11 added where
NMMS_Avb is used.

4142

4

10

810

810

Section 10.5.6. Equation reference error: replace 10.40 with 10.41

Acceptedsee comment 8228

811

While the application technique might have a certain influence, it might
be even more important to mention the manure management technique Daniel Bretscher
here since this can affect the FracGASM considerably.

Rejected

Manure management techniques will be reflected in the values chosen for
FracGASMS, FracLEACHMS and FracN2MS. They do already 'end up' in thenitrogen available for application thus subsequent emission estimates.

Noted

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

8230

4

10

811

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Eleonora Di Cristofaro

8142

4

10

813

816

See also comment V.4 / Chp. 10 / Ln. 793-794. Here the term "large
portion" is used and elsewhere the term "Significant" is used. Please use Daniel Bretscher
the same terminology everywhere and/or provide further explanation.

8232

4

10

815

815

Is the cross reference to equation 10.35 correct?

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

Equation 10.A4-1 was meant.

7992

4

10

815

815

Page 10.80 line 815 - It is also important to consider total N2O emissions(see Equation 10.35) when making a key source assessment (Read N2O Abdul Nayamuth
and is this equation not 10.36?)

Accepted

editorial. Equation numbers checked for SOD.

3858

4

10

817

860

pg. 10.80 - 83 I think most of this belongs to Chapter 11 and not toChapter 10

Accepted

The treatment of nitrogen will be more completely integrated in Chapters
10 and 11 in the SOD

Claus Rösemann

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

7994

4

10

821

821

Page 10.80 line 821 - emissions of N2O and losses of N through leaching.
Abdul Nayamuth
For example, an application technique affecting the (Read N2O)

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted

editorial. This part has been integrated into Chapter 11.

Accepted with
Modification

Indeed, in this regard the 'old' IPCC methodology was more coherent as
EF1 was applied on the amount of nitrogen applied to the soil. However,the EF used was not consistent with the underlying measurements and had
therefore to be modified. The IPCC 2006 guidelines made large progress inensuring a consistent N mass-flow approach when estimating N2Oemissions. This section aims at 'closing the gaps'. Discussion of these issues
will be transferred to Chapter 11

Accepted

Need to correct reference

3860

4

10

826

845

pg. 10.80 - 81 ...A simple way… I think this is not very simple. A very
simple way would be to return to IPCC 1996 methodology: apply the EF1
to the amount of manure applied, corrected for the amount of NH3 and Claus Rösemann
NOx emitted during spreading. And I feel (because I do not understandit) that this is exactly what you try to do with equation 10.42.

8144

4

10

831

831

Check cross reference to table. Shouldn't this be "table 10.10?

837

pg. 10.81: Technically, Eq. 10.42 is three equations. The third one(Frac*GASM = …) is not consistent with the first one (Corrpractice = …),
which becomes obvious when inserting the third equation into the firstequation. But maybe that wasn't intended, I assume, because the third
Hans-Dieter Haenel
equation should give guidance on how to estimate Frac*GASM, which is
impossible by using the still-to-be-estimated correction factor
Corrpractice. In addition I don't see any relation to leaching and surface
run off in Eq. 10.42.

AcceptedThank you. There was a mistake in the (third) equation. As also indicatedin the legend, it should have been Frac*LEACHMS = Corrpractice *FracLEACHMS (instead of FracGASM which is used to obtain Corrpractice).
However, the equation will not be brought forward to SOD, as part of thetext has been integrated in Chapter 11.

Accepted

See comment 3952

3952

4

10

834

Daniel Bretscher

3862

4

10

834

844

pg. 10.81 This are 3 equations and not 1 equation. I don't understand thedefinitions of EF1* and Frac*GASM. If I insert the third equation in thefirst equation I get the funny result: Corrpractice = 1 (If C = Corrpractice Claus Rösemannand F = FracGASM, then: C = (1- C*F)/(1-F), then C*(1-F) = (1 - C*F), thenC - C*F = 1 - C*F, then C = 1)

3864

4

10

834

844

pg. 10.81: Equation 10.42: Such an approach is not useful, countries withammonia inventories do not use fracgasm, fracgasm* is unknown as
Claus Rösemanncorrpractise is unknown

Noted

see a comment 3952

6510

4

10

836

836

Equation 10.42 Frac*Gasm=CorrPractice* FracGasm -> should this be
Frac*Leach= CorrPractice* FracLeach?

Sanna Pitkänen

Accepted

Exactly! Thank you for pointing out. However, the equation will not be
brought forward to SOD, as part of the text has been integrated in Chapter
11.

8146

4

10

840

842

Default emission factors are also organized by productivity systems.

Daniel Bretscher

AcceptedThough in greyed out text, this does require modification for consistency

8234

4

10

847

848

Figure 10.5: Nitrogen from co-digestates could be mentioned here either
as input to "N manure stored and managed" or to "N available for
Daniel Bretscher
application or for other uses".

Accepted

editorial

Accepted

Added some clarifying text

5906

4

10

847

861

As these Figures (Figure 10.5 and Figure 10.6) on pages 10.82 and 10.83
are new additions, recommend providing greater detailed descriptions of
the graphs for inventory compilers to easily follow. After reading them a Vincent Camobreco
few times, particularly Figure 10.5 remains somewhat difficult with thecurrent explanation.

3956

4

10

850

850

pg. 10.82: "aminal" must read "animal".

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

editorial

3252

4

10

850

850

Improve table format.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

editorial

8148

4

10

850

851

Footnote in table 10.10: See comment V.4 / Chp. 10 / Ln. 813-816.

Daniel Bretscher

Noted

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

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

860

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

I do not really agree with the second part of figure 10.6. The assessmentof the N2O emission factors is usually referring to the total amount ofmanure nitrogen applied to soils. That is, when measuring emissions of
N2O-N and calculating the emission factor, the emission factor is
calculated as the losses of N2O-N minus losses of the N2O-N of anunfertilized control plot as percentage of the applied nitrogen (before
Daniel Bretscher
any volatilization losses)(Nfert-Ncont)/Ninput. The scheme in the second
part of figure 10.6 is correct in the sense that the losses via NH3 areusually much faster than the losses as N2O. However, as stated above
this is not necessarily of any relevance here as the measurement andassessment protocols for the assessment of the emission factor uses a
different approach.

Noted

The observation is correct; however the purpose of the flow diagram is
not how N2O are estimated so that they can be matched withmeasurements, but rather how mitigation technologies that affect NH3volatilizations can affect N2O emissions and N-leaching. Ideally this would
be reflected in the accounting methodology and measurement results
related to the amount of nitrogen available after volatilization; this could
reduce also the variance of the observations. However, Figure 10.6 will not
be brought forward to SOD, as part of the text has been integrated in
Chapter 11.

Further data in Ch.10 annex tables to support default Oceania factors forMark Hunstone
enteric fermentation and nitrogen excretion is needed.

Accepted

Included in SOD

8236

4

10

858

4816

4

10

868

8238

4

10

868

869

Africa is missing in table A.10-1a and in subsequent tables.

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

Included in SOD

6938

4

10

883

883

format: Alpacas are duplicated in the table

Alexandre Berndt

Accepted

editorial

3254

4

10

883

883

Improve table format. Parentheses in the literature.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

editorial

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

Add footnote under Tier 1 emission factors that indicate that they apply to
all animals including young.

8150

4

10

883

884

Table 10.11: It is nowhere mentioned whether the default EF's refer toadult animals or to an average animal of the whole livestock population
including non-mature animals (or at least I could not find suchinformation). This information should be placed prominently
somewhere. The same is true for many other tables with EF's or othercalculation parameters.

8152

4

10

883

884

Table 10.11: Alpacas are mentioned twice in the table.

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

editorial

Table 10.11: The EF for goats seems rather low. Vermorel et al. (2008)
provide a number of emission factors for caprine animals that range
from 5.0 to 14.3 kg CH4*head-1*year-1.(Vermorel, M., Journey, J.-P., Eug
Daniel Bretscherène, M., Sauvant, D., Noblet, J., Dourmad, J.-Y. 2008: Evaluation
quantitative des emissions de methane entérique par les animaux d'é
levage en 2007 en France. INRA Production Animal 21(5): 403-418.)

Accepted

Emission factors revised when Tier 2 parameters are finalized.

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

References reviewed and updated

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

Revised for clarity

8154

4

10

883

884

3804

4

10

883

884

8156

4

10

883

884

3806

4

10

892

893

Symbols explained are not exactly the same symbols as in equation 10.21 Claus Rösemann

Accepted

editorial

3256

4

10

896

899

Improve equation format.

Accepted

editorial

Table 10.11: 2 data sets with identical Alpaca data / buffalo data is
missing (in the footnote "sources" buffaloes are mentioned)
Table 10.11 footnote 1: What is meant with "…should not be restricted
solely to within regional characteristics".?

CARLOS SANQUETTA

3822

4

10

901

949

pg. 10.91-10.104, Tables10A-4 to 10A-13: manure management system
usage (MS%): often highly unrealistic distribution data (not only fordigesters)

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

Accept. Tables were reviewed and revised to try to maintain realistic
values - further work will be carried out with the FAO GLEAM group to try
to find the best data for the final draft.

3808

4

10

904

905

Symbols explained are not exactly the same symbols as in equation 10.22 Claus Rösemann

Accepted

editorial

3258

4

10

907

910

Improve equation format.

Accepted

editorial

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

5896

4

10

913

916

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

It would be very helpful in the next order draft to see the "TBD" values in
the Tables throughout this volume, highlighting with this comment
Vincent Camobreco
Tables 10.12 and 10.13.

Accepted

the SOD will not have TBD values

Accepted

Reviewed values for milk production in Europe and will add text thatemphasizes the relationships between productivity, methane and nitrogenexcretion.

8740

4

10

914

914

Page 10.31. Table 10.12 CH4 Enteric fermentation. Tier 1a CH4 emission
factor for Western Europe is considered as a highly productive
production. Both the emission factor at 117 kg CH per cow per year andthe average milk production at 6,720 kg head per year, is very low
compared to the situation in many countries.
Denmark: EF=156 and milk=9,400 kg
Germany: EF=136 and milk=7,600
Ole-Kenneth Nielsen
Sweden: EF=140 and milk=9,400
Spain: EF=135 and milk=8,000
Italy: EF=140 and milk=7,000
Norway: EF=146 and milk=8,000
Finland: EF=151 and milk=8,600
More discussion should be included on the expected correlation
between feed consumption, nitrogen excretion, milk yield and CH4
emission.

3734

4

10

914

914

This comment relates to table 10.12. Could a definition of 'rangeland' be
Joel Gibbs
provided?

Accepted

Revised terminology for grazing systems.

3736

4

10

914

914

This comment relates to table 10.12, in the 'Oceania' row. A significant
proportion of beef cattle in New Zealand also graze on hill country

Joel Gibbs

Accepted

Revised terminology for grazing systems.

8158

4

10

914

915

Table 10.12: The average milk yield for dairy buffalos is higher inWestern Europe than in Eastern Europe. This seems not very plausible.

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

Reviewed values revise if necessary.

915

Table 10.12: The average milk yield for dairy cattle in Asia is 6730
kg*head-1*yr-1. This is higher than in Western Europe and seems not
Daniel Bretscher
very plausible when these dairy cattle are multi-purpose animals that aresmaller than those found in most other regions.

Accepted

Reviewed values revise if necessary.

8160

4

10

914

8162

4

10

914

915

Table 10.12: The average milk yield for dairy cattle in the Middle East is
3000 kg*head-1*yr-1. Nonetheless, the EF is higher than in Eastern
Europe where the milk production is higher. Overall the data on milk
production and emission factors in table 10.12 seems inconsistent.

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

Reviewed values revise if necessary.

8164

4

10

914

915

Table 10.12 footnote 2: See last comment for V.4 / Chp. 10 / Ln. 883-884 Daniel Bretscher

Acceptedfootnotes updated, as necessary

8166

4

10

914

915

Table 10.12 footnote 4: Where does this belong to? Footnote 4 could notDaniel Bretscher
be found in the table above.

Acceptedfootnotes updated, as necessary

Accepted with
Modification

The Indian subcontinent will be presented separately, data further
subdivisions are not possible, some country specific data will be presented
in Annex 10.B.2.A footnote is to be added that countries of Northern Africa
should consider using values from the Middle East if they feel they are
more appropriate for their production systems.

5096

4

10

914

915

In table 10.12 and 10.13, if possible, would you divide Asia into Southeast Asia and East Asia? Also, Africa is too large for one parameter.
Would you divide by climate?

8170

4

10

914

915

Table 10.13 footnote 2: See last comment for V.4 / Chp. 10 / Ln. 883-884 Daniel Bretscher

Acceptedfootnotes updated, as necessary

3810

4

10

914

916

the footnotes of the tables 10.12 and 10.13 are leftovers from the old
IPCC 2006 Table 10.11 and should be deleted

Acceptedfootnotes updated, as necessary

Hiroshi Ito

Claus Rösemann

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

3260

4

10

914

917

Improve format of the tables.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

editorial

8168

4

10

915

916

Table 10.13: The EF for dairy cattle in low productivity systems in Latin
America is the same as in table 10.12. However, the milk yield isdifferent. This seems inconsistent.

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

Reviewed values and revised as necessary.

8172

4

10

915

916

Acceptedfootnotes updated, as necessary

6940

4

10

930

930

4812

4

10

930

943

Table 10.13 footnote 4: Where does this belong to? Footnote 4 could notDaniel Bretscher
be found in the table above.
comment: good improvement to better describe and divide the Ym
Alexandre Berndt
valuesAuthors may wish to consider a more recent Charmly reference inMark Hunstone
relation to Ym

Noted
Noted

Reviewed values in light of the suggested publication and revised based oncomments

Accepted

Text revised

5328

4

10

931

931

Ym has not yet been defined. I would add "This variation is captured byYm, defined as the percentage of gross energy intake converted to CH4."
after the sentence "The extent to which feed energy is converted to CH4 Valentin Bellassen
depends on several interacting feed and animal factors.". Or at leastrefer to equation 10.24 coming two pages later where Ym is defined.

8726

4

10

932

932

Reference to CH4 conversion values in Table 10.13 - the CH4 conversion
Ole-Kenneth Nielsen
values are shown in Table 10.14.

Accepted

Text revised

5474

4

10

932

932

On page 10.35, please use "Table 10.14" instead of "Table 10.13".

Kadir AKSAKAL

Accepted

Text revised

3812

4

10

932

932

"Table 10.13" is wrong. The right link is to Table 10.14

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

Text revised

8174

4

10

932

932

Accepted

Text revised

3814

4

10

934

937

Accepted

Text revised

8240

4

10

937

937

Accepted

Editorial, but requires clear definitions - mapped to existing definitions

8242

4

10

937

937

Accepted

Editorial, but requires clear definitions - mapped to existing definitions

3820

4

10

937

949

Accepted

Editorial, but requires clear definitions - mapped to existing definitions

Noted

Reviewed values in light of the suggested publication and revised asnecessary.

Presumably the cross reference should rather be to table 10.14 than toDaniel Bretscher
table 10.13.
The text does not fit to new table 10.14 (higher bounds/lower bounds) as
Claus Rösemann
there are (at the moment?) no bounds in the table
What is the definition of "Market-industrial Swine"? This comment also
Daniel Bretscher
applies to the subsequent tables.
What is the definition of "Breeding-industrial Swine"? This comment also
Daniel Bretscher
applies to the subsequent tables.
pg. 10.99 to 10.104,Tables10A-8 to 10A-13: industrial / intermediate /Claus Rösemannbackyard swine: These terms are not defined in the text

8742

4

10

942

942

Page 10.35. Table 10.14 CH4 conversion factor (Ym. ) In IPCC 2019 issuggested to change Ym for dairy cattle from 6.5% to 5.7% withreference to Appuhamy et al., 2016. However the 5.7% reflects thefeeding situation in North America, important to provide a weighted
average or divide it to different areas like for other parameters. A Danish
Ole-Kenneth Nielsen
study (Hellwing et al., 2016) shows an Ym factor between 5.98-6.13
based on 183 observations, including 41 rations from 10 experimentswith Holstein dairy cows. Refer to: Hellwing et al., 2016: Prediction of
the methane conversion factor (Ym) for dairy cows on the basis ofnational farm data; http://www.publish.csiro.au/an/pdf/AN15520

5476

4

10

942

942

On page 10.35, please use "Ym" instead of "Ym3".

Kadir AKSAKAL

Rejected

Superscript 3 refers to footnote 3

3738

4

10

942

942

This comment relates to table 10.14. why has milk production for
medium and low producing cows been given the same value(<7000L/yr)?

Joel Gibbs

Accepted

Reviewed the way that low and medium productivity systems are definedin the table and clarified.

3262

4

10

942

942

Improve table format.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

editorial

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

3816

4

10

942

943

Table 10.14: please correct: medium producing cows (<7000 L/yr)
produce as much milk as low producing cows (<7000 L/yr)

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

Reviewed the way that low and medium productivity systems are definedin the table and clarified.

3264

4

10

948

949

Standardize et al.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

editorial956

In the Swainson (2016) paper, the equations for methane emissions areare non-linear, and the values for Ym vary based on the amount of intake(and the energy content/quality of feed for young sheep). If fixed Ym
Joel Gibbs
values are proposed for table 10.15, it might be good to explain thatthese values are simplified from the Swainson paper, and assume
constant feed intake and feed quality values

Accepted with
Modification

Mean value will be calculated from the raw data used for the Swainson etal 2016 paper.

Accepted

Values for Ym provided

3740

4

10

955

8176

4

10

955

962

There is no information on goats here. Information could possibly befound in: Martínez-Fernández, G., Abecia, L., Ramos-Morales, E., MartinGarcía, A.I., Molina-Alcaide, E., Yáñez-Ruiz, D.R. 2014: Effects of propyl
propane thiosulfinate on nutrient utilization, ruminal fermentation,
microbial population and methane emissions in goats. Animal Feed
Science and Technology 191(0): 16-25. Fernández, C., Espinós, F.J., Ló
Daniel Bretscherpez, M.C., García-Diego, F.J., Cervera, C. 2013: Representation of amathematical model to predict methane output in dairy goats.
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 91(0): 1-9. And Vermorel, M.,
Jounay, J.-P., Eugène, M., Sauvant, D., Noblet, J., Dourmad, J.-Y. 2008:
Evaluation quantitative des emissions de méthane entérique par les
animaux d'élevage en 2007 en France. INRA Production Animal 21(5):403-418.

3266

4

10

962

962

Replace kg/day by kg.day-1.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

editorial

3268

4

10

963

963

Improve table format.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

editorial

3270

4

10

968

968

Section heading missed.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

editorial

8244

4

10

971

971

What is the definition of "Backyard Chicken"?

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

Animal categories were standardized

3272

4

10

971

971

Replace Equation10.1 by Equation 10.1

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

editorial974

pg. 10.114: This table is named "TABLE 10A-20 (C O N T I N U E D)", butthere is no preceding part of this table.

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

editorial

Accepted

Table 10.27 will be completely revised. A new method for estimating N2
losses will be used in the SOD.

3958

4

10

973

8248

4

10

981

1010

In table 10.27 the loss fractions are provided in % of TAN. In contrast inother tables the loss fractions are provided as % of total nitrogen. Thismight lead to some confusion. It might be advisable to always use thesame reference N-pool (as it is the total amount of nitrogen for N2O, this Daniel Bretscher
might also be a good choice for all other loss fractions). Alternatively,
both loss fractions could be presented in the tables, whenever they areclearly labelled. Anyway, more clarity is needed here.

8246

4

10

981

983

Table 10A-21 header: What is AAP? I assume "annual animal place" or"average animal place".

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted with
Modification

Tables deleted from next draft.

989

pg. 10.116, Table 10A-21: Problem: This is a Table from the 2016 EEA
Guidebook. It was established using data from IPCC 2006 (at least:
Grazing periods) which are now changed with this 2019 refinement. =>data in this table is not anymore consistent with this refinement...

Claus Rösemann

Accepted with
Modification

Tables deleted from next draft.

3866

4

10

981

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

3960

4

10

982

982

4144

4

10

982

8250

3962

4

4

10

10

983

984

ExpertResponse

Authors' notepg. 10.116, Table 10A-21: The EMEP Guidebook citation isn't correct. It
is the EMEP/EEA guidebook 2016. In addition, it isn't Chapter 3.3.1 in the Hans-Dieter Haenel
EMEP/EEA Guidebook, but Chapter 3.3.

Accepted with
Modification

Tables deleted from next draft.

983

Section ANNEX 10A.3. Replace EMEP CORINAI with EMEP/EEA andreplace "emission inventory guidebook" with "air pollutant emission
inventory Guidebook 2016".

Accepted with
Modification

Tables deleted from next draft.

984

Table 10A-21 uses losses per animal place. This deviates from theotherwise used approach in the Guidelines, where loss fractions from a
specific nitrogen pool are used. It might thus be better to convert theDaniel Bretscher
NH3-EF in % loss of nitrogen excreted. Otherwise the data provided here
might not be very useful since the activity data is different from theother approaches.

Accepted with
Modification

Tables deleted from next draft.

986

pg. 10.116, Table 10A-21: It looks a bit strange that IPCC 2006 is cited,and it can be assumed that IPCC table numbers mentioned do not
generally match the table numbers in the IPCC 2019 Refinement. Clearly
Hans-Dieter Haenel
this is because the table has been copied as a whole from the EMEP/EEA
guidebook. But the footnote of Table 10A-21 must directly refer to the
IPCC 2019 Refinement.

Accepted with
Modification

Tables deleted from next draft.

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted with
Modification

Tables deleted from next draft.

Eleonora Di Cristofaro

3964

4

10

990

991

pg. 10.117, Table 10A-22: This table is copied from the EMEP/EEA
guidebook 2016 (Chapter 3.3, Table 3.3). Why say that it is copied fromthe NFR Reporting Guidelines? Note that Table 10A-21 (pg. 10.116) also
refers to the EMEP/EEA guidebook 2016!

8252

4

10

990

994

Table 10A-22: See comment V.4 / Chp. 10 / Ln. 983-984.

Daniel Bretscher

Tables deleted from next draft.

995

pg. 10.117, Table 10A-22: Problem: This is a Table from the 2016 EEA
Guidebook. It was established using data from IPCC 2006 (at least:
Grazing periods) which are now changed with this 2019 refinement. =>data in this table is not anymore consistent with this refinement...

Accepted with
Modification

Claus Rösemann

Accepted with
Modification

Tables deleted from next draft.

pg. 10.117, Table 10A-22: It looks a bit strange that IPCC 2006 is cited,and possibly that IPCC table numbers mentioned do not generally matchthe table numbers in the IPCC 2019 Refinement. Clearly this is because
Hans-Dieter Haenel
the table has been copied as a whole from the EMEP/EEA guidebook. But
the footnote of Table 10A-22 must directly refer to the IPCC 2019
Refinement.

Accepted with
Modification

Tables deleted from next draft.

The correct formulation is "g CH4 *(Kg DMI)-1"

Accepted

editorial

Accepted

Accept, corrected for consistency

Accepted

Accept, corrected for consistency

3868

4

10

990

3966

4

10

992

994

3642

4

10

993

993

Iordanis Tzamtzis

In the table 10.14 the values of Ym provided, not EF_DMI - please, checkAnna Romanovskayafor consistency and correctness
EF_DMI units should be g CH4/kg DMI to be consistent with Table 10.14
Donna Giltrap
and the /1000 conversion factor

1658

4

10

993

993

4796

4

10

993

993

3968

4

10

996

997

pg. 10.118, Table 10A-23: Another table copied from the EMEP/EEA
guidebook 2016 (Chapter 3.4, Table 3.9), but his time without any
reference to that guidebook. Why that?

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted with
Modification

Tables will be deleted from next draft.

1005

pg. 10.118, Table 10A-23: Problem: This is a Table from the 2016 EEA
Guidebook. It was established using data from IPCC 2006 (at least: N
excretion data) which are now changed with this 2019 refinement. =>data in this table is not anymore consistent with this refinement...

Claus Rösemann

Accepted with
Modification

Tables deleted from next draft.

3870

4

10

996

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

5912

4

10

997

997

Page 10.36. Since you have now added an additional emission factor
equation (Equation 10.25), should this line start with “These emission
factor equations assume…”

Vincent Camobreco

Accepted

Text is greyed but requires change for consistency

8254

4

10

997

998

Table 10A-23: Here the units for the EFs provided in the header are notclear.

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted with
Modification

Tables deleted from next draft.

Accepted

Deleted Annex A3 and clarify in the text section above Table 10.26 withmore detail for reference to EMEP tables (pager, table number) and link.

Accepted

editorial

3970

4

10

1001

1002

pg. 10.118, Table 10A-23: It looks a bit strange that IPCC 2006 is cited,and possibly that IPCC table numbers mentioned do not generally match
Hans-Dieter Haenel
the table numbers in the IPCC 2019 Refinement. Clearly this is because
the table has

3274

4

10

1006

1006

Heading missed.

1010

pg. 10.118, Table 10A-24: Problem: As I tried to explain in my comment
to Table 10.27 I think this EEA Table is wrong: The N2 Efs (and the NOEFs) can not be found in the cited Misselbrook paper. In earlier versionsof the EEA Guidebook exactly the same table was attributed to Dä
Claus Rösemannmmgen et al (2007) which means the German inventory. But the German
inventory never used the values in that table and the table is definitely
not from Dämmgen.

Accepted

Deleted Annex A3. See comment 3854 for comment on reference for N2
emission factors - Reference is Webb & Misselbrook 2004.

pg. 10.118, Table 10A-24: (1) The EMEP Guidebook citation isn't correct.
It is the EMEP/EEA guidebook 2016. (2) As already stated in connection
with Table 10.27 (lines 702 - 703, pg. 10.78): The source of the N2
Hans-Dieter Haenel
emission factors is not really clear. And that holds for the NO emission
factors in Table 10A-24 as well.

Accepted

Deleted Annex A3. See comment 3854 for comment on reference for N2
emission factors - Reference is Webb & Misselbrook 2004.

Daniel Bretscher

Noted

Deleted Annex A3.

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

editorial

3872

4

10

1007

3972

4

10

1008

1010

8256

4

10

1009

1010

3974

4

10

1013

1013

The content of TAN (respectively the % TAN of total N) is not provided
here.
pg. 10.119, Table 10A-25: "used here and those used by the IPCC" can't
be a proper header for this table in an IPCC document.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

3874

4

10

1013

1014

pg. 10.119, Table 10A-25: Problem: The last copy of an EEA Guidebook
table (the title is not anymore "EMEP CORINAIR", please correct this in
all such tables. The Title of the Table is very strange (Comparison ofClaus Rösemannmanure storage type definitions used HERE and those used by the IPCC)
The Refinement IS IPCC. Perhaps in this refinement IPCC definitions havechanged? How to handle with this?

3976

4

10

1013

1014

pg. 10.119, Table 10A-25: This table must be adjusted to the use in an
IPCC document (e.g. "IPCC equivalent" isn't a proper header for a column Hans-Dieter Haenel
in an IPCC table).

AcceptedAnnex 10.3 deleted

1014

pg. 10.119, Table 10A-25: The EMEP Guidebook citation isn't correct. It
is the EMEP/EEA guidebook 2016. In addition: In preceding 10A-xx tables
copied from the EMEP/EEA guidebook 2016 the citation was done in the Hans-Dieter Haenel
table's header, note in a footnote. However, there should one single way
to cite the EMEP/EEA sources.

AcceptedAnnex 10.3 deleted1162

pg. 10.120 Annex 10A4: Why this Annex? Is there a Link to it in the text?
For me it is not possible to find the symbols of the equations in thelegend on page 10.123 to 10.124. This annex is too confusing, please put Claus Rösemanna legend directly below each equation and a insert text to explain theintention of this Annex.

Accepted with
Modification

The annex is referred to in section 10.5.6. A few definitions were missing
and have been added . Grouping the definition for all equations makes theAnnex more transparent and readable. Add clarifying introductory text on
the motivation of the annex

3978

3876

4

4

10

10

1014

1019

Noted

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To line

6942

4

10

1024

1024

8258

4

10

1028

1028

3276

4

10

1035

1042

8178

4

10

1048

1050

3278

4

10

1081

1081

8260

4

10

1102

1102

8262

4

10

1173

Comment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Alexandre Berndt

Accepted

Included in text

Daniel Bretscher

AcceptedDefinition of terms addedStandardize et al.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

editorial

Check wording

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

editorial

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted

editorial

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

Editorial

1190

Mangino et al. 2001 used a "management and design practice factor"(MDP) in order to align model results with measurement. This approach
was also used by other researchers (Park, K. H., Thompson, A. G.,
Marinier, M., Clark, K., Wagner-Riddle, C. 2006: Greenhouse gas
emissions from stored liquid swine manure in a cold climate.
Atmospheric Environment 40(4): 618-627.; VanderZaag, A. C.,
Daniel Bretscher
MacDonald, J. D., Evans, L., Vergé, X. P. C., Desjardins, R. L. 2013:
Towards an inventory of methane emissions from manure managementthat is responsive to changes on Canadian farms. Environmental
Research Letters 8(3): 035008.). However, no reference to this MDP is
made here. An MDP could also be used when coverage of slurry tanks isused or when there is a natural crust cover. More guidance on this issue
might be helpful.

Accepted

An acknowledgement of the use of the MDP factor integrated into thetext.

Accepted with
Modification

Some text added to clarify how to select factors, and suggests that it isgood practice to develop country-specific factors integrating their own
temperature distributions.

Accepted

Updated reference. This relates to Annex A5 - changed by the author ofthis annex to make sure that the values are updated as well if needed

Accepted

Explanatory text included, introduction to Annex 10B.2 and clarified
where values are used in calculations.

suggestion: (such as secondary plant compounds ", additives or otherproducts")
Several terms in this equation are not defined (N2OD(mm,T);
N2OG(mm,T), N2OL(mm,T))

No line numbering from line 1081 and afterwards, which make review
difficult.
In equation 10.A4-2 N2O(mm,T) refers to "total annual N2O …" and not"direct annual N2O…".

8264

4

10

1248

1256

In countries with large annual temperature fluctuations retention timemight be different during summer and winter. In fact, this might apply to
all countries with a pronounced cropping season. In temperate regionswith cold winters this means that retention times are long during thecold season, when manure should not be applied to soils. During summer
when temperatures are high and the risk of CH4 emissions is accordingly
Daniel Bretscher
high, retention times are usually much shorter. It might be a good idea toaddress these interactions between temperature and retention times
here. Furthermore, livestock might be grazing during the warm season.
This means that less manure is stored during times of high temperatures(because proportionally more manure is excreted directly on the
pasture). Also this mechanism might be important in this context.

842

4

10

1343

1343

Reference : European Environmental Agency (2002). Joint
EMEP/CORINAIR Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook,1344 3rd ed., July 2002, Copenhagen. is not updated

1704

pg. 10.141: Table 10B.8 Western Europe: It is not clear in which table (ortables?) of this refinement these values are used. It is even not clear
what is meant by some of the abbreviations: for example Ym_MM. The Claus Rösemannmentioned reference table 10.13 of the 2019 RG does not contain data
for Western Europe

3878

4

10

1702

Ulrike Doering

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

8266

4

10

1702

1704

Table 10B.8: What about the other parameters that are mentioned forthe other regions? Does "DC" refer to digestibility? If yes this could bestated here again.

Daniel Bretscher

Acceptedsee response to comment 3878, clarified text and added introduction tothis section assuring that all parameters are named consistently

3880

4

10

1964

1964

pg 10.160: Annex 10.B3. This annex is to explain the data of Table 10.12.
Claus Rösemann
It would be helpful to clarify this in the title

Accepted with
Modification

Annex 10B3 describes the development of the simplified Tier 2 and that isclearly indicated in the title, there is an error in the reference at thebottom of Table 10.12 and this is corrected.

3882

4

10

1987

1987

pg 10.161: what is the meaning of "BW"? I do not think that it isbirthweight. Please clarify here and not only in line 2003 (BW = bodyweight).

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

editorial

8738

4

10

2172

2172

Page 10.168. Reference to Table 1 - should be Table 10B.13.

Ole-Kenneth Nielsen

Accepted

Revised text2182

pg 10.169: "dung has an ash content of 8 %" I am sure that is a mistake inthe text of IPCC 2006 (pg.10.42, to equation 10.24). In Equation 10.24 it
Claus Rösemannmakes only sense if ASH is the ash content of FEED (and not the ash
content of manure)

Accepted

Revised text2183

pg 10.169: "this figure is too..." The word "low" is missing. However: I am
sure that is a mistake in the text of IPCC 2006 (pg.10.42, to equation
Claus Rösemann10.24). In Equation 10.24 it makes only sense if ASH is the ash content of
FEED (and not the ash content of manure)

Accepted

Text and equation definitions have been revised

2183"…this figure is too ????" Presumably too low. However, it should beconsidered that ash contents are often measured from manure in slurrytanks. This manure contains a lot of materials such as stones, pieces ofDaniel Bretscher
concrete, dust etc. from the stable flor. This ash content can thus not becompared to the ash content of fresh manure as excreted.

Accepted

Revised text

Accepted

editorial

Accepted

editorial

Accepted with
Modification

Reviewed country's inventory data, to verify if there are acceptable value

Accepted

editorial

Noted

Manure emission factors have been derived by measuring fluxes ofmethane from manure stores that can then be associated with the numberof animals that contributed to that manure store. It is very rare that there
is a specific quantification of the quantify of bedding that is transferred tothe manure store. For this reason, bedding is considered to be inherent in
the emission factor. Countries may wish to move to higher Tiers andseparate emissions from bedding and emissions from volatile solid
excretion, however this is not currently possible for the development of
guidance.

3884

3886

4

4

10

10

2182

2183

8268

4

10

2183

3742

4

10

Section 10.4.1 "Choice of method" typo on second line, and missing
See Column Seeword (method) on third line (no line numbers are provided in this part of Joel Gibbs
F
Column F
the text)

3744

4

10

3746

4

10

8728

4

10

8744

4

10

See Column See
F
Column F
See Column See
F
Column F
See Column See
F
Column F

Section 10.4.1 "Tier 1" typo on fourth line (no line numbers are provided
Joel Gibbs
in this part of the text)
Section 10.4.2 Table 10.16 will a default value be provided for deer? (noJoel Gibbs
line numbers are provided in this part of the text)
Page 10.44. Paragraph starting with "Table 10.17 and Table 18…" Ole-Kenneth Nielsen
Should this be Table 10.18?

Page 10.43. Equation 10.26. The CH4 emission is based on VS excreted in
See Column See
animal manure, it could be considered to include VS from bedding as
Ole-Kenneth Nielsen
F
Column F well, or is emission from bedding taken into account as a part of theemission factor?

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

Page 10.44. The mention of climatic zone where the manure is managed
seems to neglect that for some animal types such as swine the animal
See Column See
housing will be heated in colder climates and hence the manure will be
Ole-Kenneth Nielsen
F
Column F stored for a period of time at a significantly higher temperature that theoutside average temperature. Guidance should be provided to users on
how to take this into account.

8752

4

10

5478

4

10

5480

4

10

5942

6508

6512

4

4

4

To lineSee Column See
F
Column F
See Column See
Column F
F

Comment

ExpertOn page 10.40, please use "Table 10A19" instead of "Table 10A19" on
Kadir AKSAKAL
the 4th line under subheading Tier 1. Start/End line was not given.
On page 10.45, regarding Table 10.16 please consider to add data for theKadir AKSAKAL
animal category "geese". Start/End line was not given.

Response

Authors' note

Accepted with
Modification

Text added to point compilers to the example of how to derived MCF
factors in the Annex.

Accepted

editorial

Accepted

Reviewed Germany's inventory who report geese and alternatively, checksource of duck VS and related geese's values to it.

10

No line numbers provided for these pages. For equation 10.28 on page
10.43, the new Tier 1 approach requires additional country-specificinformation to estimate manure CH4 such as the fraction of total VS foreach livestock category that is managed in the various manure
See Column See
management systems. It may be difficult for some countries to obtain
Vincent Camobreco
F
Column F
this information and thus be unable to apply the Tier 1 methods. The
authors should evaluate whether this is a valid concern before adopting
this new Tier 1 approach. I do believe, however, that this new Tier 1
approach is more accurate than the previous method in the 2006 GLs.

Accepted

10

See Column See
Equation 10.42 Must this equation be used if country has NH3
F
Column F abatement measures? So T1 is not possible?

Accepted with
Modification

This equation has been removed and in place less specific text has been
added in Chapter 11 to indicate that nitrogen mass balance approaches
can better account for mitigation strategies that will reduced N loss

10

Does FracGasm in eq. 10.42 mean “fraction of applied organic N fertiliser
See Column Seematerials (FON) and of urine and dung N deposited by grazing animals
Sanna Pitkänen
F
Column F (FPRP) that volatilises as NH3 and NOx, kg N volatilised (kg of N appliedor deposited)-1” or does it mean something else?

Noted

Yes, this is correct. However, this equation has been removed and in placeless specific text has been added in Chapter 11 to indicate that nitrogenmass balance approaches can better account for mitigation strategies thatwill reduced N loss.

Sanna Pitkänen

Accepted

Accept with modifications: This figure as well as equation 10.42 has been
removed and in place less specific text has been added in Chapter 11 toindicate that nitrogen mass balance approaches can better account for
mitigation strategies that will reduced N loss

Sanna Pitkänen

Default Tier 1 EF will be provided in Tables 10.17 through 10.20; Equation
10.28 refers to Tier 2 methodology.
Countries require AWMS information for N2O emission estimates in any
case. We have supplied default values in Tables 10A.4 through 10A.20
for use in Equation 10.28 to be referenced in the text.

6514

4

10

See Column See
Is EF*1in fig. 10.6. CorrPractice*EF1? How is EF*3PRP defined? Should
F
Column F MS have country-specific value for this?

6516

4

10

See Column See
Equation 10.19. Should there be steers and bulls?
F
Column F

Sanna Pitkänen

Accepted

Equation titles will be revised

6518

4

10

See Column See
Equation 10.41 – why direct emission from manure management haveF
Column F not been diminished?

Sanna Pitkänen

Rejected

The direct N2O emissions from manure management are not affected by
Equation 10.41. This equation calculated the nitrogen available forapplication to soils.

Abdul Nayamuth

Accepted

Changed 'consistence' to 'consistent' in 10.4.1. second line.

7982

4

10

Page 10.40 section 10.4.1 Choice of methods row 1 para 2 - To be
See Column See
consistence with consideration of differing productivity classes in theF
Column F section of enteric fermentation, a new tier 1 (replace consistence byconsistent, add the before section and replace of by on)

7984

4

10

Page 10.40 section 10.4.1 para Tier 1 row 4 of para - been collected for
See Column Seeregions and countries by the FAO and are presented in Annex 10A.2,
F
Column F
Table 10A4 to Table 10A19 (Table to read Table)

Abdul Nayamuth

Accepted

Changed 'table' to 'table'

10

Page 10.44 line 1 para 2 - Table 10.17 and Table 18 shows the default
See Column Seeemission factors per kg of volatile solid excretion and year for cattle
F
Column F(read 10.18)

Abdul Nayamuth

Accepted

Reformulated sentence

7986

4

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

7988

4

10

5946

4

5282
3750

To lineComment

Response

Authors' note

Page 10.44 line 2 para 2 - swine for each manure management system
See Column Seeand climate zone. Emission factors are listed for the climate zone where Abdul Nayamuth
F
Column F
the (add system)

Accepted

Reformulated sentence

11

generalVincent Camobreco

Noted

4

11

88

88

MINGMING WANG

Accepted with
Modification

Can be addressed with higher tier methods by countries wishing to do so.
Text added.

4

11

94

102

Joel Gibbs

Noted

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

Roland Fuß

Noted

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

Alberto Sanz Cobeña

Noted

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

Alberto Sanz Cobeña

Noted

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

Thomas Bruulsema

Noted

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

Alberto Sanz Cobeña

Noted

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

Alberto Sanz Cobeña

Noted

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

Stephen Del Grosso

Accepted with
Modification

The authors reviewed the literature and found not enough evidence fordisaggregation at Tier 1. Can be addressed with higher tier methods bycountries wishing to do so. Text added.

Tiffanie STEPHANI

Accepted with
Modification

Countries using Tier 1 have aggregated N input data which are notappropriate for the suggested method. An exponential method can beaddressed at higher tiers by countries wishing to do so. Text added.

Pleased with soil N2O improvements
N2O emission factors for urban landscapes (e.g., yards, parks,
golf courses, recreational fields) have not been provided.
A diagram clearly showing the processes of nitrification anddenitrification would be useful here

Expert

IPCC should acknowledge the existence of other N2O producing
4108

4

11

94

94

processes in soil, see Fig. 2 in Butterbach-Bahl et al. (2013;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0122) for an overview
Nitrification and denitrification are known to be main processes

9476

4

11

94

98

in the production and consumption, but there are othermicrobiological processes that should be mentioned here. E.g.
nitrifier denitrification.

9478

4

11

98

98

Other driving factors should be mentioned. E.g. soil moisture(WFPS), organic matter, temperature.
In the phrase “human-induced net N additions to soils” the term

5748

4

11

98

102

“net” is misleading, since total N additions, not partial N
balances, are used to estimate nitrous oxide emissions

9480

4

11

103

104

indirect emissions upstream of the cropping system should be
mentioned. E.g. emissions due to fertilizers production
it is not always the case. Increased N application could increase

9482

4

11

118

119

denitrification rates but not N2O emissions if denitrification iscomplete up to N2
The proposed method assumes that the EF for N in crop
residues is the same as that for added fertilizer. However,

6104

4

11

125

126

evidence shows that only high N concentration residues have
Efs similar to that of fertilizer, and the EF can even be less than0, implying that unharvested residues can decrease emissions(se figure 2 in Vol4_Chp11_L125-126_SD.pdf).

A linear relationship between N applied and direct N2Oemissions is applied. However, recent scientific publications
demonstrate a rather exponential relationship between the 2. It
5412

4

11

133

172

should be mentioned in the text that the linear relationshipbetween N applied and N2O emission is not indisputable andthat it was also shown that there exists an exponential
relationship between N-surplus and N2O-emissions.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' noteFrank Brentrup

Accepted with
Modification

Countries using Tier 1 have aggregated N input data which are notappropriate for the suggested method. An exponential method can beaddressed at higher tiers by countries wishing to do so. Text added.

Daniel Bretscher

Noted

The acronym FR is implicitly defined as flooded rice by the associated
EF1FR

Noted

No action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement. Higher N content of leguminous crop residues considered inTable 11.3

Noted

Out of scope. There is no LULUCF sector in this guidance and natural lands
are not considered by IPCC

A linear relationship between N applied and direct N2Oemissions is applied which means only reducing N input reduces
emissions. However, recent scientific publications show that N

5444

4

11

133

172

surplus (i.e. N input - N removal) increases risk of N2Oemissions exponentially. It should therefore be mentioned in the
text that the linear relationship between N applied and N2Oemission is not indisputable.

8270

4

11

135

143

Equation 11.1: The subscript "FR" (probably flooded rice) is not
explained in the parameter-list below
It is mentioned that legumes residues are included within the

9484

4

11

153

153

"crop residues" category but, is there any special coefficient todistinguish CR from legume plants which could be richer inAlberto Sanz Cobeña

mineral N than regular plants?
Why is forest land included here and not in the LULUCF-sector(respectively under forestry)? Furthermore, it is not clear
8272

4

11

157

159

whether natural grassland or only managed grassland should be Daniel Bretscher
considered here. These issues need further clarification in therespective section.

3280

4

11

183

184

3282

4

11

191

208

This is a figure. Therefore it should be numbered and cited in
the text.
Conversion repeated.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Noted

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

CARLOS SANQUETTA Noted

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

Parties developing their inventories should have an orientationfrom the IPCC guidelines to estimate the impacts of inhibitors,
in particular nitrification inhibitors, added to mineral fertilizers.
There is clear evidence from recent review studies thatnitrification inhibitors show a robust N2O emission reduction
5414

4

11

192

216

effect across arable agro-ecosystems. Average EFs acrossdifferent inhibitors could eventually already be used in a tier 1

Tiffanie STEPHANI

Accepted with
Modification

Tier 1 isn't focused in mitigation technologies, as directed by the table ofcontents established by the IPCC plenary. Can be addressed with higher
tier methods by countries wishing to do so. Text added to reflect thisoption.

Thomas Bruulsema

Noted

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

approach, while more specific information on effects ofparticular inhibitors (DCD, DMPP etc.) could be applied in a tier2 approach. Although many studies have already been carriedout in organic fertilizers, there is no review on published data
available yet.

Change "N source-,..." to "N source-, nitrification inhibitor-,... ”.
5750

4

11

203

206

Grounds: evidence of emission reductions through treatment of
nitrogen fertilizers with nitrification inhibitors.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Daniel Bretscher

Noted

The focus of the refinements is to update Tier 1 EF not to provide guidancefor higher Tiers. However more guidance for Tier 3 methods is provided in
Chapter 2, section 2.6

Tiffanie STEPHANI

Noted

Data added.

Wilfried Winiwarter

Accepted

Text added about 'freeze-thaw events'.

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted with
Modification

Countries using Tier 1 have aggregated N input data which are notappropriate for the suggested method. An exponential method can beaddressed at higher tiers by countries wishing to do so. Text added about
this option.

Alberto Sanz Cobeña

Accepted

Other references added

Footnote 6: The derivation of EFs from field measurements is
not always trivial. Many studies report EFs by dividing the N2ON-loss by the fertilizer input without accounting for backgroundemissions. This leads to EFs that are usually too high and notcomparable to the IPCC default EF since the concept isdifferent. When assessing EFs from measurements it is thus
imperative to have a 0-fertilizer control measurement or tomeasure or estimate all N-inputs (including N from crop
8274

4

11

215

215

residues, from N-mineralization and/or from nitrogen
deposition). The term "background emissions" is also somewhat
problematic. Background emissions could refer to emissions
from an unfertilized control plot. However, these emissions are
not the same as the "natural emissions" since they may include
emissions from N-fertilization in the past, from N from crop
residues and/or emissions from mineralized N. I think it would
be good to provide some more information on how to derive
higher Tier emission factors from field measurements.

5416

4

11

225

236

We expect that more data will be introduced in order to derive
Emission Factors in Table 11.1.
Important: freeze-thaw cycle needs to be considered. Work by

822

4

11

227

235

Wagner-Riddle et al. (Nature Geoscience volume 10, pages 279–
283 (2017) doi:10.1038/ngeo2907) allows extrapolation of thiseffect.

There is a big discussion on whether the EF for direct soil N2O
emission is linear or non-linear. I think this should somehow bementioned here (maybe under Tier 3) and some literature could
be provided (e.g. Shcherbak, I., Millar, N. & Robertson, G. P.
8276

4

11

227

235

(2014). Global metanalysis of the nonlinear response of soil
nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions to fertilizer nitrogen. Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1322434111). If the EF is in fact
non-linear, this would have large consequences for GHG
mitigation by reducing fertilizer inputs.

please, add "e.g. for Mediterranean conditions "when referring
9486

4

11

229

229

to Cayuela et al., 2017. And also add Aguilera et al., 2013
(AGEE)

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Michael Anderl

Rejected

Table 11.1 doesn't provide EFs for a Tier 2 method. Line 211 refers tomodelling for a Tier 3 method while lines 230-235 refers to a Tier 2
method.

Alberto Sanz Cobeña

Accepted

Text added 'irrigation'

Alberto Sanz Cobeña

Accepted

Text added 'e.g.' before the references

Michael Anderl

Noted

EF3 cannot be disaggregated further due to lack of significant difference
between non tropical and tropical

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

Explained.

MINGMING WANG

Rejected

Number of available N2O EF data were not enough to develop global EF forother water managements for Tier 1, but countries may develop EF fordifferent water management for Tier 2.

"There are data to suggest that the EF could also be further
disaggregated as part of Tier 2 method. This disaggregation
could be based on environmental factors and managementrelated factors….Countries that are able to disaggregate their

1358

4

11

230

235

activity data from all or some of these factors may choose touse disaggregated emission factors with the Tier 2 approach".
However, Table 11.1 does not provide such data. The specificconsideration of soil and environmental variables qualifies for a
Tier 3 approach (see line 211) and should be deleted from thissection (line 230-235).

irrigation should be added as management factor as well as soil
9488

4

11

231

234

moisture as environmental one, also included in Cayuela et al.,
2017

9490

4

11

233

233

grasslands are not included in Cayuela et al. 2017 soclarification when using references would be useful for readers
In updated Table 11.1, row “disaggregation”, for specific

1360

4

11

235

236

climates consistent terms and definitions should be used forEF1 and EF3.

3756

4

11

235

236

Footnote "3" in Table 11.1 (TBD3) is not explained below thetable
In Table 11.1, EF for flooded rice fields has ‘continuous flooding’
and 'with drainage’. As stated later in line 857-860, water
management strongly affects N2O emissions from paddy rice

5284

4

11

235

236

fields. More water management systems should be reflected in
the refinement as there are a wide variety of practices, andsubsequently more variations in the EF. California ARB studies
on this could be considered.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

The uncertainty ranges in Table 11.1 for EF1fr, EF3prp,cpp, andExpertResponse

Authors' note

Stephen Del Grosso

Accepted

Uncertainty refined.

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted with
Modification

Text added 'Table 2.5' line 239

Wilfried Winiwarter

Accepted

Emission factors elaborated

EF3prp,so appear to be too narrow. I will focus comments on
EF3prp,cpp because I am most familiar with this source, butsimilar arguments would apply to the uncertainty ranges for theother factors. Apparently, the 95% confidence interval (CI) for
EF3prp,cpp was calculated using data from the Cai and Akiyama
paper and obtained by multiplying standard error by 1.96.
Standard error is the standard deviation divided by the squareroot of N. Since N is large, standard error is small and the 95%
CI is very narrow compared to the 2006 guidelines. The
proposed 95% CI may indeed be appropriate for global meanemissions for this source. However, the Tier 1 factors are most
6102

4

11

235

236

often used at smaller scales where the narrow CI would not
apply. For example, the factors are used by most countries toestimate national level emissions reported in GHG inventories.
New Zealand currently uses a value of 0.01 in its inventory forthis source (http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climatechange/new-zealands-greenhouse-gas-inventory1990%E2%80%932015). However, this is outside the proposed
uncertainty range of 0.005 – 0.007; thus demonstrating that the
proposed uncertainty is not applicable at the national scale. The
Tier 1 factors are also used for specific crops at the subnational level when performing life cycle assessments, forexample sugar beet production in California (Vol4_Chp11_L235236_SD_1) and the CI for the overall mean would not be
expected to be applicable in this case The Tier 1 factors are
EF2 could be mentioned in table 11.1. In general, themethodology for the assessment of N2O emissions from drainedorganic soils is described only superficially. Particularly the
relation between carbon mineralization, nitrogen mineralization

8278

4

11

235

238

and N2O emissions and thus the relation between CO2emissions reported in the LULUCF-Sector and the N2O
emissions reported in the agriculture sector should be
addressed more extensively. This is equally true for Nmineralization in mineral soils (FSOM).

Note Table 11.1: the key outcome of this chapter can not bechecked - it is given as "TBD". EF1 definitely is the most
802

4

11

236

236

important number of this chapter - how can you make suresufficient expert knowledge is provided for the second, thegovernment review?

Comment
ID

Volume4110

4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Roland Fuß

Noted

Lines 234-235 specify the need for disaggregated activity data when
adopting disaggregated EF

Wilfried Winiwarter

Noted

Claus Rösemann

Accepted with
Modification

Text added 'Table 2.5' line 239

with equation 11.1 line 141, so equation 11.1. line 141 has to be Claus Rösemann

Accepted with
Modification

Reference to Table 11.1 changed to reference to Table 2.5 in Wetland
supplement. Text added to legend l. 168 'Further discrimination by climate
and land use is available in the Wetland supplement'

Tiffanie STEPHANI

Accepted

ChangedFrank Brentrup

Accepted

ChangedOle-Kenneth Nielsen

NotedThis is indeed already considered in Equation 11.3 - N FROM ORGANIC N
ADDITIONS APPLIED TO SOILS (TIER 1)

Alberto Sanz Cobeña

Noted

N from legume is considered in Equation 11.7

Daniel Bretscher

Noted

The footnote refers to Synthetic fertilizer line 248, and thus has no linkwith excretion rate in urine and dung.

Rejected

Equation 11.4 clearly states N from animal manure. Adding the clarification
requested by the reviewer would bring confusion with N from mineralsources.

Frank Brentrup

Rejected

Equation 11.4 clearly states N from animal manure. Adding the clarification
requested by the reviewer would bring confusion with N from mineralsources.

Wilfried Winiwarter

Accepted

Edit issue corrected

Please clarify how disaggregated EFs should be used in
11

236

236

countries with several climatic zones: Must disaggregatedactivity data be available or can weighted averages of climatedependent EFs be calculated somehow?
see also "General" comment in the same batch: it would be

804

4

11

237

238

great if at least an electronic compendium of updated guidance
could be created, instead of refereeing back and forth between
different implementations.
Missing EF2 values: citation of the wetland supplement should

3758

4

11

237

238

be completed (I think Table 2.5 in Chapter 2 is the correctreference)
The nomenclature of table 2.5 wetland supplement does not fit

3760

4

11

237

238

changed (?)
5418

4

11

251

254

5446

4

11

251

254

The correct name of the association referred to is "International
Fertilizer Association" and the abbreviation is IFA.
The correct name of the association referred to is "International
Fertilizer Association" and the abbreviation is IFA.
Another nitrogen input to consider is that when animal manureis treated in an anaerobic digester, it is typically done with

8756

4

11

261

280

additional types of biomass. The nitrogen content of thisadditional biomass should be considered when the digested
manure is taken back and applied to the field.

9492

4

11

266

268

Is N from legume crop residues considered anyhow? This is N
coming from "organic N sources"
Footnote: Where does the first footnote belong to? While it is

8280

4

11

280

280

difficult to assess N-excretion rate in urine and dung frommeasurements it is generally possible to derive this frommodels.
It should be clarified in equation 11.4 that all N species

5420

4

11

287

287

contained in organic fertilizers are considered when applying the Tiffanie STEPHANI
emission factor (mineral + organic N).
It should be clarified in equation 11.4 that all forms of N

5448

4

11

287

287

contained in organic material are included (mineral and organic
N). Otherwise, there is a risk that only the mineral part isconsidered as it is usually done in fertilizer planning.

806

4

11

288

289

watch line break: "kg N yr-"/"1"

Comment
ID

Volume4146

4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Section 11.2.1.3. In the "Crop residue N, including N-fixing crops
11

315

315

and forage/ pasture renewal, returned to soils, (FCR)"
paragraph, a box containing the text shown in the attached file

Authors' note

Eleonora Di Cristofaro Noted

No action can be taken because comment is out of scope of 2019
Refinement. Anyway the text and the equation are clearly addressing thisissue

Eleonora Di Cristofaro Rejected

This is already in text "In addition, the method accounts for the effect ofresidue burning or other removal of residues (direct emissions of N2O fromresidue burning are addressed under Chapter 2, Section 2.4.

Daniel Bretscher

It is true that some methods (e.g. the chamber method) might not allow to
distinguish the origin of the emissions (and/or the processes involved). The
approach retained by the IPCC considers the different inputs which might
contribute to N2O emissions, with the aim to avoid double-accounting. It is
not possible to propose a reporting method aligned with all existing dataassessment methods and their respective measurement protocols.

Vol4_Chp11_L315-315_ED.docx could be inserted.
Section 11.2.1.3. The following text could be inserted: as regards
Crop residue N a cross check with the amount of NbeddingMSof the Equation 10.41 "Managed manure N available forapplication to managed soils" and the categories "Field Burningof Agricultural Residues" (3F CRF category - volume 4 chapter 5
section 5.2.4 Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from biomass
4148

4

11

315

315

burning) and "Open burning of waste - other: agricultural waste"(5C CRF category - volume 5 chapter 5 section 5.3.2 Amount ofwaste open-burned), relative to the amount of agriculturalresidues that is returned to soils other than the amount ofagricultural residues that is removed for other purposes (e.g.
bedding) or burnt should be done. See box reported in Crop
residues (see comment above regarding crop residues). This isimportant to eliminate the possibility of double counting.
Footnote 11: The reporting of emissions from N-input from crop
residues (FCR) should be coordinated with the reporting ofemissions from N-input from N-mineralization (FSOM). This isimportant because when measuring N2O emissions from soils it
is in general not possible to distinguish between the twoprocesses. When deriving N2O emissions from e.g. chamber
measurement of carbon losses (via the C/N ratio and thus
estimated N-mineralization), the carbon losses from decaying

8282

4

11

317

317

plant roots (or even above-ground crop residues) are or might
be included. When applying the C/N ratio on this carbon loss inorder to assess N-mineralization from SOM, the Nmineralization from below-ground crop residues might be
included. This would thus lead to a double counting of theemissions from below-ground (or even above ground) crop
residues. The same problem might not occur, when estimating
carbon losses from repeated soil measurements. The reporting
method should thus be aligned with the data assessment
method and the respective measurement protocols.

Rejected

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted

Depending on the context of the text referring to 1996 Guidelines. The
footnotes 11 and 12 on page 11.12 in Chapter 11, Vol.4 (which includes
reference to 1996 Guidelines) should be modified, because the equationreferred to here is Equation 11.6 which has been refined from 2006
Guidelines in this draft. However, reference to 1996 Guidelines in theother parts of this draft may still be valid depending on the context, whichshould not be changed

footnote 12 to this line: see also "General" comment in the samebatch, and elsewhere in the document: while this is old text, it is
808

4

11

318

318

distracting to refer here to changes already performed before

Wilfried Winiwarter

2006 without clearly stating so. Text could be like "This change
has been introduced for the 2006 guidelines"
Section 11.2.1.3. As regards Equation 11.6 the part relative to N
4150

4

11

327

327

content of below-ground residues does not appear in the pdf

Eleonora Di Cristofaro Accepted

It is an editing issue: during the processing of the pdf document, part ofthe equation disappeared. Complete equation covers also the below
ground biomass

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

It is an editing issue: during the processing of the pdf document, part ofthe equation disappeared. Complete equation covers also the below
ground biomass

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted

It is an editing issue: during the processing of the pdf document, part ofthe equation disappeared. Complete equation covers also the below
ground biomass

Accepted

It is an editing issue: during the processing of the pdf document, part ofthe equation disappeared. Complete equation covers also the below
ground biomass

Ole-Kenneth Nielsen

Accepted

It is an editing issue: during the processing of the pdf document, part ofthe equation disappeared. Complete equation covers also the below
ground biomass

Wilfried Winiwarter

Accepted

It is an editing issue: during the processing of the pdf document, part ofthe equation disappeared. Complete equation covers also the below
ground biomass

Michael Anderl

Accepted

It is an editing issue: during the processing of the pdf document, part ofthe equation disappeared. Complete equation covers also the below
ground biomass

Sandro Federici

Accepted

It is an editing issue: during the processing of the pdf document, part ofthe equation disappeared. Complete equation covers also the below
ground biomass

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

It is an editing issue: during the processing of the pdf document, part ofthe equation disappeared. Complete equation covers also the below
ground biomass

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

It is an editing issue: during the processing of the pdf document, part ofthe equation disappeared. Complete equation covers also the below
ground biomass

Roland Fuß

Accepted

It is an editing issue: during the processing of the pdf document, part ofthe equation disappeared. Complete equation covers also the below
ground biomass

Kadir AKSAKAL

Accepted

It is an editing issue: during the processing of the pdf document, part ofthe equation disappeared. Complete equation covers also the below
ground biomass

file.
3284

4

11

327

328

8284

4

11

327

328

Improve equation format. Use the same font for equations
throughout the text.
Equation 11.6: Here below-ground crop residues are notmentioned.
It would be useful to present the complete equation 11.6 i.e.

9042

4

11

327

328

including the BGR component (I understand that this component Reynald Lemke
is unchanged)
Equation 11.6 only includes above ground biomass while the

8758

4

11

327

350

text and the explanations of parameters below the equationsuggests that below ground biomass should be included.
Equation 11.6 is incomplete as shown here - not all of the

810

4

11

328

328

parameters (see line 340 ff) are covered. As it is now it is a
simplification from the IPCC 2006 guidelines that is not justified.

1362

4

11

328

328

2084

4

11

328

328

3762

4

11

328

328

4002

4

11

328

328

4112

4

11

328

328

5486

4

11

328

328

Updated equation 11.6 is incomplete. Calculation (part offormula) of belowground crop residue N is missing.
In equation 11.6 the belowground component of crop residues is
missing. The equation should be accordingly amended.
updated equation 11.6. is obviously not complete (below groundresidues are missing)pg. 11.13: Updated Eq. 11.6 can't be correct: Below-groundresidues are completely missing on the r.h.s. of the equation.
Is equation 11.6 complete? Why are below-ground residues notconsidered for N input? This seems like an editing mistake?
On page 11.13, a closing second parenthesis " ) " is missing in
the updated equation 11.6.

Comment
ID

Volume9642

4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted

It is an editing issue: during the processing of the pdf document, part ofthe equation disappeared. Complete equation covers also the below
ground biomass

Accepted

It is an editing issue: during the processing of the pdf document, part ofthe equation disappeared. Complete equation covers also the below
ground biomass

Anna Romanovskaya

Accepted

It is an editing issue: during the processing of the pdf document, part ofthe equation disappeared. Complete equation covers also the below
ground biomass

Thomas Bruulsema

Accepted

It is an editing issue: during the processing of the pdf document, part ofthe equation disappeared. Complete equation covers also the below
ground biomass

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

It is an editing issue: during the processing of the pdf document, part ofthe equation disappeared. Complete equation covers also the below
ground biomass

Wilfried Winiwarter

Accepted

It is an editing issue: during the processing of the pdf document, part ofthe equation disappeared. Complete equation covers also the below
ground biomass
It is an editing issue: during the processing of the pdf document, part ofthe equation disappeared. Complete equation covers also the below
ground biomass

Equation 11.6 shows only the calculation method of above11

328

328

ground crop residue, so the calculation method of below-ground Kazumasa
crop residue must be added to the equation. And the

Kawashima

parenthesis before FracBurnt(T) seems unnecessary.
834

1662

4

4

11

11

328

328

350

350

The formula is now better presented. But I think it would bebetter to understand, to present this in two or several steps.
Seems like only part of equation is presented. Nothing on
renewal of pastures

Ulrike Doering

Equation 11.6 appears to be incomplete, since there are multiple
5752

4

11

328

350

terms defined up to line 350 that are not included in theequation.
AGR(T): in Table 11.2. I can see no factor which is usable to fill

3770

4

11

332

333

812

4

11

333

333

Table 11.2 would not allow to retrieve AGR(T) values

3764

4

11

340

349

all the terms defined here are missing in updated equation 11.6 Claus Rösemann

Accepted

4784

4

11

340

349

These terms don't appear in equation 11.6

Donna Giltrap

Accepted

It is an editing issue: during the processing of the pdf document, part ofthe equation disappeared. Complete equation covers also the below
ground biomass

4004

4

11

342

359

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Accepted

It is an editing issue: during the processing of the pdf document, part ofthe equation disappeared. Complete equation covers also the below
ground biomass

3766

4

11

398

398

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

This is a typo, and the correct number is indeed 0.007

3768

4

11

398

398

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

This is a typo (values for dry beans were erroneously entered for Beans andPulse)

Roland Fuß

Noted

The references indicated do not permit to derive a coefficient
representative for all oilseed rap/canola. This can be addressed at Tier 2
level

Noted

It is difficult to have a value representative of such different residues ofvegetables. This can be addressed at Tier 2 levelin for AGR(T)pg. 11.13/11.14: Crop(T) isn't used in Eq. 11.6 but defined in Eq.
11.7. This indicates once more that Eq. 11.6 isn't correct.
Table 11.2: Maize: Ncontent of above ground residues: 0.007 or
0.006 as in IPCC 2006 Table 11.2 ?
Table 11.2: beans and pulses: all values differ (a little) from thevalues of IPCC 2006 Table 11.2
It's unfortunate that there are still no values for oilseed rape /canola in Table 11.2. Gan et al. (2009,

4114

4

11

398

399

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2009.04.014) and Bouchet et al.
(2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0371-0) could
provide some values for rapeseed.
Vegetables do not exist in Table 11.2.At harvest time, the

9644

4

11

398

399

residues of vegetables(e.g.,roots, stems and leaves) are often

Kazumasa

returned to soils(e.g.,Japan). If possible, it would be better to

Kawashima

provide data of vegetables in Table 11.2.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' noteWilfried Winiwarter

Accepted

The reference was added as follows "a. Source: Literature review by
Stephen A. Williams, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State
University. A list of the original references is given in Annex 11A.1.

Mark Sperow

Accepted

Donna Giltrap

Accepted

Should be in italicDaniel Bretscher

Rejected

It is true that some methods (e.g. the chamber method) might not allow to
distinguish the origin of the emissions (and/or the processes involved). The
approach retained by the IPCC considers the different inputs which might
contribute to N2O emissions, with the aim to avoid double-accounting. It is
not possible to propose a reporting method aligned with all existing dataassessment methods and their respective measurement protocols.

Daniel Bretscher

Rejected

The assertion is not supported by references

Daniel Bretscher

NotedThis method is applicable for all land uses as noted in step 2 and 3,
guidance on classification of managed and unmanaged lands is provided in
Chapter 4

probably also here the correct source for (a) is: "Source:
Literature review by Stephen A. Williams, Natural Resource

814

4

11

399

399

Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University. (Email:stevewi@warnercnr.colostate.edu) for CASMGS(http://www.casmgs.colostate.edu/). A list of the originalreferences is given in Annex 11A.1."

Table 11.3 - Is Crop(T) defined in kg d.m.? It is defined that way
6082

4

11

408

409

in equation 11.7, but it is not defined within the table, which I
think it should be since the equation is simple multiplication andall variables should be defined.

4786

8286

4

4

11

11

410

410

411

411

Heading not italicised

see comment V.4 / Chp. 11 / Ln. 317-317

I generally agree with this statement. However, other people
argue, that nitrogen in organic soil amendments might never bemineralized and rather contribute to an increase of soil organic
8288

4

11

424

427

matter. In this case no N2O emissions would be expected fromthese amendments. However, equation 11.3 requires theaccounting of all N-inputs from organic amendments. This mightthus generate some contradictions.
It should be clarified which emissions from which land use
and/or land use change categories should be reported here andwhich should be reported under LULUCF. Particularly relevant is

8290

4

11

430

458

the question whether emissions from grassland are to be
included here. Most experts might agree, that N-mineralizationfrom managed grasslands should be included and emissions
from natural grasslands not necessarily. In this case definitions
for "managed" and "natural" grasslands should be provided.

4006

4

11

441

442

pg. 11.17: Units of FSOM must read kg N per year.

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Noted

4008

4

11

443

443

pg. 11.18: "tonnes C" must read "tonnes C per year".

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Noted

4010

4

11

446

446

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Noted

pg. 11.18: Insert "dimensionless" after "… matter" and before "Adefault...".

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

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To line

3772

4

11

459

468

Comment
If for organic soils the wetland supplement should be used (seeline 237) I feel that this text has to be alteredExpertResponse

Authors' note

Claus Rösemann

Noted

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

Daniel Bretscher

Noted

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

Alberto Sanz Cobeña

Noted

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

Alberto Sanz Cobeña

Noted

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

Kadir AKSAKAL

Noted

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

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Noted

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

Noted

The new factors developed in this refinement are using the average values
from a total number of 273 studies obtained through the datasets of peerreviewed studies from Bouwman et al (2002) meta-analysis and therecently collated by Pan et al (2016) meta-analysis . We have contactedwith the experts developing the newest FracGASF EF for EMEP and areelaborating there new EFs based on similar datasets. For clarity andtransparency a more comprehensive explanation is provided in the Annex

Accepted with
Modification

Discrepancies with Bowman et al (2002) were mainly caused by having
selected the average (but unweighted values) from Table 2 of Bowman(2012) (e.g. for urea: 21% vs 14%) and Efs from Pan et al (2016) are directly
obtained from the data from Supplementary Table S1 where EF are shown.
This info actually attached to the article in the Supplementary dataassociated with this article, in the online version, at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.08.019. In order to derive the final
Ef that integrates both Bowman´s and Pan´s reviews, a weighting factor has
been applied to account for the different number of studies in each metaanalysis. Modifications have been made to the original approach and adifferent weighting based on the number of studies is being proposed. Thisweighting may be the source of discrepancy with the data that thereviewer may have expected. The explanations are further elaborated in
the annex.

Why is forest land included here and not in the LULUCF-sector(respectively under forestry)? Furthermore, it is not clear which
other land use classes should be included here and which not.
8292

4

11

459

468

Particularly relevant might be the distinction between natural
grassland or managed grassland as the latter is usually
allocated to agriculture. A close coordination with the data
provided in the LULUCF-sector might be encouraged in thisparagraph.

9494

4

11

476

476

9496

4

11

489

489

5488

4

11

512

513

the term "volatilization" is normally only referred to ammonia,
NOx are normally emitted
add the word "respectively" to distinguish between nitrificationand denitrification
Please write "FracLEACH-(H)" instead of "FracLEACH" in thetwo rhombuses on Figure 11.3 to avoid confusion.
pg. 11.21: FracGASM and FracGASF: The use of units for these

4012

4

11

528

534

two Frac quantities is not consistent with the definition"dimensionless" with other Frac quantities (see lines 335 - 346).
In fact, those other Frac quantities aren't dimensionless.
The volatilisation factors used for the application of synthetic

5426

4

11

585

586

fertilisers (FracGASF) are significantly diverging from UNECE
agreed EMEP factors. EMPE factors are continuously reviewed

Tiffanie STEPHANI(every 3 years) and thus very up-to-date

The scientific literature quoted is correct, but the IPCC
5428

4

11

585

586

guidelines do not include the right numbers as published in thisstudy! Corrections urgently needed here! (see line 1032, Table
11 A.4.)

Tiffanie STEPHANI

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' noteFrank Brentrup

Noted

The new factors developed in this refinement are using the average values
from a total number of 273 studies obtained through the datasets of peerreviewed studies from Bouwman et al (2002) meta-analysis and therecently collated by Pan et al (2016) meta-analysis . We have contactedwith the experts developing the newest FracGASF eF for EMEP and areelaborating there new Efs based on similar datasets. For clarity andtransparency a more comprehensive explanation is provided in the Annex

Alberto Sanz Cobeña

Noted

We're focusing on the soil N2O emissions not on emissions from theresidues and the table of contents doesn't allow us to expand to a newsource.

Tiffanie STEPHANI

Noted

FracLEACH-(H) updated (see Table 11.4, Annex 11A.9)

Accepted

Uncertainties modified

Frank Brentrup

Accepted

Uncertainties modified

Daniel Bretscher

Noted

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

Jan Peter Lesschen

Accepted

Dataset provided in SOD. Country specific FracLeach-(H) can be developed
for Tier 2.

Claus Rösemann

Noted

Dataset provided in SOD.

Claus Rösemann

Noted

Dataset provided in SOD. Countries specific FracLeach-(H) can be
developed for Tier 2.

Claus Rösemann

Rejected

2019 Refinement is based on analysis of large dataset, while 2006GLs isbased on expert judgement, with no reference provided.

The volatilization factors used for the application of synthetic
5452

4

11

585

586

fertilisers (FracGASF) are significantly diverging from UNECE
agreed EMEP factors. EMPE factors are continuously reviewed(every 3 years) and thus very up-to-date

9498

4

11

594

594

ammonia emissions from senescence of crop residues could be
added to the ammonia emission sources
It is unclear why the EF for N losses by leaching/runoff has

5422

4

11

618

621

been changed from 0.3 to 0.32. What are the scientificreferences and the justifications for this change?
The EF for N losses by leaching/runoff assumes per se that
there will be leaching. But with proper fertilizer management

5424

4

11

618

621

that balances N input and N output, leaching from fertilizers can Tiffanie STEPHANI
be prevented. So the uncertainty should be revised to include 0
for such situations.
Best fertilizer management balancing N input and N output can

5450

4

11

618

621

prevent leaching from fertilizers. So, the uncertainty range for
the EF for N losses by leaching/runoff should be revised to 0 in
some cases.

8294

4

11

622

629

The term EF4 seems wrong here. The whole paragraph is about
nitrogen deposited. This would thus be the AD.
It is a pity that still a single Fracleach factor of 0.32 is used, andnot a bit more refined method is provided. This is now an all or
nothing parameter, whereas in reality it will be continual

2504

4

11

655

656

function. Only two papers are stated in Annex 11A.9, although I
assume the analysis is based on more papers. Still it should bepossible to come up with a more refined methodology, e.g. afunction of precipitation surplus and some soil characteristics.

3774

4

11

655

656

3776

4

11

655

656

3784

4

11

655

656

FracLeach-(H) change from 0.30 to 0.32. Is this reasonable??
For me both values feel far too high.
FracLeach-(H): Such a big loss (1/3 of applied N) is not andwas never reflected in (German) fertilization recommendations
FracgasF and FracgasM: 2006 defaults: 0.10 and 0.20. newdefaults: 0.177 and 0.12 => FracgasM > FracgasF: implausible

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To line

3786

4

11

655

656

3790

4

11

655

656

Comment
FracgasF and FracgasM: German actual calculated values (withEMEP 2016 NH3-EF for synthetic fertilizers): 0.06 and 0.16
FracgasF: Disaggregation: From Annex 11.A.7 it is nottransparent how these concrete values were estimatedExpertResponse

Authors' note

Claus Rösemann

Noted

It's interesting to inform us about these values from Germany. Country
specific values can be used at Tier 2. Default values were estimated here
are based on global dataset.

Claus Rösemann

Noted

For clarity and transparency a more comprehensive explanation isprovided in the Annex where explanation for weighting assumptions, forexample, is fully elaborated

Hans-Dieter Haenel

Rejected

Studies used to develop FracGASM reviewed global data including bothdeveloped and developing countries, thus applicable for developed anddeveloping countries.

XIAOBO QIN

Noted

More information provided in the Annex.

XIAOBO QIN

Accepted

Dataset including both fertilizer and manure provided in SOD.

Roland Fuß

Accepted

Uncertainties modified

pg. 11.24, Table 11.4: In the context of Table 11.4 it must be
4014

4

11

655

656

mentioned that, according to its derivation, the Tier 1 value of
FracGASM applies to developing countries but not to developed
countries.
Cai and Akiyama (2018) should be Cai and Akiyama (2016), andin that paper, only N2O loss factors from excreta patches in

4028

4

11

655

658

grassland
ecosystems were summarized, no available data about N2Oemission from groundwater, rivers and estuaries as well EF5g,
EF5r and EF5e
For the value of FracLEACH-(H), the two references represent

4030

4

11

655

655

excreta patches and temperate agroecosystems, respectively.
More typical references should be presented
The given confidence interval (0.26-0.37 instead of 0.1-0.8 prior
to this refinement) for FracLeach-(H) is surprisingly narrow

4116

4

11

655

655

considering the strongly differing agricultural systems intended
to be represented. Are two digits really significant for thisestimate? An attempt should be made to disaggregate intoleaching from mineral fertilizers and from organic N-inputs.
Section 11.2.2.3. In Note at the bottom of the table 11.4 somelinks to international databases where to find data on rainfall,potential and pan evaporation, soil water holding capacity could

4152

4

11

655

655

be inserted. Also with regard to irrigation, an indication of the

Eleonora Di Cristofaro Accepted

Text added for clarification

amount of water used and the irrigation period should beconsidered in the criteria described to assess if and where soil
water-holding capacity is exceeded.
5754

4

11

655

656

In table 11.4, use of urease inhibitors should be recognized in
reducing the default value of FRACGASF for urea.

Thomas Bruulsema

Accepted with
Modification

Tier 1 method is not focused on new mitigation technologies, but countries
can develop an EF for inhibitor application at Tier 2.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Daniel Bretscher

Rejected

This study reviewed (N2O from N deposition + N2O from soil
mineralization)/(N deposition), which is not consistent with the factors.

Daniel Bretscher

Noted

The new factors developed in this refinement are using the average values
from a total number of 273 studies obtained through the datasets of peerreviewed studies from Bouwman et al (2002) meta-analysis and therecently collated by Pan et al (2016) meta-analysis . We have contactedwith the experts developing the newest FracGASF eF for EMEP and areelaborating there new Efs based on similar datasets. Some of thediscrepancies may be caused by assumptions taken on the methodology(e.g. weighting for each study or each type of fertiliser). Changes havebeen made to the 1st version (we have decided not to use the data fromlab experiments) and the values have been modified accordingly.

Wilfried Winiwarter

Accepted

Formatted has been fixed.

Mark Hunstone

Accepted

Revised to include kg

When assessing EF4 you might want to consider the study from
Bühlman et al. 2015 (Bühlmann, T., Hiltbrunner, E., Körner, Ch.,
Rihm, B., Achermann, B. 2015: Induction of indirect N2O and NO
8296

4

11

655

656

emissions by atmospheric nitrogen deposition in (semi-)natural
ecosystems in Switzerland. Atmospheric Environment 103: 94–
101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.12.037). Notethat the assumption that most of the atmospheric N-deposition
occurs on agricultural land might not be applicable to all regions.

At the first glance it seems somewhat unrealistic that the
8298

4

11

655

656

volatilization factor for ammonium-based fertilizers is higher
than for animal manure. Are these values in line with the loss
rates in the latest EMEP/CORINAIR guidebook?

Table 11.4: dual use of superscript is problematic (units to thepower of (-1); footnotes). Suggested solution: do not use
816

4

11

656

656

footnotes to provide references and further details to each of
the parameters, but consistently use the "notes" at the bottomof the table (which has been used for that purpose in partanyway)Footnote includes N2O EFs for rivers and estuaries (0.003 N2ON/kg NO3-N and 0.002 N2O-N/kg NO3-N) should these include
the unit kg for N2O-N? There are also EFs in the wastewater
4806

4

11

658

659

volume (Vol 5, Ch 6 - table 6.12). It would be helpful to provide
a cross reference between these two sets of factors. They
would appear to be consistent assuming that the wastewater
factor is the sum of both rivers and estuaries but this is notclear.

9500

4

11

696

696

Sanz-Cobena was not correctly written, please re-write

Alberto Sanz Cobeña

Accepted

Removed ', ' on line 697

4736

4

11

791

791

N2O, subscript, check other places

KEWEI YU

Accepted

Reformatted as a subscript

4118

4

11

811

811

Roland Fuß

Accepted

Current data does not support the same disaggregation for EF3. The
climate definitions are given in Chapter 3, land representations.

Could the definition of wet/dry be harmonized with thedefinition in Table 11.3? How is the definition justified?

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted

Countries using Tier 1 have aggregated N input data which are notappropriate for the suggested method. An exponential method can beaddressed at higher tiers by countries wishing to do so. Text added todescribe this option. Method for deriving EF1 updated.

Daniel Bretscher

Accepted with
Modification

Countries using Tier 1 have aggregated N input data which are notappropriate for the suggested method. An exponential method can beaddressed at higher tiers by countries wishing to do so. Text added about
this option.

Roland Fuß

Accepted with
Modification

Based on the recommendation from the reviewer, the EF dataset was
analysed using a mixed effect model made.

Sanz-Cobena was not correctly written, please re-write

Alberto Sanz Cobeña

Accepted

Removed ', ' on line 696

Please provide a justification that the mean of measured EFs,i.e., percentage values, is a good estimator of the population's
expected value. In particular, because the relationship between
4120

4

11

818

820

fertilization and N2O emissions is not actually linear (Shcherbak Roland Fußet al., 2014; www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1322434111)
this seems dubious because studies with overfertilization would
be weighted rather strongly in the result.

8300

4

11

821

821

see comment V.4 / Chp. 11 / Ln. 227-235. The EF might be nonlinear.
IPCC should follow the excellent example of Stehfest &Bouwman (2006; DOI 10.1007/s10705-006-9000-7) and use amixed-effects model of N2O vs N input that accounts forstudy/site effects and year effects as random effects. Stehfest& Bouwman log-transformed N2O fluxes to achieve variance

4122

4

11

821

827

homogeneity of residuals, but that is obviously not possible if aconstant emission factor is desired. I suggest to account forvariance heterogeneity by including a variance function structure
in a linear mixed effects model instead. This can be easily done
with, e.g., R package name (https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/nlme/index.html; see Zuur et al.
2009; ISBN 978-0-387-87457-9 for details).

9502

4

11

832

832

9504

4

11

868

868

Sanz-Cobena was not correctly written, please re-write

Alberto Sanz Cobeña

Accepted

Removed ', ' on line 696

4738

4

11

884

884

collated?

KEWEI YU

Rejected

The verb to collate is appropriate

4788

4

11

887

889

Donna Giltrap

Accepted

Text modified

Ole-Kenneth Nielsen

Accepted with
Modification

There is no double counting. Text added 'waste water effluent' as examplesof organic N applied to lines 123 and 496 (for direct and indirect N2Oemissions, respectively)

Claus Rösemann

Noted

It has been decided to change this assumption and not weight the EF fordeveloping countries.

Wilfried Winiwarter

Accepted

Text modified

Wilfried Winiwarter

Accepted

Text modified

This sentence is too long. It needs to be divided into two or
more sentences for clarity
EF5 includes both agricultural and other nitrogen inputs. This

8760

4

11

997

1001

could potentially lead to double counting with the waste sector.
This should be elaborated further and coordinated with theauthors of the waste chapters.

3788

4

11

1011

1011

818

4

11

1012

1012

820

4

11

1013

1013

FracgasF: default value is based on weighted data fordeveloping countries. This has to be mentioned in Table 4.11
"EF's" or "EF values"
would be good to note here that IPCC default factors may bedifferent to those of EMEP/EEA guidebook; citation is missing!

Comment
ID

5430

Volume4

Chapter

11

From line

1032

To line1034

Comment

ExpertThe scientific literature quoted is correct, but the IPCC guidelines do notinclude the right numbers as published in this study! Corrections
Tiffanie STEPHANI
urgently needed here!

Response

Authors' note

Noted

Discrepancies with Bowman et al (2002) were mainly caused by having
selected the average (but unweighted values) from Table 2 of Bowman(2012) (e.g. for urea: 21% vs 14%) and Efs from Pan et al (2016) are directly
obtained from the data from Supplementary Table S1 where EF are shown.
This info actually attached to the article in the Supplementary dataassociated with this article, in the online version, at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.08.019. In order to derive the final
Ef that integrates both Bowman´s and Pan´s reviews, a weighting factor has
been applied to account for the different number of studies in each metaanalysis. Modifications have been made to the original approach and adifferent weighting based on the number of studies is being proposed. Thisweighting may be the source of discrepancy with the data that thereviewer may have expected. The explanations are further elaborated in
the annex.

Noted

The new factors developed in this refinement are using the average values
from a total number of 273 studies obtained through the datasets of peerreviewed studies from Bouwman et al (2002) meta-analysis and therecently collated by Pan et al (2016) meta-analysis . We have contactedwith the experts developing the newest FracGASF eF for EMEP and areelaborating there new Efs based on similar datasets. For clarity andtransparency a more comprehensive explanation is provided in the Annex

Noted

Discrepancies with Bowman et al (2002) were mainly caused by having
selected the average (but unweighted values) from Table 2 of Bowman(2012) (e.g. for urea: 21% vs 14%) and Efs from Pan et al (2016) are directly
obtained from the data from Supplementary Table S1 where EF are shown.
This info actually attached to the article in the Supplementary dataassociated with this article, in the online version, at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.08.019. In order to derive the final
Ef that integrates both Bowman´s and Pan´s reviews, a weighting factor has
been applied to account for the different number of studies in each metaanalysis. Modifications have been made to the original approach and adifferent weighting based on the number of studies is being proposed. Thisweighting may be the source of discrepancy with the data that thereviewer may have expected. The explanations are further elaborated in
the annex.

Accepted

The example that has been mentioned on the EF for nitrate fertiliser refers
only to an old study from Cornforth & Chesney, (1971) using sodium
nitrate. The reviewer has a good point as possibly it does not make any
sense that we based this Ef only on one old study. New values have been
calculated accordingly.

Table 11A.4: The IPCC guidelines should use the EMEP factors
5432

4

11

1032

1034

as a reference, especially as those are continuously reviewed

Tiffanie STEPHANI(every 3 years) and thus very up-to-date.

Table 11A.4. If the emission factors for NH3 were derived froman own new analysis of data from individual studies cited in thereferenced papers (Bouwman et al. 2002; Pan et al. 2016) then
5436

4

11

1032

1034

the raw data and results should be made public to ensure

Tiffanie STEPHANItransparency. This is particularly important because the values
given in Table 11A.4. are not the same as the values publishedby Bouwman et al. and Pan et al.. Why is there a difference?

The emission factors calculated do not follow established
5438

4

11

1032

1034

scientific principles/theory . e.g. why should a nitrate fertilizer
that contains no ammonium emit any ammonia and even more
NH3 than ammonium nitrate?

Tiffanie STEPHANI

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Noted

The new factors developed in this refinement are using the average values
from a total number of 273 studies obtained through the datasets of peerreviewed studies from Bouwman et al (2002) meta-analysis and therecently collated by Pan et al (2016) meta-analysis . We have contactedwith the experts developing the newest FracGASF eF for EMEP and areelaborating there new Efs based on similar datasets. For clarity andtransparency a more comprehensive explanation is provided in the Annex

Noted

Discrepancies with Bowman et al (2002) were mainly caused by having
selected the average (but unweighted values) from Table 2 of Bowman(2012) (e.g. for urea: 21% vs 14%) and Efs from Pan et al (2016) are directly
obtained from the data from Supplementary Table S1 where EF are shown.
This info actually attached to the article in the Supplementary dataassociated with this article, in the online version, at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.08.019. In order to derive the final
Ef that integrates both Bowman´s and Pan´s reviews, a weighting factor has
been applied to account for the different number of studies in each metaanalysis. Modifications have been made to the original approach and adifferent weighting based on the number of studies is being proposed. Thisweighting may be the source of discrepancy with the data that thereviewer may have expected. The explanations are further elaborated in
the annex.

Accepted

The example that has been mentioned on the EF for nitrate fertiliser refers
only to an old study from Cornforth & Chesney, (1971) using sodium
nitrate. The reviewer has a good point as possibly it does not make any
sense that we based this Ef only on one old study. New values have been
calculated accordingly.

Noted

The new factors developed in this refinement are using the average values
from a total number of 273 studies obtained through the datasets of peerreviewed studies from Bouwman et al (2002) meta-analysis and therecently collated by Pan et al (2016) meta-analysis . We have contactedwith the experts developing the newest FracGASF eF for EMEP and areelaborating the new Efs based on similar datasets. For clarity andtransparency a more comprehensive explanation is provided in the Annex.
Text has been added in the annex referring to this comparison (IPCC vs
EMEP).

Accepted

The discrepancies were mainly caused because the calculations of EF weremade by using the individual data from each study from the supporting
information , a spreadsheet containing the "Dataset S1 Dataset of 520 field
NO flux measurements compiled from 114 publications". As looking indetail the spreadsheet does not seem to be clear enough to replicate theresults from the main article, it is decided to use the Ef shown in the main
text

Table 11A.4: The IPCC guidelines should use the EMEP factors
5454

4

11

1032

1034

as a reference, especially as those are continuously reviewed

Frank Brentrup(every 3 years) and thus very up-to-date.

Table 11A.4. If the emission factors for NH3 were derived froman own new analysis of data from individual studies cited in thereferenced papers (Bouwman et al. 2002; Pan et al. 2016) then
5458

4

11

1032

1034

the raw data and results should be made public to ensure

Frank Brentrup

transparency. This is particularly important because the values
given in Table 11A.4. are not the same as the values publishedby Bouwman et al. and Pan et al.. Why is there a difference?

The emission factors calculated do not follow scientific logic.
5460

4

11

1032

1034

E.g. why should a nitrate fertilizer that contains no ammonium

Frank Brentrup

emit more ammonia than ammonium nitrate?

8302

4

11

1032

1035

Are these NH3-losses comparable to those suggested in thelatest EMEP/CORINAIRE Guidebook?

Daniel Bretscher

Table 11A.5: The scientific literature quoted is correct, but the
IPCC guidelines do not include the right numbers as published
5434

4

11

1040

1041

in this study! Corrections urgently needed here! (e.g. EF for AN
in this table = 3.37% with n=11, while in Liu et al = 2.93 with
n=30)

Tiffanie STEPHANI

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' noteFrank Brentrup

Accepted

The discrepancies were mainly caused because the calculations of EF weremade by using the individual data from each study from the supporting
information , a spreadsheet containing the "Dataset S1 Dataset of 520 field
NO flux measurements complied from 114 publications". As looking indetail the spreadsheet does not seen to be clear enough to replicate theresults from the main article, it is decided to use the Ef shown in the maintext

Claus Rösemann

Noted

Mean FracGASM values for cattle and sheep are similar, therefore no need
to weight according to livestock population.

Claus Rösemann

Noted

Mean FracGASM values for cattle and sheep are similar, therefore no need
to weight according to livestock population.

Claus Rösemann

Noted

Mean FracGASM values for cattle and sheep are similar, therefore no need
to weight according to livestock population.

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

Paper and dataset provided in SOD.

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

Paper and dataset provided in SOD.

Claus Rösemann

Accepted

Paper and dataset provided in SOD.

Noted

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

Table 11A.5: The scientific literature quoted is correct, but the
IPCC guidelines do not include the right numbers as published
5456

4

11

1040

1041

in this study! Corrections urgently needed here! (e.g. EF for AN
in this table = 3.37% with n=11, while in Liu et al = 2.93 with
n=30)
FracgasM: number of studies (49, 7, 18) do not represent the

3792

4

11

1061

1062

relative shares of the contributions of cattle excreta, sheep
excreta and manure => wrong weighted mean
FracgasM: manure application NH3-Emission is

3794

4

11

1061

1062

underrepresented in the derivation (N=18) (cattle excreta
N=49), this leads to the low FracgasM default

3796

4

11

1061

1062

FracgasM: if there had been 1000 studies for cattle excreta withthe same mean (7,86 %) FracgasM would result in 0.08???
FracLeach-(H): As far as I can see CAI & AKIYAMA (2016) only

3778

4

11

1083

1084

examined leaching from "excreta patches" and not from
intentionally fertilized crops. Does this justifies the changes of
FracLeach and EF 5? My opinion: no

3780

4

11

1085

1086

3782

4

11

1087

1087

FracLeach-(H): As far as I can see, data in Di & Cameron (2002)(Table 1 or 2) does not generally support such high losses.
FracLeach-(H): additional data sources. How can be writtenthat the value is 0.32 when the analysis is not yet completed?
With regard to the statement "These latter emissions [natural

9040

4

11

228
footnoteemissions] are very low. While I realize that this footnote isunchanged from the 2006 document, I think it would be useful to Reynald Lemke
provide a small update to include some reference(s) to support
the statement.

NOTE: Due to strong time constraints within our Division at thistime of the year (right in the middle of the GHG-NIR production
cycle) I could not review Vol 4, Chapters 2, 3 and 12 as I was
6042

4

12

generalplanning to. Hope to have a better chance to review theseAna Blondel

Noted

Anna Mikis

Noted

chapters in the upcoming SOD version.
In any case, I hope this short list of observations can be still
useful at this point.
2522

4

12

generalEntire chapter needs proof-reading

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Mary Booth

Accepted with
Modification

To the extent possible within our remit, by revision of Sections 12.3 and12.4 the authors try to address the concerns expressed by the comment.
Furthermore, a category representing the use of HWP as fuel already exists
and is introduced in Section 12.5.1.1.

Mary Booth

Noted

To increase transparency concerning the amount of forest
carbon that is sent into the atmosphere by being burned forenergy, it would be helpful to create a new category of HWP forbiomass fuels. Moving biomass and wood pellets out of thecategory of products that are simply accounted for by stock loss,
and into the category of HWP for which product accounting is

8960

4

12

1

1

explicitly done, would increase transparency for both exportingand importing countries. In reality, the only difference between
biomass fuel that is exported and other HWP that are exported
is the time between manufacturing and oxidation of thematerial. The guidance can therefore specify a new category
and a new half-life for that category at Table 12.3 (line 816)
specifying a half-life of 6 months or so.

Giving countries the option to pick different reporting
approaches creates problems. Eliminating a couple of the
8962

4

12

1

1

options would decrease the confusion, but so would requiring all
countries to report their numbers using all the approaches. This
would increase transparency around the issue of how thereporting approach affects the outcome.

Comment
ID

8948

Volume4

Chapter

12

From line

1

To lineComment

Expert1

The purpose of these comments is to make suggestions how theguidance might be improved so that reporting is more transparent about
emissions from the use of bioenergy (including observations on parts ofthe guidance where the writing could be improved to clarify meaning).
The current treatment of bioenergy in the policy world - for instance, thetreatment of bioenergy as having zero emissions in the EU's carbon
trading program, and the large subsidies given to convert coal plants tobiomass - are largely based on the treatment of bioenergy as having zero
emissions. This convention can be traced in part back to the reporting
and accounting conventions utilized by the IPCC. There appear to be acouple conventions in IPCC reporting that contribute to the biomass CO2“loophole.” First, most obviously, emissions from wood harvested
specifically for biomass fuel (such as wood pellets exported from North
Mary BoothAmerica to the EU) are not counted except as a change in carbon stocks
in the land use sector. This is because wood pellets and other biomass
fuel do not have their own category in the list of HWP that are tracked by
IPCC reporting. This could be fixed by giving biomass fuels their own
category for reporting as HWP. Second, many if not most countries use
the production approach when reporting HWP emissions, which meansthat emissions from imported end-of-life HWP that are burned forenergy are not counted in-country, whereas disposal emissions frommaterials that country exported are supposed to be reported (yet it isunlikely these emissions can be reported accurately). This problem could
be fixed by eliminating the production approach and having all countries
report the emissions from products in use (including imported biomass
fuels).

Response

Authors' note

Accepted with
Modification

To the extent possible within our remit, by revision of Sections 12.3 and12.4 the authors try to address the concerns expressed by the comment.
Furthermore, a category representing the use of HWP as fuel already exists
and is introduced in Section 12.5.1.1.
The elimination of the 'production' approach is out of scope.

HWP can comprise a large proportion of the sequestration
claimed by the US. For instance, the US 2015 GHG inventory
8950

4

12

1

1

reports 95.9 MMT of CO2 as sequestration in HWP in use and in
landfills out of a total 667 MMT, or 14.3% (Table 6-10). It is

Mary Booth

Noted

Mary Booth

Accepted

therefore important to get the accounting right and make surethat HWP are properly credited.

The document needs to explain more clearly how the choice ofaccounting method for HWP affects the outcome. Perhaps text
from the 2006 guidelines will be included that performs thisfunction, but as it stands now this document needs a lot more
8952

4

12

1

1

explanation. It would be helpful to include a table that shows
the outcome for different combinations of exporting country
approach and importing country approach, specifying whether
HWP are overcounted, undercounted, or not counted at all,would be helpful.

To the extent possible within our remit, by revision of Sections 12.3 and12.4 the authors try to address the concerns expressed by the comment.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Mary Booth

Accepted

In general, Chapter 12 is not easy to read, both because it iscovers complex material, and also because sometimes thewriting is not very clear. The document needs a thorough editthat shortens sentences and removes embedded clauses,
ensures that subjects match verbs, etc. For example, thissentence (line 290– 294 requires several readings to evenunderstand what it is supposed to say: “As the chosen

8954

4

12

1

1

calculation method (i.e. inventory or flux data methods) and theapplied data that are used for estimating the emissions andremovals of CO2 due to HWP have implicit impact on thecalculated system boundaries and in consequence on whether
the estimated emissions and removals of CO2 due to HWP
correspond to the national boarders or not, any method to be
applied needs to be cross-checked against whether and how it
corresponds and relates to the selected approach.” Have somemercy on the reader!

726

4

12

1

1200

1.)    The HWP chapter (volume 4, chapter 12) describes 4 different
approaches for estimating emissions related to harvested wood
products, each with its own set of system boundaries. The challengewith offering 4 different sets of system boundaries is that it virtuallyassures double counting and avoided accounting, with each Party able tochoose the system boundaries that best meet its own purposes. The
Gregg Marland
chapter describes these alternative approaches so clearly that it isimmediately obvious how double and under accounting are invited (see,for example, text lines 272-282). To provide useful accounting by
multiple Parties it is necessary to have consistent system boundaries
adhered to by all.

Noted1.)    The issue of the approach to accounting is a remnant of
the very first meeting held to define the accounting approach for
HWP, held in Dakar, Senegal, in 1998. The representatives
present were unable to arrive at a unanimous agreement on
how to proceed and the 4 approaches that were discussed were
728

4

12

1

1200

all left on the table. Some 20 years later this is no longer an
acceptable decision and someone (The IPCC) has now to makea decision that will be pressed forward and used by all Parties.
Having participated in that Dakar meeting, it is my personal
feeling that the meeting was very close to agreement but could
not achieve the desired unanimity.

Gregg Marland

Noted

Authors' noteComment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Gregg Marland

Noted

Gregg Marland

Noted

Gregg Marland

Noted

Authors' note

The prevailing view in Dakar, and the approach that seems mostclear and useful in the current chapter text, is to treat harvested
wood products in the same way that trade in petroleum
products has always been treated. While the stock change

730

4

12

1

1200

approach thus seems to me the most consistent and viableapproach, the really critical issue is to select one approach andto use it with consistency across all countries. It is hard to getto the remainder of this chapter without first agreeing on systemboundaries

1.)    The other, related point is that trying to preserve 4
approaches results in a chapter that is exceedingly complex anda challenge to use for any one of them. It is well past time to
732

4

12

1

1200

make a choice. (see Marland, E.S., K. Stellar, and G. Marland,
2010. A distributed approach to accounting for carbon in wood
products, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Change 15:71-91.)

1.)    The widespread current debate on the “carbon neutrality”
of biofuels is a consequence of unclear system boundaries for
734

4

12

1

1200

their carbon accounting. An accounting decision by the IPCC is
desperately needed. The focus and accuracy of this entire
chapter are clouded by failure to define system boundaries foraccounting.

736

4

12

1

1200

1.)    Assuming that a decision on accounting system boundaries can bemade, it will then be possible to move forward and discuss accounting
methods - and the first challenge will then be to confront the service lifeof wood products, including wood fuels. The current chapter presents
the possibility that wood products are removed from service according
Gregg Marland
to a first order exponential decay pattern. The chapter has considerable
text on the problems of the first order decay approximation, and it
expresses the view that alternative patters are possible; but it does not
introduce recent literature in which alternate patterns are presented anddiscussed in detail.

Noted

The authors note that the proposed Tier 3 method is under development,
but it is not within scope to describe this country-specific method in theguidance.

Comment
ID

738

Volume4

Chapter

12

From line

1

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

12001.)    Our research group at Appalachian State University, for example,
has described methods where the half-life of products can be expressedin a more flexible way to capture the true lifetime distribution of
products, a process that makes considerable difference for long-lived
products. The U.S. system of reporting to the UNFCC has experimented
with our methods and our understanding is that it will be incorporated
into the core of the U.S. emissions estimates for HWP in the future. The
Gregg Marland
methods are conceptually clear and only slightly more complex
mathematically. (see Marland, E.S., K. Stellar, and G. Marland, 2010. A
distributed approach to accounting for carbon in wood products,
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 15:71-91.) (seealso Bates, L., B. Jones, E. Marland, G. Marland, T. Ruseva, T. Kowalczyk,
and J. Hoyle, 2017. Accounting for harvested wood products in a forest
offset program: lessons from California, Journal of Forest Economics 27:
50-59.)

Noted

The authors note that the proposed Tier 3 method is under development,
but it is not within scope to describe this country-specific method in theguidance.

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted with
Modification

Depending on the context it is sometimes appropriate to refer back to theoriginal IPCC 2006 GL. However, the authors have reviewed the crossreferences and streamlined themPaula Ollila

Accepted with
Modification

The authors have reviewed the references and revised them in the light ofthe comment.

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with

Editorial

It is weird to refer back to the 2006 GL in a refinement of these
7202

4

12

1

1261

GL - maybe this can be replaced with a cross-reference within
the 2019 GL refinement?
Since a significant new reference to the chapter is a German
language doctoral thesis of 270 by Rüter (2017) pages and since

5374

4

12

1

1261

very few of the people using the guidance understand German,
it would be practical to refer to the exact page of the thesis ineach refence. Otherwise it is impossible to find the specificissue in the thesis.

3286

4

12

27

27

Specify the Table.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

4740

4

12

38

41

Total, Chosen, upper case? Other places

KEWEI YU

4742

4

12

48

48

calculation, lower case?

KEWEI YU

4744

4

12

60

65

CO2, subscript, check other places

KEWEI YU

3288

4

12

60

68

Subscript for CO2.

1206

The national greenhouse gas inventories report carbon stock changes(plus non-CO2 gases), but in this chapter is discussed about CO2. Could
the authors consider to revert to use carbon instead of CO2. There are
lot of quotes and cfs, consider to remove them to make the text more
Tarja Tuomainenreadable. Also, I recommend to check all 'good practices' and consider ifother wording would be more appropriate to encourage inventory
compilers to produce good quality estimates for their inventories.

6694

4

12

72

Modification
Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with

Modification
Accepted withCARLOS SANQUETTA
Modification

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial
Editorial
Editorial
Editorial

The authors have reviewed the text of this chapter and revised it in thelight of the comment.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertAcceptedCARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted with
Modification

Vincent Camobreco

Noted

7820

4

12

73

73

Section 12.2 of the table refers to providing clarification on theimplications of selecting one of the HWPs approach. This is a vital
objective for these Refinements, which appears to have been left out of
the FOD. It is critical for the future effectiveness of the UNFCCC and Paris
Agreement, including global stocktakes of collective progress towards
the objectives of the Convention, that GHG Inventories support accurate
global estimates of anthropogenic emissions and removals. National
Maya Huntchoices in HWPs approaches have potential to contribute to significant
global double counting/no counting of emissions with the HWP pool. It is
important that these guidelines make clear the global double counting
implications of any choice in HWP approach, in order to inform
countries' choice. It should be possible for the Refinements to provide
this information, without restricting countries' choices.

3290

4

12

73

73

Renumbering of the tables required.
The table presented on page 12.5 is very helpful in providing an

Response

Authors' note

Editorial

overview of the updates included in the 2019 Refinement and
5944

4

12

73

74

how they relate to the 2006 Guidelines. A similar table would be
beneficial for other sections of the 2019 Refinement to assist
Inventory Compilers with using the new 2019 Refinement
guidance.

Table 12.X: Is this table going to stay in the final version?. If this
193

4

12

73

74

is the case, to ensure consistency with the rest of the chapters, CRISTINA GARCIA
it should be deleted, or the same kind of table should be

DIAZ

included in the rest of chapters.

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with

Editorial

Maya Hunt

Accepted with
Modification

To the extent possible within our remit, by revision of Sections 12.3 and12.4 the authors try to address the concerns expressed by the comment.

Fabiano Ximenes

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Begin the new sentence with ' The section also includes', delete Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Ulrike Doering

Noted

8308

4

12

77

77

insert 'the' before IPCC

Eugene Hendrick

8310

4

12

78

78

insert 'the' before IPCC

Eugene Hendrick

As per the comment against line 73, the section on clarifying the
7822

4

12

84

84

implications of different HWPs approaches for reporting
anthropogenic GHGs appears to be missing.

1554

4

12

89

93

8312

4

12

90

90

This is a very long and somewhat confusing sentence - pleasebreak it up into two or three sentences to enhance clarity.
Suggest delete 'whilst' and insert full stop. Begin next sentence'Section 12.5'
Suggest replace comma after 'approaches' with a full stop.

8314

4

12

92

92

'including' and continue with existing text
8316

4

12

94

94

Noted

delete 'in this guidance'. It is not needed and is slightly
confusing.

Modification

The chapter 12.2 "Terms and Definitions" seems in general very
824

4

12

96

128

helpful to understand the methodology of the different
approaches and the ideas which lay behind.

Editorial

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To line

8318

4

12

97

97

9842

4

12

99

116

8320

4

12

101

3292

4

12

101

Comment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Useful separation between approach and method

Anke Herold

101

inset period after al. in 'Brown et al'

Eugene Hendrick

Editorial

101

Replace et by et al.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Noted
Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

The authors revised the text in the light of the comment .

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Rejected

It is not appropriate to include this elaboration in the definition. Further
discussion in the relevant sections on methods.

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

Accepted

The section has completely been revised to demonstrate neutrality withregard to the approaches.

Suggest delete the word 'some' - it is implicit that the text
provides sufficient definitions for its interpretation

Suggest replace ', that is, system boundary, defining' with '; the
8322

4

12

102

103

system boundary defines'. The proposed replacement isintended to make the text easier to read.

8324

4

12

106

106

8326

4

12

108

108

8328

4

12

114

114

9844

4

12

119

126

8330

4

12

127

127

7824

4

12

130

215

Suggest replace 'As such' with 'Therefore' - more appropriate
word for a definition
Suggest delete ', in a strict sense, approaches' This to remove
ambiguity from the definition
Suggest delete 'techniques' add s to make 'calculation' plural.
To maintain consistent wording

Difference between inventory based methods and second type of fluxbased method not very clear. Inventory method also seem to track flues
Anke Heroldof CO2 through the stages of wood processing changes , please clarify
the differences.
Suggest delete '(i.e. scientific literature)' as it's not needed. Adds to 'method'

Eugene Hendrick

The section on 'Approaches' appears to be heavily biased in favour of theStock Change approach. The language is frequently selective, andappears to be seeking to introduce a bias against the Production
approach. The instant oxidation approach should also be considered forlisting. Ideally it would be described first, then the Production approach - Maya Huntas that which is likely most globally accurate when combined with thenext-most common approach, instant oxidation approach, as together in
combination that avoid global double counting/no counting. Additional,
more specific comments are given against specific lines, below.

Modification

Global system boundaries are very important. You cannot use
different approaches in different countries. You can keep therelevant data for all methods in case a different choice is made
538

4

12

130

245

later, but you must pick one. Otherwise you will end up with
importing countries using the production method and exporting

Eric Marland

Noted

Eric Marland

Noted

countries using the atmos. flow method and lots of emissions
will be lost completely. Leakage in this situation could bemassive and all other errors might be irrelevant in comparison.
540

4

12

130

245

The explanations of the approaches is actually very good, justnot useful from a policy point of view.

Editorial

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To line

542

4

12

130

245

Comment
The logical choice of method is to use the same one as thefossil fuel section … be consistent.
Only two approaches should be noted as permissible – theExpertResponse

Authors' note

Eric Marland

Noted

Max Collett

Noted

Anke Herold

Rejected

In this context, the relevant approach is called 'stock-change' approach
which estimates emissions/removals based HWP consumption data

Accepted with
Modification

The section has completely been revised. As part of this, it has been
explained that simple decay is a particular interpretation of how to
implement the 'production' approach.

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

comparable ‘stock-change’ approach and ‘atmospheric flow’
approach. Allowing the use of ‘production’ and ‘stock-changesof domestic origin’ approaches would introduce inconsistency
within inventories and incomparability between the inventories
of reporting countries, and allow multiple countries to report loss
or gain of the same quantity of wood products based on the
combination of approaches selected, or potentially allow theemissions of a quantity of wood to be excluded from accounting
by all countries. This is contrary to the principles ofcompleteness, accuracy and internal consistency andcomparability.
7400

4

12

132

142

Even if all countries were to adopt the Production approach,issues of accuracy would remain, as countries would be forced
to make assumptions about the future treatment of exported
material in sovereign jurisdictions with which they will have
limited familiarity. The 'stock-change of domestic production' issimilarly problematic for reasons outlined below on 12.3.1.
Best practice on comparability and completeness is exemplified
in the System of National Accounts (SNA 2008) (United Nations,
European Commission, IMF, OECD, World Bank, 2009) which
defines an internationally-comparable production boundary forthe express purpose of ensuring all sovereign countries produce
complete economic information on a comparable basis (see SNA
2008 paragraphs 1.1, 1.4 & 1.33-35, noting that the term

9846

4

12

134

135

9848

4

12

139

142

8332

4

12

141

141

8334

4

12

142

142

‘consistency’ is used in place of ‘comparability’ in SNA
Often a 'consumption approach' is also mentioned, please relate
to the terms used here.

What is the 'simple decay' approach? please explain. If this is theinstantaneous oxidation assumption, it would be highly important to add
and explain as not all countries may have the data and capacities toAnke Herold
estimate one of the HWP approaches, but the previous default is nolonger mentioned and IPCC guidelines do no longer mirror the practicalreality of many countries.
Suggest insert 'from it' after 'and only differs' To make clear thereference is to the production approach
Suggest insert comma after ')' - before 'it'. Replace 'discussed'with 'described' for consistency with beginning of para.

Comment
ID

Volume6658

4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Tarja Tuomainen

Noted

To the extent possible within our remit, by revision of Sections 12.3 and12.4 the authors try to address the question expressed in the comment.

Anke Herold

Accepted

To the extent possible within our remit, by revision of Sections 12.3 and12.4 the authors try to address the request expressed by the comment.

145

Yes, this paragraph is useful in stressing the importance of theimplications of the choice of HWP approach - but seems to imply that the
distribution of emissions across the AFOLU sector and the economy are
the only concern, and not the distribution across actual countries. Thissection should be elaborated with further explanation of the global
double counting / no counting implications of different combinations of
the different approaches, by different countries. This could be presented
as a matrix table, for example. The intention should not be to constrain
countries' choice of approach, but to inform their choice, as well as toprovide guidance and clarity on how the extent of any double counting Maya Huntoccurring can be estimated and taken into account in any global
summaries. The UNFCCC already provides synthesis reports of GHG
inventory estimates, so it cannot be argued that global aggregation is nota relevant consideration for inventories. Ideally, this chapter would
provide countries with clear reporting guidance on how to report
separately any portion of their HWPs emissions and removals that is at
risk of being double counted under any of the approaches, so that any
global aggregation can compile comparable estimates from all countries,
with accuracy and integrity.

Accepted with
Modification

To the extent possible within our remit, by revision of Sections 12.3 and12.4 the authors try to address the concerns expressed by the comment.

145

The text does not give compilers sufficient guidance about the"implications" of their choice of approach, and these implications include
over- or under-reporting emissions, which affect the accuracy of thereporting. Thus, countries need additional guidance about how to fulfil
the TACCC principles with respect to their choice of approach. One way
the risk of over- or under-reporting emissions arises is due to differencesin accounting approaches between importing and exporting countries.
Depending on the approaches used by each country, the carbon intraded HWPs could be reported once, twice, or not at all. The volume of
Jason Funktrade in HWPs is significant for many countries, and therefore theguidance should explicitly indicate how their choice of approach vis-a-vis
their trading partner(s) will affect the estimated emissions from HWPs ineach country. One suggestion is that the implications could be madeclear by including a simple table in the guidance near this point in the
text. The table should show the choice of approach by exporting country
in the columns and the choice of approach by importing country in therows. The cells of this matrix should indicate the number of times HWPemissions will be counted (zero, one, or two times) for each combinationof approaches by importing and exporting countries.

Accepted with
Modification

To the extent possible within our remit, by revision of Sections 12.3 and12.4 the authors try to address the concerns expressed by the comment.

In the energy sector, emissions from actually burned biomass in
12

143

145

a country are reported. So, hoe the HWP approach would have
implications on that?

9850

7826

7832

4

4

4

12

12

12

143

143

143

145

please do not only state the implications across other sectors,
but also explain.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' notepeter riggs

Accepted with
Modification

To the extent possible within our remit, by revision of Sections 12.3 and12.4 the authors try to address the concerns expressed by the comment.

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

The text does not give national authorities adequate guidance
about the implications of their choice of approach. There is a
substantial risk of under- and over-reporting, which is a growing
problem in light of growing international trade volumes of pellet
and other feedstocks for biomass burning. At a minimum
guidance should be explicit about the approach taken, and how
the choice of approach vis-a-vis trading partners could affectthe estimated emissions from HWPs in each country. Including

9176

4

12

143

145

a table in the guidance here, or at other points in the text
suggested below, that shows the choice of approach by theexporting country in the column, and the choice of approach byimporting countries in the rows; the cells of the matrix would
then indicate the number of times (0, 1, 2) that HWP emissions
would be counted for each combination of approaches. Below I
argue however that the better path would be to eliminate use of
the production approach, and Stock- Changes of Domestic
Origin approach.

Suggest change 'other sectors of inventories' to 'other inventory

8336

4

12

144

144

8338

4

12

145

145

no comment

Eugene Hendrick

Noted

6660

4

12

146

147

Errors in writing?

Tarja Tuomainen

Accepted with
Modification

The comment has been addressed by a more general revision of the text.

7996

4

12

146

146

In the following, Section 12.3.1 described carbon pool-based approaches
Abdul Nayamuth
and Section 12.3.2 describes the available (read describes)

Accepted with
Modification

The comment has been addressed by a more general revision of the text.

sectors'

Countries should be strongly encouraged to use the atmospheric
5632

4

12

148

161

flow approach since that is the only one that accurately reflects

Richard Birdsey

Noted

beginning the relevant approach for the resp. Country. Very good Ulrike Doering

Noted

the net emissions from wood products that occur within theirgeographic boundaries.
Chapter 12.3 is really important to choose just from the

826

4

12

148

245

for understanding what is necessary.

2086

4

12

150

152

Two comments:- this sentence describes the generic IPCC method for biomass pools, so
it must not be referred to a specific reference- a negative C stock change in the biomass stock equals to an emission,
so that the negative C stock change must be multiplied by -44/12 to beconverted to CO2 emissions

Sandro Federici

Accepted

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted

The structure and purpose of this para is unclear. The wording
8340

4

12

150

152

'sum up these changes and define the negative change
multiplied by 44/12' is not clear

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To line

6664

4

12

150

161

Comment
Consider to omit or change the place of this section. The term
inflow is used before it is defined and the approaches described.

ExpertResponse

Tarja Tuomainen

Accepted

Authors' note

7402

4

12

153

159

Only one approach should be described – the ‘stock-change’ approach.
This is to ensure that the production of wood is treated consistently withthe production of other sources of carbon entering economic systems,
such as coal, oil and gas, and with emissions arising in the consumptiondriven waste sector (including from the decay of wood products) which
are calculated on the basis of domestic consumption and disposal ofinternational production. Emissions associated with fossil fuels aretreated on the basis of their consumption within the economy, which
can be assessed as the domestic production of fossil fuels, plus their
Max Collett
imports, less their exports. The principles of completeness, accuracy andconsistency must be maintained between sectors in order to maintain ascientifically defensible inventory system. Also see comments on 12.3
above.
Of particular concern for consistency is the new 'stock-change ofdomestic origin' approach, which is also contrary to the principles ofcompleteness, as it allows all internationally traded biomass, including
CO2 emissions arising from their combustion, to be excluded from
reporting and accounting. Also see comments on 12.4 below.

8342

4

12

155

155

Suggest change 'is calculated from the varying combination of thefollowing statistical elements' to 'uses the following HWP statistics' To
make the text simpler and easier to understandEugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

The comment has been addressed by a more general revision of the text.

Accepted with
Modification

The comment has been addressed by a more general revision of the text.

Eugene Hendrick

Noted

Karachepone Ninan

Noted

SUGGESTION: Add "including exports" at the end of the

CRISTINA GARCIA

sentence.

DIAZ

Accepted with
Modification

6662

4

12

157

157

Do not see the need for 'calculated consumption' to define inflow. If it isincluded prefer to use wording 'calculated domestic consumption' or
Tarja Tuomainen'domestic consumption'.

8344

4

12

157

157

no comment

Noted

Since you are including imports and exports of HWP in the
776

4

12

157

159

calculations is there any possibility or risk of double counting
across nations/countries ? What is the precaution taken to
avoid double counting ?

195

4

12

158

158

SUGGESTION: delete "stock-changes of domestic origin"
194

4

12

159

159

approach. The mandate in the outline is clear. Update the technical parameters MAINTAINING the existing approaches.

8346

4

12

161

161

Suggest change 'whereas' to 'while'

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ
Eugene Hendrick

Just a general comment. Do you have separate emission rates
778

4

12

162

162

across different types of wood say tropical woods andpinewoods ? Are there any guidelines for these ?

Karachepone Ninan

The comment has been addressed by a more general revision of the text.

Accepted
Accepted with
Modification
Noted

Editorial
To the authors' knowledge, the use of HWP from different wood species
with different technical properties lead to different market applications
implying different or country-specific emission factors. Guidance isprovided in Section 12.5.3.2.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Tarja Tuomainen

Accepted with
Modification

The comment has been addressed by a more general revision of the text.

Accepted with
Modification

The section has completely been revised to demonstrate neutrality withregard to the approaches.

Tarja Tuomainen

Accepted with
Modification

The text has been revised in the light of the comment.

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

In the light of the comment the figure has been improved.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Tarja Tuomainen

Accepted with
Modification

In the light of the comment the figure has been improved.

Please check the terminology. The 'forest pool' or 'wood carbon
stock' are not discussed in IPCC guidelines. Instead there is a
6666

4

12

165

165

biomass carbon pool and forest land as a land use category.
But the HWP under the UNFCCC reporting is not limited only
wood originating from forests but also from other land uses.

7828

4

12

170

170

6668

4

12

176

176

This line illustrates the bias throughout the chapter in favour of the Stockchange approach, as opposed to the Production approach. It is notaccurate to suggest that the former reports both 'when' and 'where'
emissions occur, whereas the production approach only reports when
they occur. It would be equally accurate to say that the Production
approach reports 'what and when', whereas the stock change approach
only reports 'when'. The fact is, it is subjective whether the emissions
from HWPs occur as a result of the consumption alone of wood - or also
from the original act of cutting down the tree. If human harvest choices
are just as important for mitigation as wood processing decisions, then it
Maya Huntis not balanced or accurate to paint the Production approach in such apoor light. Ultimately, once a tree is harvested, an emission will
ultimately occur. The Production approach enables a country torecognise and report these inevitable emissions, that occur as a result of
its own forest management actions. The Production approach also hasmuch greater capacity to avoid global double counting/no counting,when provided as an option alongside the instant oxidation approach. It
was endorsed under the Kyoto Protocol. Please therefore revise these
sections to give at least equal recognition for the Production approach.
Thank you.
Activity data' is mentioned first time. What is activity data forstock change approach?
Figure 12.1. The schematic at the bottom of the figure with text

8348

4

12

178

178

'applied default data to calculate' in the arrow and the following
text 'to calculate the stock change approach' is not needed andthe term applied default data is not explained

3294

4

12

178

180

Standardize fonts of the figure in accordance with other in the
document. Rütter (2017).
Figure 12.1 What does the 'applied default data to calculate' inthe arrow mean? It seams that there are three inflows to the

6670

4

12

178

181

HWP C-pool namely production (prod arrow), import and the
HWP consumption. What does the HWP consumption
represent?

Comment
ID

Volume380

4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Per-Erik Wikberg

Accepted with
Modification

In the light of the comment the figure has been improved.

Max Collett

Accepted with
Modification

In the light of the comment the figure has been improved.

Anny Huang

Accepted with
Modification

In the light of the comment the figures have been improved.

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

The sentence has been modified.

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Fig 12.1. Should the arrow from the atmosphere into the HWP12

178

181

pool be there? The inflow is indicated by the prod-arrow. The"system boundary HWP-contribution" includes the forest C-pool,why?

The figure should not show the movement of Carbon from‘atmosphere’ to ‘HWP C-pool in use’. While showing theoxidation of wood products at their end of life is appropriate,wood products can only enter the system boundary through
7404

4

12

178

181

domestic production from forests or import. The term ‘HWP Cpool in use’ should also be amended to ‘HWP C-pool in use andin SWDS’ to account for material that has reached its end ofservice life, but remains in landfill environments and has notoxidised to the atmosphere.
Figures 12.A.1 through 12.A.3 in Chapter 12 of Vol. 4 of the 2006
IPCC guidance are I think still better than the proposed new
figures 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3. System and pool boundaries areclearer in the 2006 guidance than in the newer figures. Arrows in
the 2006 figures denoting carbon transfers/flows clearly
traverse pool and system boundaries, whereas therepresentation of flows in the newer figures are a little

6324

4

12

178

239

ambiguous. Also in the 2006 figures, flows are clearly labelledwith symbols which correspond to terms in equations - whereas
the newer figures use text descriptors. Representation of HWP
in SWDS seems to be treated a little ambiguously in the new
figures, whereas the old figures clearly depict SWDS. The sign
conventions displayed in the figures aid in understanding
atmospheric budgets, although I am a little confused as to why"HWP consumption" appears to constitute a removal from the

8350

4

12

182

183

atmosphere.
Suggest a shorter text as follows: 'Implementation of this approachthrough a flux data method using semi-finished wood commodity
statistical data is described in Section 12.5.2.1.'
Suggest change 'from information e. g. on the use of wood

8352

4

12

184

185

within that category' to 'for example from information on the use Eugene Hendrickof wood within that category

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

peter riggs

Noted

Jason Funk

Noted

This entire section should be deleted and not made available as an
approach for use in national inventories on the basis that it violates theprinciples of accuracy and comparability within and between national
inventories, as discussed in comments to 12.3 and 12.3.1. As the text
itself points out, it accounts for when but not where changes occur, andthis allows for the non-counting of traded wood materials, undermining
Max Collett
the completeness of inventories at the international level. Furthermore,
the approach is not consistent with the treatment of imported andexported material in other sectors, such as for coal, oil and gas, nor doesit accurately portray the movement of imported wood products to thewaste sector upon disposal where the emissions from their decay areincluded.

Noted

The production approach and the Stock-Change of Domestic
Original Approaches should be removed from guidance. They failto account for imports of wood from other countries. This

9178

4

12

189

205

deficiency was already noted in the 2013 Kyoto Protocol
Supplement. These two approaches create the potential for
inventories to be incomplete, which results in inaccurate
reporting.
The Production Approach and the Stock-changes of Domestic
Origin Approach create the potential for inventories to beincomplete, resulting in inaccurate reporting, due to the fact thatthey fails to incorporate imports of wood from other countries.
This deficiency has been noted in the 2006 Guidelines and in
the 2013 Kyoto Protocol Supplement. To continue to include thismethod as part of the guidance violates the purpose of the
Refinement and perpetuates choices of methods that result in

7834

4

12

189

208

incomplete and inaccurate reporting. Other methods areavailable that overcome these deficiencies (namely, the 'stockchange' and 'atmospheric flow' approaches) and data on
historical trade flows for forestry products (back to 1997) are
widely available through the FAOSTAT database(http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FT). Therefore, theProduction Approach and Stock-Changes of Domestic Origin
Approaches should no longer be included as an option in the2019 Refinement, since better data and approaches areavailable to all countries.

7406

4

12

189

208

Authors' noteComment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

Please revise this section to remove the bias against theExpertResponse

Authors' note

Maya Hunt

Accepted with
Modification

The section has completely been revised to demonstrate neutrality withregard to the approaches.

Tarja Tuomainen

Accepted with
Modification

The section has completely been revised to improve clarity.

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Per-Erik Wikberg

Noted

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Production approach. This approach was agreed for developed
countries under the Kyoto Protocol, and is the most widely usedapproach, and yet comes in for significant criticism in thissection. This appears to be trying to prejudge and influence thereporting and accounting guidance still to be agreed under theParis Agreement, and is inappropriate in these Refinements.
Please revise the multiple disparaging words, such as 'does notprovide a complete inventory', 'not based on...consumption. But
solely', 'implicitly', 'even though the stock changes…occur inother countries'. More generally, please also reconsider theoverall way the approach is conveyed. A consumption approach
7830

4

12

190

204

is not inherently superior over a production approach. A
consumption approach might reasonably be defended forreporting emissions from coal exports. However, with forests,
the emissions resulting from the decay of HWP are likely
inevitable once the forest has been harvested. It is therefore astrength of the Production approach that it captures theemissions impacts of forest management actions in the hostcountry, and not just the actions of subsequent consumers.
Those who manage and harvest a forest often make decisions
which impact on the final end use of wood, e.g. through pruning
regimes, planting hard vs soft woods etc. The production
approach therefore enables the Inventory to accurately capture
the complete and far-ranging emissions impacts of a forest's

6674

4

12

191

192

management harvest and processing wherever they occur … where wood came from harvest in reporting country (including
exports)… Does this mean the export of roundwood or semi-finishedproducts? Please, clarify the text.

8354

4

12

194

194

Suggest change 'and does thus not' to 'and thus does not'When it comes to semi-finished products, HWP from domestic

382

4

12

196

197

harvest is not solely produced domestically. Some of the raw
material is exported.
Comment it is unclear if the wording 'of HWP, but solely on the

8360

4

12

196

197

domestic production from domestic harvest.' means that HWP
derived from export of domestic roundwood and processed in
the importing country are excluded from the calculation?

The section has completely been revised to improve clarity.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted with
Modification

The section has completely been revised to demonstrate neutrality withregard to the approaches.

6676

4

12

200

201

Please delete the sentence 'On the other hand,…' This guideline presents
different possible approaches to estimate carbon stock changes in HWP,
assuming that no other is preferable to another. Double counting would Tarja Tuomainen
be avoided if all countries apply the same approach despite of theapproach. Also the inclusion of exported hwp can case double counting.

384

4

12

200

201

Imports are excluded to avoid double counting even if the exporting
country use the same approach, since the exporting country includes its Per-Erik Wikberg
export in PA.

Noted

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Eugene Hendrick

Rejected

The proposed amendment would change the meaning of the sentence andwould be incorrect.

Eugene Hendrick

AcceptedCARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Mary Booth

Accepted with
Modification

In the light of the comment the figures have been improved.

8356

4

12

200

201

Suggest change 'not the least in order to avoid double counting in thecase the exporting country use another approach' to 'not least in order
to avoid double counting in the case where exporting country also uses
a production approach' .

8358

4

12

201

202

Suggest change 'national boundaries in which the emissions andremovals of the HWP pool in use take place' to 'national boundary inwhich the domestic harvest takes place'

8362

4

12

203

204

3296

4

12

205

207

Suggest deleting this text as it could lead to confusion and themeaning is fully explained in the description of the approaches
Standardize fonts of the figure in accordance with other in the
document. Rütter (2017).
Although the revised figures describing the reporting approaches
convey more information than the 2006 figures, in some ways,
complexity has overtaken clarity. For instance, the old version of
the “production approach” figure in the 2006 guidance instantly

8964

4

12

205

208

conveys the idea that the system boundary transcends thenational boundary, but this idea is obscured in the clutter of the
new figure. At the very least, each figure caption should explainthat the dotted lines describe the system boundary while thesolid lines convey the national boundary.

8968

4

12

205

208

The production approach allows countries to take credit for HWP
exported to and stored in another country. This increases the potential
for HWP to be double-counted, since a receiving country that utilizes thestock-change approach will also count the imported products as
Mary Boothsequestered carbon. The production approach should be eliminated as
an option. This would have the added advantage that countries aremost likely to accurately account for emissions from end-of-life materials
burned for energy within national borders.

Noted

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Tarja Tuomainen

Accepted with
Modification

In the light of the comment the figure has been improved.

peter riggs

Accepted with
Modification

In the light of the comment the figures have been improved.

peter riggs

Noted

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Per-Erik Wikberg

Noted

Karachepone Ninan

Accepted

Mary Booth

Accepted

Sandro Federici

Accepted

Figure 12.2 What does the 'applied default data to calculate' inthe arrow mean? Why the arrow from 'forest c-pool' to the log

6672

4

12

205

208

pile is different than the one in the figure 12.1? It is unclear if
the exported wood is included inside the system boundary ornot.
The 'improvement' in the revised figures unfortunately reduces

9180

4

12

205

208

their clarity. At a minimum each figure caption should explainthat the dotted lines describe the system boundary while thesolid lines convey the national boundary.

9192

4

12

205

208

The production approach should be eliminated from Guidance. It
can lead to double-counting.
Figure 12.2. The schematic at the bottom of the figure with text

8364

4

12

207

207

'applied default data to calculate' in the arrow and the following
text 'to calculate the production approach' is not needed and theIn the light of the comment the figure has been improved.

term applied default data is not explained
386

4

12

207

208

Shouldn't the export be included within the system border?
It would be useful if you could present a summary table listing

780

4

12

209

209

the differences or similarities using these different approaches
for estimation of emissions from HWP.
The fact that there are several approaches countries can choose
from when reporting their forest and HWP stocks increases

8966

4

12

209

215

confusion, opens loopholes, and degrades transparency. The“stock-changes of domestic origin” approach leaves out somuch information, we believe it should be eliminated as an
option.

I would prefer not adding a new approach, while considering thisjust a variant of the production approach where for exported
2088

4

12

209

215

wood instantaneous oxidation is applied.
Further, I would add a table showing when double counting
occur, like the one provided here.
SUGGESTION: delete "stock-changes of domestic origin"

196

4

12

209

215

approach. The mandate in the outline is clear. Update the technical parameters MAINTAINING the existing approaches.

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

Accepted

Eliminate the Stock-Changes of Domestic Origin approach. It
9182

4

12

209

215

leaves out too much information, leads to inaccuracies, and in
the worst case can drive bad policies that undercountpeter riggs

Accepted

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification

emissions.
8368

4

12

210

210

86

4

12

216

217

Suggest change the word 'which' at the end of the line to 'and'so as to remove any ambiguity with the back reference
Please check the punctuation.

Mingshan Su

Editorial
Editorial

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Sandro Federici

Accepted with
Modification

To the extent possible within our remit, by revision of Sections 12.3 and12.4 the authors try to address the concerns expressed by the comment.
For further information see Section 12.3 and Annex 12.A.1.

KEWEI YU

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification

It seems that only the "atmospheric flow" approach counts forimport/export of roundwood; other approaches just focus on
HWP. Why that?
Because of the need to ensure symmetry among approaches,

2090

4

12

216

245

also other approaches should include import/export ofroundwood. So, methodological guidance on how to track andreport HWP and emissions/removals produced from exported
wood should also be added to other approaches (e.g. as done
for the atmospheric approach in equation 12.5)

4746

4

12

217

217

8366

4

12

218

218

usage of ', ''Suggest delete the words 'intends to' as this term in not used ina similar context for the other approaches

Eugene Hendrick

Editorial
The section has completely been revised to improve clarity.

Suggest change the wording of the sentence to: 'An alternative
to estimating changes to defined carbon pools as used for the
8370

4

12

221

221

production and stock change approaches would be to estimate

Eugene Hendrick

CO2 fluxes within the national boundary when and where they

Accepted with
Modification

The section has completely been revised to improve clarity.

Rejected

The proposed amendment would change the meaning of the sentence andwould be incorrect.

Accepted with
Modification

In the light of the comment the text has been reworded.

occur.'

8372

4

12

227

227

Suggest change 'from imports of wood to the reporting country.” ' to'from imports of HWP and imported roundwood converted to HWP in
the reporting country'. Also, there is no opening set of inverted commas
Eugene Hendrick
to match the concluding set at the end of the sentence, but if thewording and sense is changed as suggested here there is no need forinverted commas or the IPCC reference in parentheses.

8374

4

12

229

229

Suggest adding the words 'and to scale up to a national level' as follows: 'Eugene Hendrick
however, difficult to estimate directly and to scale up to a national level'

Comment
ID

8972

Volume4

Chapter

12

From line

229

To lineComment

Expert271

The guidance needs to come up with a different and better way oftalking about the reporting of carbon loss from biomass use thancontinually using the word “emissions” to describe everything. For
instance, this section states, “Firstly, to avoid double counting, the CO2
emissions from biomass burnt are reported in the AFOLU sector and are
not reported in either the Energy or Waste sectors. However, estimatesof the CO2 emissions from burning wood biomass may be included in thereports for these sectors as information items.” In fact, biomass
emissions (in the sense of CO2 entering the atmosphere from biomass
Mary Boothburning) are NOT reported in the AFOLU sector – that is the very thingthat is at issue here! In fact, “emissions” from biomass in the land use
sector are more accurately described as stock changes. As the guidancelater states (line 474), “As the use of harvested woody biomass forenergy purposes does not belong to a defined and reported carbon pool,any emissions due to such utilization of biomass will be recognized andreported as stock-changes in the living biomass or dead wood pools.”
This is a key point that should be repeated and emphasized often!
Reporting a “stock change” is different from reporting an “emission” andthe guidance should be careful to always clarify the difference.

Response

Authors' note

Accepted

Reporting a stock change is different than reporting an
9186

4

12

229

271

emission. The guidance here obscures that difference. Anotherreason for biomass burning to be reported in the energy sector,

peter riggs

Noted

where it can be properly treated as an emission.
8376

4

12

230

230

8378

4

12

235

235

3298

4

12

236

238

Seems to a word or words missing from 'to estimate the HWP
relies'et al.' is italicised elsewhere in the text.
Standardize fonts of the figure in accordance with other in the
document. Rütter (2017).

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Eugene Hendrick
Modification
Accepted withCARLOS SANQUETTA
Modification
Eugene Hendrick

This entire section should be deleted and not made available as
an approach for use in national inventories on the basis that it
violates the principle of comparability between national
inventories. This approach allows for the double-counting of
7408

4

12

236

239

exported wood materials if the receiving country also counts
them, and the non-counting of imported material if the sending
country does not count them. Furthermore, it is not consistent
with the treatment of imported and exported material in othersectors, such as for coal, oil and gas, or the decay ofdomestically consumed materials in the waste sector.

Max Collett

Noted

The section has completely been revised to improve clarity.
Editorial
Editorial

Comment
ID

Volume8380

4Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

In the light of the comment the figures have been improved.

Accepted with
Modification
AcceptedwithEditorial

Same comment as for the stock change and production Figures,
12

238

238

suggest delete the arrow and accompanying text at the bottomof the figure.

8382

4

12

244

244

Change 'on' to 'of' in 'the basis on available statistical'

Eugene Hendrick

7206

4

12

245

245

Too many full stops

Dirk Nemitz

Section 12.4. Countries should be strongly encouraged to

Modification

Editorial

estimate and report harvested wood used for bioenergy in a
5634

4

12

246

246

separate category from other harvested wood products, because

Richard Birdsey

Notedbioenergy, rather than net emissions, so that the emissions from Richard Birdsey

Notedof the implicit or explicit connection to the energy sector and theneed to be sure that emissions from bioenergy are properly
accounted for in the reporting.

Section 12.4. Countries should be strongly encouraged to reportgross emissions (both sources and sinks) associated with
5636

4

12

246

246

biomass burning can be separated from calculated sinks on theland providing the biomass.

8970

4

12

246

260

It is good that the guidance contains this section to clarify where (and if)
emissions from the use of wood for energy are counted. However, thebulleted list of the types of wood considered is incomplete and needs atleast one more category, i.e., “wood biomass collected and burnt along
the process chain in manufacture of wood pellets or biofuels.” Thepellet-making process includes a significant amount of woody biomass
that is collected and burned at the manufacturing plant to generate heat.
Jonker et al (2014) estimate that it is about 0.51 tonnes per tonne pellets Mary Booth(Jonker, J. G. G., M. Junginger and A. Faaij (2014). "Carbon payback
period and carbon offset parity point of wood pellet production in theSouth-eastern United States." GCB Bioenergy 6(4): 371-389.) Our own
estimates comport with this, based on investigating air permits for largescale pellet plants in the US that burn wood to dry pellets (Booth, M. In
press. Not carbon neutral: assessing the net emissions impact of residues
burned for bioenergy. Environmental Research Letters).

6680

4

12

246

286

Suggest to move Chapter 12.4 to the end of Chapter 12.

Accepted

Tarja Tuomainen

Rejected

Reid Miner

Accepted

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

It would be helpful to remind the reader that any material that
5614

4

12

248

249

remains in the forest is not considered HWP and any emissions
associated with burning such material in the forest is accounted

It is important that this discussions follows immediately after the
explanation of approaches, as this is important context.

for in the calculations on forest carbon stocks.
8384

4

12

261

261

Suggest delete the words 'in several inventory sectors,
specifically' as the sectors are named.

Editorial

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Mary Booth

Accepted with
Modification

To the extent possible within our remit, by revision of Sections 12.3 and12.4 the authors try to address the concerns expressed by the comment.

Naofumi Kosaka

Accepted with
Modification

References have been adjusted accordingly.

Anke Herold

Noted

Richard Birdsey

Noted

The guidance states that the reader can get guidance on the“different ways in which biomass may be burnt” in the AFOLU,
Energy, and Waste sectors, pointing back to chapters in the2006 guidance. However, the chapter references only point to

8978

4

12

261

268

the Energy and Waste chapters, not the AFOLU chapter. Again… the AFOLU section does not treat biomass as having“emissions” and it is misleading to imply that it does. The
reference to the AFOLU section as providing guidance should be
struck.

4224

4

12

267

267

I suggest that the authors replace "IPCC 2006 GL Vol 2, Ch 3" by "2019
Refinement Vol 2, Section 4.3". I do not find the guidance for woodbiomass used as feedstock for biofuels in IPCC 2006 GL Vol 2, Ch 3
(Mobile Combustion).

9854

4

12

267

286

Useful clarification
This is an important section that provides guidance to countries
in choosing which method to use. An important omission is thatcountries that trade in forest products should be using the same

5630

4

12

267

286

accounting approaches to avoid double counting or noncounting of emissions. This is especially regarding bioenergy
because the producing country is often different than the
consuming country, and some combinations of approaches
would allow for double or non-counting.

7410

4

12

269

286

This section identifies the issue of completeness consequent to theselection of approach, but it does not identify a practical solution. If a
country were to select the 'production' or 'stock-change of domestic
production' approaches (which is not recommended to be permissiblefor issues of completeness, consistency and comparability outlined
above), any imported wood material combusted would indeed be out of
Max Collett
the scope of emissions in the AFOLU sector. The 'stock-change ofdomestic production' would also fail to account for material exported toa biomass energy industry, leaving inventories incomplete.
If these two approaches are removed as recommended, these dot points
become largely irrelevant, as accounting would be transparently
accurate, complete, comparable and consistent. The commentary on
consistency in lines 284-285 would also become appropriately irrelevant.

Accepted with
Modification

To the extent possible within our remit, by revision of Sections 12.3 and12.4 the authors try to address the concerns expressed by the comment.

Comment
ID

8980

7844

9188

Volume444Chapter

12

12

12

From line

270

270

270

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

271

The guidance should clarify: Are countries obligated to report emissions
from biomass as memo item in energy sector, or not? Here, the guidancestates “However, estimates of the CO2 emissions from burning woodbiomass MAY be included in the reports for these sectors as information
items.” However, just below, a line 283, the guidance makes it soundlike the memo reporting of biomass emissions as a memo is done as a
Mary Boothmatter of course: “It should also be noted that CO2 emissions fromburning wood for energy are reported by a consuming country as an
information item under the Energy sector.” This section should be madeinternally consistent and the guidance should make it clear thatreporting biomass emissions as a memo item in the energy sector isindeed required for all countries.

Accepted with
Modification

To the extent possible within our remit, by revision of Sections 12.3 and12.4 the authors try to address the concerns expressed by the comment.

271

Because of concerns related to the possibility of incomplete accounting
and lack of transparency in emissions from burning biomass for energy,
it should be good practice to report these emissions as information
items. Therefore, the language in these lines should be changed to readas follows: "However, estimates of the CO2 emissions from burning
wood biomass should be included in the reports for these sectors as
information items."

Jason Funk

Accepted with
Modification

To the extent possible within our remit, by revision of Sections 12.3 and12.4 the authors try to address the concerns expressed by the comment.

272

It is extremely problematic that countries are not required, but 'may'include estimates of the CO2 emissions associated with burning woodbiomass. This section should be made internally consistent: guidance
peter riggs
should make it clear that countries MUST report biomass emissions as amemo item in the energy sector.

Accepted with
Modification

To the extent possible within our remit, by revision of Sections 12.3 and12.4 the authors try to address the concerns expressed by the comment.

Mary Booth

Accepted with
Modification

To the extent possible within our remit, by revision of Sections 12.3 and12.4 the authors try to address the concerns expressed by the comment.

Sandro Federici

Accepted with
Modification

To the extent possible within our remit, by revision of Sections 12.3 and12.4 the authors try to address the concerns expressed by the comment.

Again, the guidance uses the word “emissions” when it actually
8974

4

12

272

277

means “stock changes due to biomass harvesting for fuel”:“Secondly, although these CO2 emissions are supposed to be
estimated and reported in the AFOLU sector,” etc.

This sentence is too generic and not universally true.
With wood use of energy double counting of removals never
happen, unless a country-specific method applied isinconsistent with IPCC good practice (but we do not consider
within IPCC Guidelines cases of failure in following good
2092

4

12

272

277

practices; we just limit ourselves to provide good practice).
Gap in CO2 emissions will occur only if the exporting country
does not report on forest harvest (e.g. a country with insufficient
capacity in data collection and/or in GHG inventory preparation.
I see that this is an actually relevant case that need to beaddressed. And I see that the only approach addressing it is theatmospheric approach

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Jason Funk

Accepted with
Modification

To the extent possible within our remit, by revision of Sections 12.3 and12.4 the authors try to address the concerns expressed by the comment.

peter riggs

Accepted

Mary Booth

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Mary Booth

Accepted with
Modification

To the extent possible within our remit, by revision of Sections 12.3 and12.4 the authors try to address the concerns expressed by the comment.

The text does not give compilers sufficient guidance about the
implications of their choice of approach, and these implications
include over- or under-reporting emissions, which affect theaccuracy of the reporting. Thus, countries need additional
guidance about how to fulfil the TACCC principles with respect
to their choice of approach. One way the risk of over- or underreporting emissions arises is due to differences in accounting
approaches between importing and exporting countries.
Depending on the approaches used by each country, the carbon
in traded HWPs could be reported once, twice, or not at all. The
7838

4

12

272

277

volume of trade in HWPs is significant for many countries, andtherefore the guidance should explicitly indicate how theirchoice of approach vis-a-vis their trading partner(s) will affectthe estimated emissions from HWPs in each country. One
suggestion is that the implications could be made clear byincluding a simple table in the guidance near this point in the
text. The table should show the choice of approach by exporting
country in the columns and the choice of approach by importing
country in the rows. The cells of this matrix should indicate thenumber of times HWP emissions will be counted (zero, one, or
two times) for each combination of approaches by importing andexporting countries.
Eliminate the Stock-Changes of Domestic Origin approach. It

9184

4

12

272

277

leaves out too much information, leads to inaccuracies, and in
the worst case can drive bad policies that undercountemissions.
This sentence fragment is garbled. It reads, “related to the time

8982

4

12

275

276

when emissions and removals and/or where they occur.” Itshould be rewritten to say, “related to when and/or whereemissions and removals occur.”

Again, there is imprecise use of the word “emissions” here:“Specifically, non-CO2 emissions from burning a unit of biomass
will always be reported by the consuming country, whilst theCO2 emissions from burning the same unit of biomass may be
8976

4

12

278

282

reported by the producing country and/or the consuming
country, depending on the approaches applied by the countries.”
No! Countries are *not* reporting “emissions” from burning
biomass in their AFOLU sectors when they are using thedifferent approaches for reporting HWP!

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

8386

4

12

291

291

Suggest add 'an' as follows 'HWP have an implicit impact'

Eugene Hendrick

Editorial

8388

4

12

294

294

Eugene Hendrick

Rejected

828

4

12

295

332

Suggest add 'availability of activity data for' as follows: 'Check theavailability of activity data for the three default HWP categories,

Accepted with
Modification

Ulrike Doering

Noted

Mary Booth

Rejected

The proposed amendment would make the meaning less clear.

although the effect in the total amount of emissions and

CRISTINA GARCIA

removals might be the same. SUGGESTION: delete the

DIAZ

Accepted with
Modification

The section has been revised to improve clarity.

Tarja Tuomainen

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised.

Ana Dias

Rejected

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

The proposed precision of the text does not improve the validity of theoriginal statement.

Sandro Federici

Accepted with
Modification

The section has completely been revised to improve clarity.

where activity data is not available they have to be collected, for Sandro Federici

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised.

DIAZ

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Ulrike Doering

Noted

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Good and helpful overview to classify the Tier method.

The proposed precision of the text does not improve the validity of theoriginal statement.

This heading could be re-written to be more clear. For instance,
8984

4

12

299

300

it could say, “Step 1: Check the availability of activity data on
HWP to determine whether HWP emissions and removals
should be reported” – or something like that.

this paragraph gives the impression that a country can chose if
it wants to report HWP or not, and that is not the case.
"Instantaneous oxidation" is different from "no reporting",
197

4

12

301

303

sentence "countries might need to decide not to report on HWP"
by "countries might decide to assume that CO2 isinstantaneously oxidised".

The guidance not to report HWP due to lack of data is quite
6678

4

12

302

303

opposite than for other emissions and removals. Usually the
IPCC guidelines recommend to estimate whether a source orsink is significant, and if so, recommends to compile the data.

9412

4

12

304

304

8390

4

12

323

323

Please rephrase: …availability of activity data for the threedefault …
Suggest change 'fits' in 'fits to' to 'applies to'
Since the HWP does not remove CO2 from the atmosphere, I

2094

4

12

331

333

suggest to refers to "C stock changes" instead of to "emissions
and removals of CO2"

Editorial

The guidance "Consider the option of not reporting a HWP
contribution(12.5.1.2)" is inconsistent with the general
methodological approach of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Indeed,
2096

4

12

331

333

any inventory category/gas/pool. HWP may be reported as 0
only if the net change can be assumed to be insignificant or the
C pool can be considered at long-term equilibrium.
198

4

12

334

339

830

4

12

334

463

8392

4

12

338

338

SUGGESTION: Delete paragraph. This is applicable to all activity CRISTINA GARCIA
data in the inventory.
Chapter 12.5.1.1 supports the classification system of thedifferent wood types. Very helpful.
Suggest change 'when' to whether'

Editorial

Comment
ID

Volume5616

4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Reid Miner

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised.

Mary Booth

Accepted with
Modification

To the extent possible within our remit, by revision of Sections 12.3 and12.4 the authors try to address the issue raised by the comment.

peter riggs

Accepted with
Modification

To the extent possible within our remit, by revision of Sections 12.3 and12.4 the authors try to address the issue raised by the comment.

To avoid confusion, the figure should be modified to
12

350

351

differentiate between slash left in the forest and slash that isremoved to be used for fuel or for other purposes.

The chart that breaks down the process chain of woodprocessing from initial harvest to the finished products of sawn
wood, wood-based panels, and paper and paperboard needs toshow more categories. Presently, the third level shows“industrial roundwood” and “fuelwood and charcoal.” It is not
8986

4

12

350

353

clear what “fuelwood” encompasses – whether this refers only
to wood burned for fuel in residences, or whether it includes
industrial biomass. Given the size and exploding growth in thewood pellet sector since 2008, we believe this level should also
contain a heading for wood biomass that is burned in industrial
and grid-connected power plants.
The chart that breaks down wood processing process chainsfrom initial harvest to finished products needs to be updated tokeep up with the proliferation of new 'intermediate products' in
the wood-for-energy sector. That would included torrefiedmaterials, pellets, etc. Right now the third level shows'fuelwood and charcoal'. It is not clear what fuelwood includes - is this just wood burned for residences (and/or in developing
countries for cooking) or does include feedstocks for industrial
biomass? there isn't any way to render torrefied materials,
which are different than charcoal. Torrefied materials are

9190

4

12

350

353

becoming increasingly important in co-combustion situations(firing with coal). Overall, it should be noted how poorly theguidance captures co-firing with coal. There's a double
challenge. First, reporting countries are expected to establish,
on a continuing basis, the fraction of fossil-and non-fossilmaterials in the co-firing. This is a practical impossibility.
Second, there is a need to use different tables to account fordifferent non-fossil feedstocks -- also leading to the complexity
and impractability of reporting. Add to this now the layer ofcomplexity associated with torrefaction processes, and it is clearthat the headings do a poor job of capturing characteristics ofmaterials now being burned in the power sector.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' noteAna Dias

Accepted with
Modification

Text has been revised to provide the reason for its exclusion.

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Rejected

These definitions are essential to understand the methods and to avoid
double counting. So the terms need to be introduced as part of the corediscussion.

Figure 12.5 includes other industrial roundwood. However, thisHWP category is not considered in the estimation of emissions

9414

4

12

352

352

and removals of CO2 due to HWP. As statistical sources
normally report this category, it would be useful to provide thereason for this exclusion (and eventually allow its inclusion intier 3 methods).
Suggest change 'products statistics e.g. provided by FAO' to

8394

4

12

357

357

8396

4

12

358

358

199

4

12

363

375

SUGGESTION: move to glossary

9858

4

12

376

395

Useful clarification how double counting can be avoided

Anke Herold

8398

4

12

377

377

Suggest change 'the data given ' to 'the HWP data'

Eugene Hendrick

8400

4

12

383

383

200

4

12

388

390

'products statistics provided by FAO for example'
Suggest change 'for converting e.g. from nominal as solid' to 'for
converting, for example, from nominal to solid'

Suggest change 'statistical data both to ' as 'statistical data for
both'

4

12

396

396

approach. The mandate in the outline is clear. Update the technical parameters MAINTAINING the existing approaches.

202

4

12

404

451

DIAZ

Eugene HendrickParties should turn first to their national wood flows. In case they don't
exist, then they could look to other sources. SUGGESTION: redraft
CRISTINA GARCIA DIAZ
sentence to reflect the priority of national flows of wood overinternational schemes. Also add "gaps" in addition to "double-counting".
SUGGESTION: delete "stock-changes of domestic origin"

201

CRISTINA GARCIA

SUGGESTION: move to glossary

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

Noted
Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial
Editorial

Text has been revised to partly address the comment.

Accepted

Rejected

These definitions are essential to understand the methods and to avoid
double counting. So the terms need to be introduced as part of the corediscussion.

Mary Booth

Accepted with
Modification

Text has been revised and cross-reference has been given to the figure.

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

This section defines what is meant by “roundwood” and“industrial roundwood.” From these descriptions it sounds like“industrial roundwood” is a subset of “roundwood.” Thedefinition for industrial roundwood states it is “all roundwood
8988

4

12

405

417

except wood fuel,” implying that subtracting industrial
roundwood from roundwood would give the amount of woodused for fuel. The document should clarify what is meant by“wood fuel.” Does this mean wood harvested for residential use
for heat, or does it include biomass harvested for power plants
and wood pellet manufacturing?

7204

4

12

411

411

Footnote 4 doesn't have a reference (general problem on page
12.15)

Comment
ID

Volume5618

4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Reid Miner

Accepted with
Modification

Text has been revised and cross-reference has been given to the figure.

Mary Booth

Accepted with
Modification

Text has been revised.

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted

peter riggs

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Mary Booth

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

CRISTINA GARCIA DIAZ

Accepted

CRISTINA GARCIA

Accepted with
Modification

Modify the definition to read: "Roundwood and other parts of
12

430

430

trees that will be used as fuel…". This will help reduce
confusion.
The definition of “wood residues” is somewhat confusing. First,
it is not clear if it includes forestry residues that are generated
during timber harvesting, or just wood residues that are

8990

4

12

445

451

generated at wood processing operations. Second, the exclusionof bark (line 451) is potentially problematic, as bark comprises alarge amount of the volume of unused material at woodprocessing operations, and is frequently burned for energy.
What category in this accounting scheme includes bark?

8402

4

12

455

455

Suggest change 'HWP (e.g. furniture, builders' joinery and carpentry ofwood)' to 'wood products (e.g. furniture, builders' joinery and wood for
carpentry)'. HWP has a specific meaning that does not extend to
furniture etc.

9194

4

12

456

461

This sentence is so complicated as to be unintelligible.
More on clarity: There are several places where the text needs
to be stripped down and simplified. This sentence, which isimportant, provides an example. “Consequently, good practice inproviding [transparent and verifiable] activity data for HWP,
which qualifies for estimating emissions and removals of CO2

8956

4

12

456

461

due to HWP on the basis of the production or the stock-change
approaches, is achieved by the availability of data for the threeaggregate HWP commodities sawn wood, wood-based panels
and paper and paperboard in publicly available databases ofinternational organizations, such as FAOSTAT (cf. IPCC 2006
Guidelines). It is good practice to report on uncertainties related
to these datasets (see Section 12.6).” This is incomprehensible!

203

4

12

457

457

SUGGESTION: delete "[transparent and verifiable]. The activity data for
HWP should receive the same treatment than any other AD in the GHG
inventory.
the idea of "not reporting" implies negative connotations.

204

4

12

464

464

SUGGESTION: change title "option of not reporting" to "optionof applying instantaneous oxidation"

DIAZ

The wording has been revised.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised.

Sandro Federici

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised.

CRISTINA GARCIA
DIAZ

Accepted with
Modification

The text has been improved in the light of the comment.

Anke Herold

Noted

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised.

Mary Booth

Accepted with
Modification

To the extent possible within our remit, by revision of Sections 12.3, 12.4
and 12.5, the authors try to address the issue raised by the comment.

Eric Marland

Noted

Suggest change title of 12.5.1.2 to: 'OPTION TO NOT REPORTEMISSIONS AND REMOVALS DUE TO HWP

8404

4

12

464

464

(“INSTANTANEOUS OXIDATION”)' in fact even using
instantaneous oxidation there is reporting on the assumption
there in no net change in the HWP pool and this should also be
considered in wording the section title.

same comment as above. This section is inconsistent with thewith the general methodological approach of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. Indeed, where activity data is not available they
2098

4

12

464

483

have to be collected, for any inventory category/gas/pool.
HWP may be reported as 0 only if the net change can beassumed to be insignificant or the C pool can be considered atlong-term equilibrium.

the idea of "not reporting" implies negative connotations.
SUGGESTION: change "in line with good practice to not report
205

4

12

466

467

emissions and removals" by "in line with good practice toconsider that C storage in HWP is instantaneously oxidized
when the wood is extracted from the land"

9860

4

12

466

483

Useful reintroduction of instantaneous oxidation approach if no
AD is available
Suggest delete the first sentence as it's not necessary. Second

8406

4

12

474

475

sentence to read:' Utilisation of harvested woody biomass forenergy purposes will be recognized and reported as stockchanges in the living biomass or dead wood pools.'

The guidance makes a key point here that should be repeatedmore often throughout to avoid confusion: “As the use of
harvested woody biomass for energy purposes does not belong
to a defined and reported carbon pool, any emissions due tosuch utilization of biomass will be recognized and reported as
8992

4

12

474

476

stock-changes in the living biomass or dead wood pools.”
However, even this statement is a bit misleading. In fact thisstatement is aspirational – one hopes that emissions arereflected in the stock changes, but, because so much is rolled
into the stock change, it is not actually possible to pull out andidentify the portion of stock change that’s attributable to

544

4

12

484

526

burning biomass for energy.
First order decay was shown inadequate in 2003, with suggestions on
improvements following in several papers

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To line

546

4

12

484

526

9416

4

12

490

496

3300

4

12

492

506

3302

4

12

511

526

6682

4

12

522

524

Comment
Improved one parameter approximations (improvements overexponential decay) are discussed in …

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Eric Marland

Noted

The authors note that the proposed Tier 3 method is under development,
but it is not within scope to describe this country-specific method in theguidance.

Accepted with
Modification

Please see explanations provided in Section 12.3 and refer to Equation
12.5.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Tarja Tuomainen

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Max Collett

Noted

Abdul Nayamuth

Accepted with
Modification

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification

Equation 12.1 is applicable to all approaches other than theatmospheric-flow approach. This should be highlighted in the title of theequation and also in the introductory text of lines 490-491. Indeed, only
the stock change, production and stock change of domestic origin
Ana Dias
approaches consider that total CO2 emissions and removals are equal to
the net changes of the carbon stock in HWP, as represented in theequation
Improve equation format. Use the same fonts of otherequations.
Improve equation format. Use the same fonts of otherequations.
There is a variable HWPj, which is not in Equation 12.2., and not
mentioned since.
These lines can be removed in their entirety. Only the ‘stock-

7412

4

12

527

546

change’ approach and ‘atmospheric flow’ approach should be
options.

8304

4

12

527

527

3304

4

12

531

544

8408

4

12

546

546

8410

4

12

547

547

8412

4

12

548

548

8414

4

12

552

552

Depending on the choice of the approach for estimating
emissions and removals of CO2 due to HWP, which (read CO2)
Use the same fonts of the other equations cited in the text.
Suggest change: 'provides Section 12.5.2' to 'is provided in
Section 12.5.2'
Suggest change 'In order to produce an estimate of the existing
carbon stock' to 'to estimate the existing carbon stock'no comment
Suggest change 'However, the availability of the activity data
series' to 'However, the availability of activity data series'

Eugene Hendrick

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Eugene Hendrick

Noted

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Tarja Tuomainen

Accepted

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial
Editorial
Editorial

Editorial

Editorial

It seems that there is a change in the guidelines to start the
6684

4

12

552

569

HWP calculations using more recent data than in the previous
guidelines. It would be useful if the referred article would beavailable, no the suggested method cannot been judged.

8416

4

12

559

559

Suggest change 'during the first 5 years of which' to 'during thefirst 5 years for which'

Editorial

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Fabiano Ximenes

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Mary Booth

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Paula Ollila

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised to clarify that this refers to Tier 1.

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification

This is a very confusing sentence - please rewrite for clarity. If I
understand it correctly, the issue raised is that as data quality

1556

4

12

561

563

on HWP production improves, calculations on C stock changes
that rely on those historical datasets of varying quality may
result in biased estimates.
The sentence is not clear. Why there could be an apparent

8418

4

12

561

563

increase in volume due to statistical effects needs to be moreclearly explained without having to resort to the Palma et al.
paper. [editing note: 'et al.' font needs to be consistent]More on clarity: This sentence is another example of why thisdocument needs a really strict editor: “Not least thanks tochanging data quality due to increasing milling capacities and
8958

4

12

561

564

industry structures in many countries in combination with rather
rarely changing thresholds for the statistical registration thetime series of HWP commodities e.g. since 1961, might indicate
increasing production volumes (cf. Palma et al. 2016).” What
does this mean?

Not clear what wording 'in the sequential time instants can be
8420

4

12

568

568

calculated' means. A possible rewording is: 'in sequential timeintervals can be calculated'

5376

4

12

568

569

I suggest revising the sentence to: "In the Tier 2 method, it is goodpractise to use Equation 12.4 for estimating the carbon stock at t=to, if
reliable data since 1900 is not available. If reliable data since 1900 isavailable, it is good practise to use Equation 12.1 in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines.
Suggest change to title of EQUATION 12.4 as'APPROXIMATION OF THE CARBON STOCKS IN HWP POOLS

8422

4

12

570

570

IN USE AT THE INITIAL TIME FROM WHICH ACTIVITY DATAARE AVAILABLE' The denominator term k in the equationneeds to be explained

3306

4

12

570

577

Improve equation format.

8888

4

12

571

579

8424

4

12

581

581

Change 'the below Example Box 12.1' to 'the Example Box 12.1'

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

832

4

12

583

583

Box 12.1 Good example for the implementing equations 12.2

Ulrike Doering

noted

Sandro Federici

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

There is no information about terms in Equation 12.4. Please,insert 'Where: ~~~~' in line 579.

2100

4

12

583

589

Very good. However, In column D the stock change is equal to the stockin the current year minus the stock in the previous year e.g. for 1990 is
C7-C6 (this implies also that the first year of the time series should be1989), for 1991 is C8-C7 and so on.

8426

4

12

584

584

Change 'EXAMPLE ON' to 'EXAMPLE OF'

RAEHYUN KIM

Editorial
Editorial
Editorial

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

8428

4

12

596

596

Suggest change 'FOD implicitly' to ' the FOD function implicitly'

Eugene Hendrick

8430

4

12

600

600

Suggest change 'by FOD' to ' by the FOD function'

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification

A subheading may be appropriate here as the flux under the
8438

4

12

601

601

atmospheric flow approach is approximated by a first order

Eugene Hendrick

decay function and net trade in woody biomass
2102

4

12

605

607

8432

4

12

606

607

3308

4

12

613

613

This sentence is incorrect; indeed, the second element of equation 12.2
estimates the C stock losses associated with the decay of the HWP inflow Sandro Federici
that occurs in the year in which such HWP is produced.
Suggest change 'in the relevant year' to ' in the year in which
they are added to the pool'
Specify the Chapter xxx.

Suggest change 'based on the assumption that only carbon in

Authors' note
Editorial
Editorial

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Accepted with
Modification

The title has been reworded to clarify the meaning.

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted withCARLOS SANQUETTA
Modification
Eugene Hendrick

Editorial
Editorial

woody biomass that becomes and/or remains available within
the reporting country and which remains not fixed in a carbon
pool could eventually also oxidize into the atmosphere in the
8434

4

12

614

615

reporting year (cf. IPCC 2006 GL, Chapter 12).' to: 'based on theassumption that only carbon in woody biomass that becomes

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

and/or remains available within the reporting country and which
is not fixed in a carbon pool could eventually also oxidize into
the atmosphere in the reporting year (cf. IPCC 2006 GL, Chapter
12).'
8436

4

12

624

624

3310

4

12

626

646

Change '20.4' to '12.4'
Improve equation format. Use the same fonts of otherequations.

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted withCARLOS SANQUETTA
Modification
Eugene Hendrick

9418

4

12

628

629

Title of equation 12.5 should be consistent with the title of equation 12.1
(is it correct to anticipate that it would result in emissions?). Suggestion
Ana Dias"Estimation of total emissions and removals from the HWP pool in use of
the reporting country with the atmospheric-flow approach".

7414

4

12

647

654

These lines can be removed in their entirety.

2280

4

12

647

698

The types of insulating boards under wood-based panels should
be listed. Is it contain woody panels as OSB? I think

Editorial
Editorial

Accepted with
Modification

The title has been reworded to clarify the meaning.

Max Collett

Rejected

This explanation and section are essential to understand theimplementation of the method.

Eray Özdemir

Rejected

The point is already covered in the guidance. Insulating boards are a
subcategory of wood-based panels. See definition of wood-based panels
and Table 12.1.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Accepted with
Modification

Improvements are done on the basis of review of relevant literature anddata sources.

No reason is given for deleting the lines and the authors consider the lines
to be essential for implementing the method.

388

4

12

664

698

Tables 12.1 and 12.2. The conversion factors for paper, pulp andrecovered paper are identical although fillers are added in the processfrom pulp to paper which should result in a lower C fraction in paper(and recovered paper) compared to pulp. During the pulp manufacturing
process, various fractions of wood compounds is removed at various
degrees depending on what sort of pulp to be produced. Cellulose is
Per-Erik Wikberg
normally removed at a lower degree than other compounds. Original
wood contains about 50% C, whereas cellulose contains about 44 % C. C
fraction for pulp should in average be higher than 0.386. Consideringthat dry mass/air dry mass is set to 0.9 and C-content to 0.5 in table 12.2,
the C conversion factor should be 0.45.

7416

4

12

679

686

These lines can be removed in their entirety.

Max Collett

Rejected

8440

4

12

690

690

Emissions' to 'emissions'

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

The carbon conversion factor for pulpwood in my view needs to bechanged - the factor in the document (0.386) was suggested for the GPG(IPCC 2014) for finished papers, taking into account the fact that the
carbon content of finished papers is typically lower than 0.5 due to the
inorganic additives present. There are no inorganic additives present inwood pulp. Thus I would suggest that a more correct carbon conversion
factor for pulpwood could be calculated based on the following factors:
Fabiano Ximenes
Chemical pulp - 70% of market, 44.7% C content (average of cellulose
and hemicellulose); non-chemical pulp - 30% of market, 50% carbon
content. Weighted C content of pulp = 46.3%. (relative market
proportions from https://iea-etsap.org/ETechDS/PDF/I07_Pulp&Paper_May2015OK.pdf). If we assume themoisture content of pulp is 10%, then the C conversion factor (on an airdry mass basis) would be 0.421.

1558

4

12

697

697

1560

4

12

697

697

3312

4

12

703

718

The carbon fraction of recovered paper is lower than 0.5, as
recovered paper will also contain inorganic additives.
Improve equation format. Use the same fonts of otherequations.

Editorial

Accepted with
Modification

Improvements are done on the basis of review of relevant literature anddata sources.

Fabiano Ximenes

Accepted with
Modification

Improvements are done on the basis of review of relevant literature anddata sources.

CARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Sandro Federici

Accepted with
Modification

The Equation has been reviewed in the light of the comment.

Tarja Tuomainen

Accepted

Ana Dias

Accepted

Max Collett

Rejected

Here the correction (i.e. the zeroing) is needed when in a year
2104

4

12

709

710

the export is larger than the production plus the import. So inrow 656 the equation should be:
HWPCl(i)=0, if HWPEXl(i)>(HWPCl(i)+HWPIMl(i))

6686

4

12

710

710

Check: HWPcl(i)=0, if HWPcl(i)<0
As the calculation procedure of the carbon inflow to the HWP

9420

4

12

720

762

pool under the production approach differs from that proposedin the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, the rationale for the new procedure(assumptions) should be indicated.

7418

4

12

720

781

These lines can be removed in their entirety.

No reason is given for deleting the lines and the authors consider the lines
to be essential for implementing the method.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To line

3314

4

12

723

800

7208

4

12

748

748

7210

4

12

762

762

9422

4

12

762

9424

4

12

775

Comment

ExpertResponse

Authors' noteCARLOS SANQUETTA

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted"Rp(i)" should be "Rex(i)"Dirk Nemitz

Accepted

762

REX(i) instead of Rp(i)Ana Dias

Accepted

775

The formula has an extra "("Ana Dias

Accepted

Ana Dias

Accepted

Ana Dias

Noted

Please see Section 12.3 and Annex 12.A.1 for further information.

Rejected

The information requested in this comment is not required to apply
Equation 12.5. See also Section 12.3 and Annex 12.A.1 for further
information.

peter riggs

Rejected

The information requested in this comment is not required to apply
Equation 12.5. See also Section 12.3 and Annex 12.A.1 for further
information.

Max Collett

Accepted with
Modification

The information has been moved elsewhere.

Improve equation format. Use the same fonts of otherequations.
"manufacturing the relevant": missing an "of" after"manufacturing"

How this equation relates with equation 12.5? Since different
9426

4

12

788

795

nomenclatures are being used in the two equations, third could
be quite confusing for less experienced users.
Why is only allowed to consider the carbon contained in the

9428

4

12

802

804

HWP categories of table 12.3 in the net trade term of the AFA?
Why not other woody materials (roundwood, wood pulp, etc.)?

7836

4

12

816

817

Table 12.3 does not include emission factors for all classes of wood
products associated with the activity data defined in Section 12.5.1.1. As
a result, inventory compilers may not have sufficient guidance toaccurately and completely report emissions from important classes ofwood products. In particular, certain classes of wood products, such as
wood chips and particles, have become increasingly important as exports
and as sources of biomass used for energy. To provide sufficient
Jason Funk
guidance to inventory compilers, Table 12.3 should be expanded toinclude all HWP categories listed in Table 12.2, along with default halflives for each category. In some cases, these half-lives may be short (e.g.
< 1 year), due to the expected use of such products as biomass feedstockfor energy production. This is especially important because these Tier 1
values may also be used as defaults when categories of activity data are
not the same between importing and exporting countries using countryspecific half-life data (Section 12.5.3.2, lines 954-958 of FOD).
Table 12.3 does not include emissions factors for all classes ofwood products associated with the activity data defined in
Section 12.5.1.1. Table 12.3 should be expanded to include all
HWP categories listed in Table 12.2, and the default half-lives

9196

4

12

816

817

for those products also should be shown. In the case of
biomass energy the half-life will be very brief, but this is quite
important, because Tier 1 values may also be used as defaults
when categories of activity data are not the same between
importing and exporting countries that use country-specific halflife data (Section 12.5.3.2, lines 954-958).

7420

4

12

819

820

These lines can be removed in their entirety.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

Please avoid unnecessary abbreviations such as ESL

Anke Herold

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with

The text has been reviewed in the light of the comment.

Not clear if the statement 'but in more detail than implemented
in FAOSTAT (see Section 12.5.1.1).' means that the

8442

4

12

837

837

Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS) oftariff nomenclature provides more detail than in FAOSTAT? If
that is the case then the wording would be better as ' which
provides more detail than in FAOSTAT'

9864

4

12

863

9430

4

12

875

875

"ISO 2011" should be replaced by "ISO 15686-1:2011"?

Ana Dias

8444

4

12

875

875

'clients' to 'client's'

Eugene Hendrick

9432

4

12

879

879

"ISO 2011" should be replaced by "ISO 15686-1:2011"?

Ana Dias

8446

4

12

945

945

The derivation of the adjusted ESL in Table 12.4 needs to be better
explained/elaborated - is the number in the adjusted ESL column theweighted average for the HWP category?

Eugene Hendrick

Rejected

The explanation is already in The table.

Tarja Tuomainen

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

Max Collett

Rejected

No reason is given for deleting the lines and the authors consider the lines
to be essential for implementing the method.

Tarja Tuomainen

Accepted

6688

4

12

949

958

In this section wording 'good practice' should not be used, more
preferable is to give a recommendations to use half-lives of importing
countries. If 'good practice' is used in the IPCC guidelines, it means that
the UNFCCC reviewers give recommendation to a country if the default
half-lives are used. That can cause an insuperable problem to inventory
compilers, if a country exports HWP to dozens of countries.

7422

4

12

949

962

These lines can be removed in their entirety.

6690

4

12

959

960

Can't see what is the context of this sentence to the other text
in this section.

Modification
Accepted
Accepted with
Modification

The reference has been revised.
The reference has been revised.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Although this chapter refers to harvested wood products, there
are other forest-based materials other than wood that are used
for producing products that may stay in use for long periods.
This is the case of cork that is extracted from the outer barkthat covers the stems and branches of the cork oak tree
(Quercus suber L.). Cork is processed into a variety of products
such as cork stoppers, building materials (insulation panels, walland floor coverings), household utensils, decorative products
and many other products. Some of these products have long
9434

4

12

963

1035

service lives, similar to wood-based panels or sawnwood. Thus, Ana Dias

Noted

a reporting country should be allowed to include CO2 emissions
and removals associated with cork products in the National
GHG Inventories, at least as a tier 3 method, and this should be
mentioned explicitly in this chapter. A method consistent withthe one proposed in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines was developed
for cork products in the following publication: Dias, A.C., Arroja,L., 2014. A model for estimating carbon accumulation in cork
products, Forest Systems, 23, 236-246.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5424/fs/2014232-04100
8448

4

12

965

965

Suggest change 'In theory, also' to 'in theory' [delete also]

Eugene Hendrick

7424

4

12

966

968

These lines can be removed in their entirety.

Max Collett

Accepted with
Modification
Rejected

No reason is given for deleting the lines and the authors consider the lines
to be essential for implementing the method.

Tarja Tuomainen

Accepted with
Modification

The text has been reviewed in the light of the comment.

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

Good practices' in this section are more QA activities, and
6692

4

12

970

984

hence wording is suggested to change, especially in the case of
the requirement to explain the relation of country-specific HWP

Editorial

categories to the FAOSTAT data.
Suggest change 'Its application is basically relevant for HWP
8450

4

12

1002

1002

pools in the reporting country alone' to: 'In practice its
application is relevant for HWP pools in the reporting country
alone'

8452

4

12

1006

1006

content per square meter' to 'content per square metre'

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted

8454

4

12

1008

1008

meter to metre

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted

5368

4

12

1010

1010

Paula Ollila

Accepted

8306

4

12

1015

1015

Section 12.5.1.1., there might be the need to combine inventory
information with estimates derived by means of flux (add to)

Abdul Nayamuth

Accepted

7426

4

12

1017

1035

These lines can be removed in their entirety.

Max Collett

Rejected

In the text the reference is Statistics Finland (2011) but in the
References list it is Statistics Finland 2010.

No reason is given for deleting the lines and the authors consider the lines
to be essential for implementing the method.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

8456

4

12

1018

1018

Is it possible to adjust the inventory stock change estimate for wood inbuildings to take account of data on the level of import of construction
wood in order to apply a production approach?

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

This is not precluded by the guidance and wording has been amended.

Anny Huang

Noted

Chap. 12 (HWP), Section 12.6: At each annual time step, wood

decay in landfills generates CO2 and CH4. Landfill gas recovery
systems capture a portion of the gases generated. In some
6322

4

12

1036

1050

systems, this gas is flared or combusted for electricity
generation. Is there guidance for how/where to report the"HWP-origin CO2 that is generated from the combustion of the
CH4?

1562

4

12

1038

1039

It is unclear which parameters this sentence refers to - there is certainly
new literature supporting the update of decay factors for HWPs in
landfills - this new information is at least partially captured in the revised
Waste chapter. Key new reference sources with suggested decay factors
include 1) Wang, X., Padgett, J.M., De la Cruz, F.B., Barlaz, M.A., 2011.
Wood biodegradation in laboratory scale landfills. Environ. Sci. Technol.
45, 6864–6871. 2) Ximenes, F.; Cowie, A., Barlaz, M. 2017. The decay of
Fabiano Ximenes
engineered wood products and paper excavated fromlandfills in Australia. Waste Management.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.11.035; 3) Wang, X., De la Cruz,
F.B., Ximenes, F., Barlaz, M.A., 2015. Decomposition and carbon
storage of selected paper products in laboratory-scale landfills. Sci Total
Environ. 532, 70–79.; 4) Ximenes, F., Björdal, C., Cowie, A., Barlaz, M.,
2015. The decay of wood in landfills incontrasting climates in Australia. Waste Manage. 41, 101–110.

Accepted with
Modification

The text has been revised.

Rejected

Inconsistency issues are acknowledged but the proposed solution can not
be implemented in the context of this chapter

Countries should make efforts to ensure that results reported in
AFOLU and waste sectors are internally consistent andcomplete. Steps can be taken by countries to ensure that datautilised in the waste sector regarding the disposal or assumed
disposal of wood products to solid waste disposal sites (which
all annex 1 countries should already be calculating) are utilised
7428

4

12

1042

1050

in HWP models for discerning the correct destination of HWP
ceasing to be in-use. Suggest that “some inconsistency inresults” needs to be addressed. The solution is to limit options
to where the 'stock-change' or 'atmospheric flow' approaches ,which calculates HWP emissions associated with domestic
consumption on the same basis as on which domestic disposal
to the waste sector is discerned.

Max Collett

Comment
ID

7430

Volume4

Chapter

12

From line

1051

To lineComment

Expert1073

All countries should already be estimating emissions from the decay ofwood products in solid waste disposal sites (SWDS) using the default tier
1 or higher methods of carbon stock modelling. It should be encouraged
that countries not consider such material to have fully oxidised upon
disposal from the AFOLU sector. As an example, some parties have
moved to not report CO2 emissions equal to all HWP reaching its end ofservice life, but only that component which is not recycled or sent to
Max Collett
SWDS. As a proportion of the material in SWDS breaks down, thecomponent of the landfill gas released as CO2 rather than CH4 is at thattime reported as an emission from the HWP category in AFOLU, andmaterial that will remain stable in landfill is presumed to never oxidise to
the atmosphere. This reflects reality and ensures emissions from HWP
disposal are not overstated. The guidelines should encourage all parties
to make use of their Waste sector calculations in the interests ofaccuracy and consistency.
The text references Annex II, which is simply a link to the

7432

4

12

1053

1053

common reporting format tables. This does not appear to be

4

12

1086

1086

Suggest change 'of real world inducing method based' to 'of
the real world, thereby resulting in method based'

4

12

1089

1089

products' to: 'but there is knowledge of the service life of wood

Reference has been amended as needed.

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

products'
8462

4

12

1089

Noted

Accepted with
Modification

Suggest change 'but some knowledge on the service life of wood
8460

Authors' note

Max Collett

the intended reference.
8458

Response

1089

Suggest change 'FOD decay' to: 'the FOD function'

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted

Suggest change 'other types of distributions could also be used todescribe the true decay process.' to: 'other decay functions or
methodologies may better describe the decay process.'

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Editorial

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

8464

4

12

1090

1091

8466

4

12

1092

1092

Suggest change 'products are not just a technical issue' to:'products are not just technical issues'
Suggest change 'Thus, also discards of HWP correlate with

8468

4

12

1094

1094

their increasing consumption' to: 'Thus an increase in the
discard rate may correlate with increasing consumption of
HWP.'
Suggest change 'As a result of FOD the annual change of carbon
stock in HWP is steered too strongly by the instantaneous

8470

4

12

1095

1096

production rate of HWP of domestic origin' to: 'As a result theannual carbon stock change in HWP may be overly influenced by
the instantaneous production rate of HWP of domestic origin'

Comment
ID

Volume8472

4

Chapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted with
Modification

Suggest change 'in case their stock in reality was growing at
12

1102

1103

initial time' to: 'in cases where the stock was growing when
initialisation of the time series began'

8474

4

12

1103

1103

8476

4

12

1108

1108

Suggest change 'is started only from the early 1990s' to: ' only
starts from the early 1990s'
Suggest delete 'basically' in 'The uncertainty could basically belowered'Suggest change 'idealised models with uncertain assumptions

8478

4

12

1114

1144

on decay pattern' to: 'models with uncertain decay patternassumptions'
Suggest change 'and whose verification and validation could be

8480

4

12

1114

1115

questioned ' to: 'and which may require verification andvalidation'

8482

4

12

1118

1118

Change 'contains' to 'contain'
Suggest change 'Inventory methods cannot be applied for HWP

8484

4

12

1120

1121

in export markets by the reporting country either.' to: ' inaddition, inventory methods are scarcely implementable by thereporting and producing country for HWP in its export markets .'

8486

4

12

1121

1121

8488

4

12

1121

1121

8490

4

12

1122

1122

7212

4

12

1125

1125

Change ' Thus, it must' to 'Thus, they must'
Suggest change: 'inducing double-counting risks' to: 'which runs
the risk of double-counting'Suggest change: 'Furthermore, it is applicable only' to: 'In
addition, inventory methods are applicable only'"FAO" is not a database - give full reference

Eugene Hendrick

4

12

1129

1130

commercial forestry' to: ' For example removals data tend to be

Accepted with
Modification

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted

Eugene Hendrick

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

Accepted with
Modification
Accepted
with

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

only from commercial forestry fellings.'
8494

4

12

1130

1130

Suggest delete 'is' in 'sawnwood production is being'

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

Eugene Hendrick

Suggest change 'Removals data e.g. tend in fact to be only
8492

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

Suggest change 'The scope of data collection, as not all
8496

4

12

1132

1133

information is collected, particularly in the informal sector andfrom small operators' to: 'The scope of data collection: small or
casual producers may not be included.'

8498

4

12

1137

1137

Suggest change 'that is' to 'where'

Eugene Hendrick

8500

4

12

1153

1153

Add 'be' in 'may not correct'

Eugene Hendrick

Uncertainty due to half-life parameters are not the largest
548

4

12

1164

1164

uncertainty - leakage and choice decay model are probably
larger, then half life.

Eric Marland

Modification

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Eric Marland

Noted

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted

Paula Ollila

Accepted

Paula Ollila

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

Peter Aarup Iversen

Accepted with
Modification

The wording has been revised in the light of the comment.

Note that an increase in the half-life by 10% corresponds toroughly a 10% increase in the accumulated stock of stored
carbon in that stock. This implies that the timing of the

550

4

12

1164

1164

emissions matters a great deal and that the time between
harvest and emissions needs to be tracked, including for fueluses. The timing of sequesters carbon and emitted carbon need
to be considered.

Sentence doesn't make sense, as conservativeness would be
different for carbon stock changes related to remissions or
related to removals, thus it cannot be "underestimation". This
7214

4

12

1165

1166

also requires checking whether "conservativeness" is needed
here, and why - in my understanding, reporting should be as
accurate as possible, while accounting may have rules towards
conservativeness.

5366

4

12

1173

1174

In the text the reference is Statistics Finland (2011) but in the
References list it is Statistics Finland 2010.
I would suggest altering the first sentence to "..true half life …
has likely been shorter in the past than the default half-lives"
since there is no information on current half-lives. I would also

5364

4

12

1175

1176

suggest deleting the last sentence because it is not correct nor
necessary to speculate on a country's HWP pool based on
outdated studies in the guidelines. Finland exports most of its
HWP so the size of the domestic HWP pool does not affect the
total situation substantially.
Since the first order decay factor is applied for calculating the
HWP pool at the beginning of the year and for calculate annual

8540

4

12

1183

1183

emissions the net effect of using a "wrong" half-life is reduced.
E.g. If Finland used a shorter country-specific half-life thiswould reduce the HWP carbon pool at the beginning of the year
but increase the emissions from this "smaller" pool.

3316

4

12

1218

1261

References should be written in accordance with others in the
document. Follow the same rules.

CARLOS SANQUETTA Accepted

Figure 12.1. is difficult to understand, in line 157 it is said stock
9852

4

12

Figurechange = domestic production + imports - exports, in the figure

12.1

both exports and imports are outside the boundary. Modify or

Anke Herold

Accepted with
Modification

Anke Herold

Noted

delete9856

412FigureUseful clarification in step 1 of decision tree that there is an

12.4

option not to report emissions from HWP if AD is not available.

In the light of the comment the figure has been improved.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

9862

4

12

Table 12.3

4748

4

Annexes 15

4750

4

Annexes 26

9402

4

Annexes 156

157

4752

4

Annexes 176

176

4754

4

Annexes

2286

3694

4

Annexes

ExpertResponse

Anke Herold

Accepted

N2O, subscript, check other places

KEWEI YU

Noted

Will be addressed, at least, in the final copy-edit work.

CO2, subscript, check other places

KEWEI YU

Noted

Will be addressed, at least, in the final copy-edit work.

Iciar Alberdi

NotedWill be addressed, at least, in the final copy-edit work.

good practice in italic

KEWEI YU

Accepted

editorial

375

In table, CH4,NH3, N2, subscript, and check other places

KEWEI YU

Accepted

editorial

973

973

In Annex 10A.2, Table 10A-20, manure management CH4 emission factor
and background data for ostrich is given with a reference to estimationsof Agricultural University of Norway. In 2012 the Norwegian Universityof Life Sciences, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences wasreviewing the national factor for ostrich. It was concluded that theVigdis Vestreng
national emission factor used was too high, probably because of a toohigh MCF on 8 %. It was also concluded that the Danish emission factor
on 1.47 kg CH4 per animal and year was a better value for ostrich.
Norway recommend that the proposed default emission factor for
ostrich is not used in the 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

Accepted

Advice incorporated in SOD (Table already refers to (old) Norwegianestimate. Checked Norway and DK NIR)

570

572

these are my warnings referred to comment in line 447 p 20

Noted

This comment is for Energy sector

NotedThis comment is for Energy sector375

To lineComment
Please provide the original sources instead of IPCC 2014, it
would be useful to add ranges to the values

Table biomass: Above-ground biomass in plantation forests
instead of Above-ground biomass in plantation forest

Alicia Villamizar

Authors' notethe "2" in CO2 should be made a subscript; overall the text iswell written and show almost no errors. Just a few comments on
the production of hydrogen; line 1044 the title may be betternamed as "Reforming Technologies" instead of "Complete
Oxidation" as this would make easier to understand and not to
confuse with full combustion which does not generate H2
Line 1063: the reader may confuse between gasification in
9648

981

1496

Figure 3.19 and Partial Oxidation in 1090. In fact, Gasification is Yousef Alshammari
partial oxidation. Partial oxidation is not endothermic assuggested it is exothermic when oxygen is added to the system,
but it requires heat to generate steam which later is used in thewater gas shift reaction. Hence, I suggest moving thegasification processes to the Partial Oxidation Section in Line1090, and keeping line 1044 for the steam reforming
technologies which are endothermic.

Comment
ID

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineComment

ExpertResponse

Authors' note

Yousef Alshammari

Noted

This comment is for Energy sector

Yousef Alshammari

Noted

This comment is for Energy sector

Equation 1b is not a hydrogen generation reaction and there isno need for this equation. A better equation to be specified is
the water gas shift reaction

9650

1072

1072

which follows the reforming of methane (equation 1a)
CO+H2O=CO2+H2 and that means equation (1a) should be
rewritten as CH4+H2O=CO+3H2 this is followed by the water
gas shift CO+H2O=CO2+H2

The same comment here as well, equation 2b is not a hydrogengeneration reaction, this is combustion and has no relevance, it
9652

1076

1082

should be rewritten as a partial oxidation reaction followed bywater gas shift, and the same comment for line (1082) equation
3b