INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGEWMO

NAT IONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORIES PROGRAMMEIPCC NGGIP-LULUCF Programme
Fifth Authors/Experts Meeting on Good Practice Guidance
for Land Use, Land-Use Change And Forestry (Task 1)
andFourth Authors/Experts Meeting on the issue of“Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other
Vegetation Types”(Task 2)Meeting Report
Sydney, Australia
29 – 31 July 2003

Supporting material prepared for consideration by the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change. This supporting material has not been subject to formal
IPCC review and approval process.

UNEPAcknowledgements
Riitta Pipatti, Leandro Buendia, Kiyoto Tanabe, Todd Ngara, Kyoko Miwa, Fabian Wagnerand Akiko Kawase, of the Technical Support Unit for the IPCC National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories Programme, prepared this report. In preparing this report, consultations weremade with Co-Chairs of the Task Force Bureau on Inventories of the IPCC: Taka Hiraishi and
Thelma Krug, and members of the LULUCF Steering Group: Michael Gytarsky, Dina
Kruger, and Jim Penman. We are also grateful for the contributions from all Coordinating
Lead Authors, Lead Authors, Review Editors, and other participants.

SUMMARY
Authors and experts of the two reports met at the Fifth Authors/Experts Meeting on Task 1
and the Fourth Authors/Experts Meeting on Task 2, held on 29 – 31 July 2003, in Sydney,
Australia, to consider the comments received from the second governments/experts review
for the preparation of the final draft reports. About 4,000 comments were received during
the second review, which ran from 2 May to 27 June 2003.
Task 1 and Task 2 authors agreed on a time schedule for further drafting and finalising thedrafts for government consideration in October 2003, before consideration by the IPCC
Panel, 3 – 7 November 2003.

1 BACKGROUND
1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), at its XVIII Session in
September 2001, in Wembley, UK, endorsed the Land Use, Land-Use Change andForestry (LULUCF) Programme of the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme(NGGIP), which responds to the invitations to the IPCC laid out in the Marrakesh
Accords (Decision 11/CP.7, paragraphs 3(a) to (d)). IPCC XVIII also accepted the Termsof Reference (TOR), the Table of Contents (TOC), and the Work Plan for thedevelopment of Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF. This activity is also known as
Task 1 of the NGGIP LULUCF Programme and responds to the invitation contained inparagraphs 3 (a) and (b) in the decision 11/CP.7.
2. The First Authors/Experts Meeting for Task 1 was held on 12-14 March 2002, inEisenach, Germany. The Eisenach meeting accomplished substantive work on Chapters 2
to 5 with an accelerated handling of Chapter 2 (Basis for Consistent Representation ofLand Areas) to produce an initial draft. The latter was necessary because the land-use
categories in the other chapters are based on Chapter 2. The authors discussed the initial
draft outline of each chapter of the report, paying special attention to consistency andharmonisation requirements. The availability of scientific and other relevant material was
explored.
3. The IPCC also responded to the invitation of the COP contained in its decision 11/CP.7(paragraph 3 (c)) in the Marrakesh Accords) by preparing a work plan to develop
definitions for direct human-induced degradation of forests and devegetation of othervegetation types, and methodological options to inventory and report emissions resulting
from these activities. The work plan, TOR and TOC for this task were endorsed by IPCC
XIX in April 2002. This task is known as Task 2 of the NGGIP LULUCF Programme. It
was agreed that the implementation of Task 2 would be synchronised with Task 1 toensure consistency of methodologies and products.
4. The Second Authors/Experts Meeting for Task 1 and the First Authors/Experts Meeting
for Task 2 were held simultaneously on 10-12 July 2002, in Tampere, Finland. The
meetings advanced the drafting of all the Task 1 chapters, and considerable progress wasmade in preparing a draft outline and elaborated contents of the various chapters of Task
2. Links between the two tasks were also identified at these two meetings.
5. The Third Authors/Experts Meeting for Task 1 and the Second Authors/Experts Meeting
for Task 2 were held, on 2-4 October 2002, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The meetings aim
was to produce the first-order draft reports for the first governments and experts review
and to plan for the Fourth and Third Authors/Expert Meetings for Task 1 and Task 2,
respectively. Authors and the IPCC NGGIP Technical Support Unit (TSU) worked
closely in finalising the first-order draft reports after the meetings.
6. The first combined government/expert review of the first-order drafts took place during
the period 2 December 2002 to 27 January 2003. A total of twenty-five countries, fiveintergovernmental organisations and thirty-seven experts participated in the review andabout 6,000 comments were received by the TSU.
7. All comments were compiled into consolidated lists and preliminary recommendations on
how to reflect these comments in the second-order drafts were prepared by the TSU. The
Steering Group and the TSU prepared a summary of comments that highlighted specificpoints. The authors considered this summary at the next meeting in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.

8. The Fourth Authors/Experts Meeting for Task 1 and the Third Authors/Experts Meeting
for Task 2 were held on 1-3 April 2003, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The aim of thesemeetings was to consider how best to reflect all comments in the second-order drafts.
Review editors of both tasks participated in the meeting.
9. The second-order drafts were finalised for the second combined government/expert
review, which ran from 2 May to 27 June 2003 and produced about 4,000 comments. The
comments were compiled by the TSU into consolidated lists by chapter, and key issues
addressed in the comments were summarised as after the first review.

2 OBJECTIVES AND ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING
10. The Fifth Authors/Experts Meeting for Task 1 and the Fourth Authors/Experts Meeting
for Task 2 were held on 29–31 July 2003, in Sydney, Australia. The objectives of themeetings were to consider the comments from the second combined government/expert
review for the preparation of the final draft reports.
11. The Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) hosted the meetings. The TSU of the IPCC
NGGIP organised these meetings with the support from the AGO. The TSU is gratefulfor the excellent support from the AGO under Dr Gary Richards’ leadership. A privatecompany “Horizon Events” also greatly assisted with the logistics at the venue. One
hundred and nine experts/authors, review editors and TSU members participated in themeetings (see the Participant List at the end of this report).
12. A Co-ordinating Lead Authors (CLA) Meeting, on 28 July 2003 attended by the CLAs,
the Steering Group, and the TSU preceded the two meetings. Additional CLA meetings
were held also during the meeting to address identified key issues and to ensure
consistency in the consideration of the comments. The essential points discussed at thesemeetings are given in subsequent paragraphs of this report and the attached minutes fromthese meetings. The first CLA meeting also discussed the tasks for the breakout groups,
identification of inter-linkages between chapters of each task, as well as between Tasks 1
and 2.
13. Essentially, the meetings were conducted in breakout groups (BOGs) that were based on
the chapters of the report. When necessity warranted it, smaller or larger BOGs were also
formed either within BOGs or among/between them. Details of the discussions of theseand of chapter-specific issues are provided in the next sections of this report.
14. In the BOG sessions of each chapter, the authors considered all substantive comments on
Task 1 and Task 2. Most of them were accepted or taken into account in the drafts.
Responses from authors indicating how each comment was treated were compiled in the
Excel files with the consolidated comments.
15. Review Editors for each chapter of Task 1 and Task 2 were present at the plenary andbreakout group discussions to ensure that all substantive comments from governments
and experts were appropriately dealt with, to advise authors how to handle controversial
issues, and also how they would be addressed in the final draft to be sent to governments.

3 CLA MEETINGS
16. The CLA meetings discussed identified key issues, and especially comments that would
also affect the other chapters of the Task 1 reports, and/or also Task 2.
17. The first CLA meeting discussed the key issues relating to the comments as identified by
the Steering Group and TSU, and recommended responses to be taken by the authors in
response to these. The CLAs of each chapter provided additional analysis of thecomments for the respective chapter, presented comments that would need a common
approach and provided an evaluation of how these issues could be addressed during themeetings. The first CLA meeting discussed also issues relating to the conduct of the Task
1 and Task 2 meetings (timing of the plenaries/BOG sessions etc) and general issues likethe timetable for finalising the draft reports after the meetings. The minutes of the first
CLA meeting are attached (see Attachment 1).
18. Additional CLA meetings were held during the meetings, usually in the mornings before
the BOG or plenary sessions, the final CLA meeting was held after last plenary of themeetings. These meetings assessed the progress in each chapter, discussed the responses
to major comments or comments of cross-cutting nature. The meetings discussed,
amongst others, proposed changes to the broad land-use categories, the annexes andappendices (content and role) of Chapter 3, issues relating to -the reporting andharmonisation of terminology, abbreviations and symbols used in the reports (seeAttachments 2 – 3 for more information). The CLA meeting agreed on therecommendation on how to use of the phrase “it is good practice to” and language
referring to the requirements in the Marrakesh Accords (see Attachment 4).

4 CHAPTER–SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION OF THE
COMMENTS
4.1 TASK 1 - CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW
19. No BOG sessions were held for Chapter 1 as the authors are also authors for the otherchapters of the report and were attending the BOG sessions for these. The authors hadgone through the comments before the meeting, prepared their responses for thosecomments that could be attended to before the meeting and revised the text accordingly.
These were given to the review editors for checks, and the authors and review editors
discussed the responses to the comments during breaks. There were no controversial
issues in the comments, and most comments were accepted (some comments were
rejected to maintain consistency with the IPCC report on Good Practice Guidance andUncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, or the responses weremodified to ensure consistency with other parts of the text).
20. Responses to some comments depended on decisions and actions to be taken in the otherchapters; some of these were incorporated in the draft text during the meetings, others
needed to await the finalisation of the consideration of the comments on the chapters. The
review editors prepared a written report on the consideration of the comments of thischapter during the meeting, including a list of comments that would require additional
responses after the meeting.

4.2 TASK 1 - CHAPTER 2: CONSISTENT REPRESENTATION OF LAND
AREAS

21. The group went through the comments and labelled some comments as “priority”
comments based on the nature and importance of the comments. Issues with implications
to other chapters were raised.
• To Chapter 1: proposal to include text on reasoning for consistent representation ofland areas (use area information in a sensible manner);• To Chapter 4: proposal to make some changes in wording of Table 4.2.2 addressing
the relationship with Chapter 2 approaches and Chapter 4 reporting methods relating
to land area representation;• To all chapters: proposal to consider the inclusion of natural water bodies (lakes,
rivers) into the wetland category (this was accepted during the meeting).
22. The authors considered also the following actions to respond to the comments and assign
authors with tasks to complete these tasks:• To produce a decision table to replace the decision tree, or improve the existing
decision tree;• Re-ordering of tables and figures.
23. The electronic files with the all comments responded to would be relayed to the TSU for
consolidation. TSU was also tasked to incorporate “non-priority” (editorial) responses tocomments into the SOD text. The CLAs/TSU were tasked to combine text versions with“priority” and “non-priority” comment edits to produce the final draft.

4.3 TASK 1 - CHAPTER 3: LUCF SECTOR GOOD PRACTICE GUIDANCE
24. The group summarised the key issues that would need improvement and additional workin Chapter 3 as follows: user-friendliness, default data tables (including default values forbiomass expansion factors), decision trees, forest fires, uncertainties, annexes andappendices, and reporting tables. Contact persons were assigned to take the lead in
addressing second-order draft (SOD) comments and were requested to compile authors’
responses on these key issues.
25. So-called “pre-Sydney drafts” – edited versions of the SOD text - for the different
sections of Chapter 3 were provided to the group to address the issue of user-friendliness.
The group agreed to develop a process on how to deal with the SOD comments and thepre-Sydney drafts.
26. The group agreed to introduce a “road map” in Section 3.1 (Introduction) to improve theuser-friendliness.
27. For Section 3.2 (Forest Land) and Section 3.3 (Cropland), an agreement was reached that
default tables will be placed, as much as possible, in the main text and not in the annex
and that default values for Tier 1 should be provided. However, it was anticipated that
more tables on biomass default values will be developed and it would seem to be more
appropriate to put them in the annex. A subgroup was formed to develop default values
for biomass expansion factors which would be important components of Section 3.2. It
was also pointed out that tables have to provide sources and references and that text andunits in the tables should be in harmony with the text/descriptions in the equations.
28. It was decided to have a decision tree only at the land-use category level and not at the
carbon pool level. Text explaining the decision trees should be provided in Section 3.1.

29. On forest fires, it was decided to deal with this issue in one place or section of the chapter
in a comprehensive way and just to cross-reference to it in the other sections or chapters.
Section 3.1 will provide guidance on where forest fires are discussed in the chapter.
30. On uncertainties, it was agreed to have a discussion on “Uncertainty Assessment” foreach carbon pool (under the subsection Methodological Issues) instead of having ageneral discussion on this subject at the end of each section.
31. For the annexes and appendices, it was agreed that annexes would include tables ofdefault values (for Section 3.2) and the reporting tables. Appendices will include thesections on harvested wood products, non-CO2 emissions from drainage and rewetting offorest soils; and some parts of the wetlands (including reservoirs) and settlements sections.
32. For the reporting tables, it was pointed out that the units should be consistent with theequations (in the main text) and that all the elements of the equations should be reflected.
The format, as much as possible, should be consistent with the IPCC 1996 Guidelines,
including the use of signs/conventions.

4.4 TASK 1 - CHAPTER 4: SUPPLEMENTARY METHODS AND GOOD
PRACTICE GUIDANCE ARISING FROM THE KYOTO PROTOCOL
33. Reflecting the structure of the chapter and continuing the practice of previous authors’
meetings, the Chapter 4 projects section’s authors worked on the comments and draft ofSection 4.3 separately.
34. To improve efficiency, for Sections 4.1 and 4.2 the CLAs had identified comments that
required a consistent treatment throughout the Chapter which were discussed in the groupas a whole, whereas specific comments were dealt with in smaller groups during and after
the meeting. Authors of Section 4.3 went through all comments one by one, working
directly on the electronic version of the text and a log file for authors’ responses tocomments.
35. The major issue of discussion were comments on Sections 4.1 and 4.2 demanding aclearer guidance on:• how to classify lands/units of land subject to Article 3 activities and• which reporting method to use for this.
Here consistency with Chapters 2, 3, and 5 was improved substantially.
36. Section 4.3 authors generally improved the user-friendliness of the section, also by
clarifying the scope of the section in the Introduction and by further delineating theactivities resulting in changes in non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions covered from thosealready included in other sectors, notably Agriculture. The text on sampling and otherstatistical concepts employed were improved considerably.
37. Both Chapter 4 breakout groups agreed on detailed schedules for finishing the work intime.

4.5 TASK 1 - CHAPTER 5: CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES
38. The group identified some cross-cutting issues that need to be discussed with authors ofother chapters. The group split into three major groups to consider comments on Chapter
5 of the Second Order Draft, and cross-cutting issues including the harmonization with
Chapter 4 on the issues related to reporting were discussed in the inter-BOG discussions.

39. Key category analysis was the outstanding issue that received general and basic questions
to the Second Order Draft. Authors agreed to further elaborate the explanation on the
difference between key source analysis in GPG2000 and key category analysis to include
LULUCF, rather than to consider any conceptual deviation from the Second Order Draft.
40. For the section of Uncertainties, additional explanation, further elaboration of subsections to provide more practical information would be considered in finalizing the draft.
41. Comments on sections on issues on Sampling and Verification were mainly technical, thatwere considered in finalizing draft in sub-BOG groups.
42. Chapter 5 breakout group agreed on detailed schedules to finalizing the draft andcomplete the list of comments in filling in their responses to each comment.

4.6 TASK 2 - DEGRADATION OF FORESTS AND DEVEGETATION OF
OTHER VEGETATION TYPES”
43. One of the most significant issues was how to respond to the diverse comments on thedefinitions of “degradation” and “devegetation”, some of which called for more
restrictive definitions, while many others called for less restrictive ones. Authors gave
substantial consideration and intensive discussion to this issue, and concluded to provide
5 alternative definitions for degradation of forests and 4 for devegetation. They also
concluded to provide their policy and methodological implications and criteria for
acceptable and operational definitions.
44. In response to the comments claiming that the examples of potential
degradation/devegetation activities listed in the SOD were not appropriate or ambiguous,
authors concluded to remove the controversial tables and to provide only a few illustrative
examples to make some comparisons among definitions.
45. As regards the issue on the lack of clear guidance on detailed methodological options,authors agreed to explain why it was difficult to provide it. They also agreed to provide a
discussion on methodological approaches substantively drawing upon Chapter 3 of the
Task 1 report (GPG-LULUCF).
46. Authors agreed to pay due attention to the consistent use of terms. Authors decided,
among others, to ensure consistent use of “managed forest” and “forest management” aswell as “unbalanced accounting” and “asymmetric accounting” with Chapter 4 of the
Task 1 report (GPG-LULUCF).
47. The authors agreed to provide discussion on circumstances in which LULUCF accounting
and reporting could be unbalanced and how the accounting for forest degradation anddevegetation of other vegetation types would address it.
48. Task 2 breakout group agreed on the role of each author and the detailed schedule forfinishing the work in time.

5 CONCLUSIONS - LAST PLENARY
49. The Task1 and Task 2 authors agreed on a time schedule for further drafting andfinalising the third order drafts, which would be subject to government consideration
during the month of October. The authors would provide the final drafts to the TSU andSteering Group for final editorial work and consistency checks by 5 September, and thedrafts would be sent for checks to authors again by mid September and the final technicalediting by the TSU would take place at the end of the month.
50. Despite the large number of comments the authors were able to address most of themduring the meeting and felt that the groups had addressed all substantial issues. Chapter 3of Task 1 – with the largest amount of comments and work load – had not been able toconsider all individual comments but had discussed all major issues and assigned
authors/groups of authors with tasks to finalise consideration of the comments, and thedrafting with advice on how to respond to the comments.
51. The authors felt that the review comments were constructive and incorporating them inthe final drafts would result in a better product. They also believed that the drafting of
final reports could be completed in the agreed time line.
52. The TFB Co-chairs thanked the Australian authorities for hosting the meetings,
conference officers for their support, report authors and Steering Group for theirinstrumental contribution for the preparation of the draft reports, as well as the membersof the TSU for their effortless supports. The meetings concluded at 17:30.

ATTACHMENT 1
MAIN POINTS FROM CLA MEETING- 27 July 2003
General Points:
1. Key category analysis – some fundamental comments on how and at what level theanalysis would be done, and on key category analysis related to KP activities –changes in treatment would affect especially Chapter 3 and 4.
Conclusion: No fundamental changes anticipated (rationale could be clarified more);
KP specific issues will be discussed with Chapter 4 authors.
2. BEFs and allometric equations harmonization between Chapters 3 and 4
Conclusion: It was recognized that there are inconsistencies between the chapters andthat these would need harmonizing.
3. Tracking management practices: some guidance is lacking in Chapter 3 and 4.
Including detailed guidance would need specification of the practices; this was notseen as feasible and could also result in policy prescriptiveness regarding practices
related to the KP activities.
Conclusion: General guidance (e.g. how remote sensing, agricultural census data, etc.
can be used for this purpose) will be included in Chapter 3 as part of the guidance on
activity data.
4. Use of “Good practice” – both are “over- and under-used” in current drafts. It wasnoted that “Good Practice” should be used in a consistent way.
Conclusions:− Preferred wording “it is good practice to”− Use only in recommendations for producing good inventories; use other words(it is recommended etc.) for something of less importance/priority;− Task 2 should not use the term “Good Practice” in principle;− “Good practice” should not be in appendices when these refer to future
methodological development
The Steering Group was asked to prepare recommendations on the issue.
5. Consistency between definitions (e.g. forest, cropland) in Chapters 3 and 4.
Chapter 3 definitions have to be consistent with the 1996 IPCC Guidelines, though
this does not preclude the use of Marrakesh Accords definitions. Explaining any
differences between Chapter 3 and 4 definitions should be a reporting requirement in
Chapter 4. The wordings to be used to express this was not agreed upon (whether touse “it is good practice to report on any changes…. “ or other wordings).

Chapter-specific:
Chapter 1:
A revised draft will be distributed to all CLAs for comments (no major revisions are
expected but the special status of the chapter – adoption section by section at Plenary –will need attention).
Conclusions on specific comments:- a more representative decision tree on the key source concept will be provided (choiceafter Chapter 3 decision trees are revised)- need for more diagrams – a diagram on how to use the report will be developed- policy-relevant issues that need to be addressed in Chapter 1 could include: statistical vs.
complete enumeration, key category analysis, reporting tables.
Chapter 2:(i) Land Use/Land Cover – many comments on the need to use of the terminology, how
can it be made clearer? Conclusion: use “land use” and clarify that in this report the use isa hybrid of “land use” and “land cover”(ii) Approaches are hierarchical – this is stated in some comments. Conclusion: the issue
will be clarified more(iii)Linkages between Chapters 2, 4 and 5 need improving.
Chapter 3:
Conclusions:(i) Harmonisation of equations
o abbreviations that could cause confusion will be revised or written in fullo early introduction of carbon units was encouragedo conversion to CO2 would be made at the highest level (in reporting tables)o signs: the text will be written as in the 1996 IPCC Guidelines, that is carbon
stock changes that increase the stock have a positive sign and vice versa; theconversion to signs consistent with other sectors and UNFCCC reporting(emissions positive and removals negative) will be made in the reportingtables. This practice needs to be explained in the text.
o Way forward: symbols as in paper but units discretion is left to the LA’s
according to the 1996 IPCC Guidelines
o The term for harvested wood products (HWP) will be removed from
Equation 3.2.1 and a footnote will be included that Parties that may want tointroduce HWP can do so provided that the pool is increasing in accordancewith text in the 1996 IPCC Guidelines.
(ii)Managed and unmanaged lands – how long will land abandoned remain in theinventory (once managed but now unmanaged – abandonment of managed lands in
category 5C of the 1996 IPCC Guidelines) – indefinitely or till the changes are no longer
attributable to the change?
(iii) Decision-trees:
A small BOG to consider all decision trees on the basis of the generic decision treepresented by Annette Freibauer (based on pre-Sydney work by the CLAs). The level of
key category analysis and the level at which the decision trees are developed isinterlinked and need joint consideration by Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.
Chapter 4:(i) Some comments found it controversial that land units can be classified to belong tomore than one category. Conclusion: the text will not be changed but it will be clarified

that the reporting should be done in only one category. The decision on the category
should be left to the country. This should be explained in Chapter 1 as well.
(ii) links to Chapter 3 could be made more explicit regarding the estimation of changes incarbon stocks and non-CO2 gas emissions(iii) the column on uncertainty estimates in the reporting table was seen as inconsistent
with the GPG2000 – Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 will discuss the issue further(iv)Projects:• symbols and some statistical representation should be improved• guidance on plots – how to take into account comments that it will be too expensive
and labour intensive to implement the guidance (will be clarified)• Non-CO2 issues – will be made more concise by referring to GPG 2000
Chapter 5:(i) Uncertainties calculations should be reported by gas at source category level (estimateswould be based on estimates of uncertainties at lower level – area, pool);(ii) Section 5.2.4 Reporting Documentation – the tables in the GPG2000 referred to in thissection should be included into Chapter 5 and not only referred to.
(iii) Key category analysis is discussed above (see general points, Chapter 3 and Chapter
4). Presentation in Chapter 5 will need further clarification, and the treatment/links should
be consistent throughout the report.
Task2:
Things to be done:• Work on definitions• Concrete methodologies lacking (can largely be taken care of by more detailedreferencing to Task 1)• Use of Terminologies: activity, practice and processes – consistency to be improved• Unbalanced vs. asymmetric accounting – Task 1 uses asymmetric but Task2 TOR
refer to unbalance accounting.
Additional BOGs:
Task 2 and Chapter 4: Revegetation and devegetation
Chapter 3 and 4: Reporting Tables – to meet 30 July at lunchtime
Chapter 3: Equations; Decision trees
Chapter 5: consistency in cross-cutting issues (Chapter 5 will contact the other groups asneeded)ATTACHMENT 2
CLA meeting 30 July 2003, 9 – 10 am
1. The minutes of the CLA meeting 27 July 2003 were distributed to the participants forcomments.
2. A paper from SG on recommendations on the use of language, particularly “good practice”
was distributed to the CLAs for comments and it was agreed to distribute the paper to all
authors. Heikki Granholm and Roberto Acosta cautioned also about the fact that the phrase“the Marrakesh Accords require...” may not be appropriate for all cases and that there aresome interpretations in the drafts that may not be correct. No specific wordings for change
were proposed. (The paper has been distributed without changes to the authors).
3. Task 2: Is working on alternative definitions and looking at the merit and shortcoming forthese. They have also looked at the comments on the examples provided in the text anddecided to keep illustrative examples in the text but move the table to an annex or to
supplementary material.
Interactions with Task authors (Chapter 4: forest
management/forest degradation and revegetation/devegetation) are scheduled for today.
4. Task 1, Chapter 1: A revised draft (copies were distributed at the meeting) and thecomment file with the authors’ responses (will be put on the EDG) were given to the TSU.
There are still some issues pending considerations in other chapters.
5. Task 1, Chapter 2: The group has gone through the comments and has responses to thecomments and are working on including these in the draft today. Issues with implications
to other chapters were raised.
•
To Chapter 1: proposal to include text on reasoning for consistent representation ofland areas (use area information in a sensible manner) [to be discussed]•
To Chapter 4: proposal to make some changes in wording to the table 4.2.2 (to be
discussed)•
To all: proposal to consider including natural water bodies (lakes, rivers) into thewetland category (to be decided)
6. Chapter 3: The chapter has made a list of issues to be addressed and assigned
responsibilities on these. The group is working in small groups and has addressed thegeneral comments. The group has reached agreement on the decision trees, harmonising
the equations (symbols) and the key category treatment, and has discussed how tocondense and improve the text on uncertainties (this will be continued). Issues consideredat the CLA meeting were•
How to treat the comment that it is “good practice to report on all lands (managed
and unmanaged).” It was agreed that no such recommendation such be in the text.
The issue on reporting on managed/unmanaged land should be clarified in Chapter
1.
•
The text on wetlands is now split between the main text and appendices. It was
proposed to enhance readability and consistent treatment of all gases it would be
preferable to have all text in one place – main body or the appendix. There was
support for the proposal but the implications would need further consideration.
Having the text in the appendix was seen as less controversial but the place would
be decided later.
•
The differentiation of appendices (an appendix would always have the title: Basisfor future methodology development – consistent with Chapter 4 in GPG2000) andannexes (default values and reporting tables) was discussed and there were varying
views on how the distinction should be made and which issues should be in•appendixes. There were comments all text that was in the 96GLs should be in themain body of the report and that the differences between and annex and an
appendix should be clarified in Chapter 1. (TSU will prepare a table on the
appendices with information on how the issues were treated in the 96GLs)
Reporting tables – one comment addressed the need to develop these (“theUNFCCC will anyway develop reporting tables”). It was clarified that the
UNFCCC will develop only common reporting formats for Annex I countries, notreporting tables for all.

7. Chapter 4 has addressed important (major issues) comments and prepared an action list
based on this, and is starting to look at the line-by-line comments. Issues discussed were•Lands meeting the definition of both forest and cropland/grazing land – the current
content that making the distinction will be up to the criteria set by the countries will
not be changed but more guidance how to set these criteria will be given. Chapter 4
will provide also Chapter 1 text on this.
•Interaction with other chapters is planned as follows. Uncertainties, key categories
and verification (Chapter 5 methods may not be applicable for Kyoto Protocol
reporting) will be discussed with Chapter 5. There will be a meeting on thereporting tables in draft reports [lunch time Wednesday]. Land area reporting in
Chapter 4 need to be discussed with Chapter 2 (see also above Chapter 2) and ameeting with Task 2 (Henry Janzen will be the contact person).
•
Possible missing expertise on Article 6 projects and comments asking for a tierstructure for the section were discussed in relation to Section 4.3. Including
additional tiers was seen as problematic as it would mean a major change to the text.
Alternative options (such as alternative methods for sampling and references to
Chapter 3 methodologies will be made). There will also be a joint meeting with
Chapter 3 authors on the BEFs and allometric equations.
8. Chapter 5 has considered all comments and is implementing these into the drafts. In
addition to the meeting with Chapter 4 the group will meet with Chapter 3 authors toaddress cross-cutting issues.

Table on appendices and annexes in Chapter 3.
Annexes are an integral part of the main text. Appendices are basis for future methodologicaldevelopment and contain those methodologies that have not reached the level of GPG.
SOD
Annex 3A HWP

ProposalAppendix

Remark
96GLs default methods is to
not report on HWP unless thecountry can report on HWP
only in the case where thecountry can document thatthe existing stocks of longterm forest products are infact increasing.

Especially the first review
produced many commentsthat the methodologies arepremature as the issue isunder consideration by the
SBSTA.
Annex 3 B Settlement
Appendix
The category is not includedin 96GLs.
Annex 3 C Reservoirs
Appendix/with
technical The category is discussed
under Possible refinement ormaterial from 3.5 (CO2)
additions to basic categories
in 96GLs.
Annex 3 D Non-CO2 fromThe category is discussed
drainage and rewetting ofunder Possible refinement or
soils
additions to basic categories
in 96GLs.
Annex 3 E List of appendix Annex
tables for Chapter 3.2 (FL)
Annex 3 F Reporting Tables Annex
3.5 Wetland
3.6 Settlement

Text in the main body needto cover conversions towetlands
Text in the main body needto cover conversions tosettlement

Comment from Annette:
Annex 3 C Reservoirs
Could be OK as it is, but it would increase readability and user-friendliness a lot of it wasmerged with wetlands. Wetlands are optional for reporting, they could go entirely to an
Appendix (except for land use change).
Annex 3 D Non-CO2 from drainage…
Inconsistent with 96 guidelines because non-CO2 emission from drainage for cropland andgrassland are included as mandatory in Agriculture Chapter of 96 Guidelines.
It created a lot of confusion because part of N2O emissions is included in main chapter andpart of it in Annex. Parties felt they are missing appropriate guidance.
CH4 methodology will be possibly removed due to uncertainties, so all the remaining bit are
current knowledge. The fact that the natural variability in N2O emissions tends to be higher
than for CO2 should not be an argument for an Appendix.

ATTACHMENT 3
CLA meeting 31 July 2003 8.30 – 9.30
1. Chapter 2 proposal to include lakes and rivers under the Wetland category instead of the
Other land category was accepted (consistency with Ramsar Convention).
2. The proposal on the differentiation of the appendices (Basis for future and annexes was
accepted. The main text would clarify the link to the appendices (text to harmonise theviews to be developed).
3. Review Editor meeting was held on 30 July. The Review Editors will prepare a report to
the IPCC Panel on the consideration of the comments (Mike Apps, Tom Wirth and Jamidu
Katima will coordinate Task 1 and Helen Plume Task 2 reports). These reports are due one
week before the Panel meeting in November. The Reviewer Editors will need the drafts
and excel sheets with authors’ responses for their work.
4. Reports from interbogs – issues have been solved or a process to solve them underway.
5. Reporting Tables – a meeting was convened on Wednesday to discuss the content of thetables and the process to finalise them. It was concluded not to include total CO2
equivalent columns with sum of all GHGs in the tables. For other issues, see the paper on
Reporting Tables below.
6. Brief reports from the CLAs of Chapters 1 – 5 of Task 1 and Task two were given. The
work is progressing well. Chapter 3 and 4 may not be able to consider all comments during
the meeting, Chapter 4 expected to be able to respond to at least 95% of the comments.

REPORTING TABLES

2003-07-31 12.30 pm

A summary on the discussions in the reporting table meeting on Wednesday 30 July including
the changes proposed in the CLA meeting and agreements between Chapter 3 and 4 CLAs
and the UNFCCC secretariat 31 July.
Chapter 3
The worksheets, compilation tables and summary tables prepared by the TSU in consultation
with CLAs (Ravi and Gert-Jan) will serve as the basis for finalisation of the table. The
revision will take following issues into account:• the worksheets will be changed in accordance with the changes in the equations (TSU is
harmonising the equations but the responsibility of the outcome and especially the content
is with the authors)• the units in the worksheet will correspond to the equations (input data most often tonnes
d.m. per ha and the conversion to C and CO2 is made in the worksheets)• in the compilation and summary tables the units will be Gg CO2 with separate columns foremissions and removals for those pools where this can be made. The countries can provide
estimates on only the total emissions/removals if their estimation methods do not support
the division [at present this footnote is in the compilation tables, not in the summary tables]• sign in the equations will be positive for increases in C stocks and negative for decreases• signs used in the tables are: + for emissions/- for removals (the main text and text in thereporting tables will reinforce the guidance on the use of the signs)

• the reporting tables will all be at the end of the chapter in an annex and introductory text on
the use of the worksheet and tables (key steps) will be included
Chapter 4
The proposed compilation table for Chapter 4 is attached. The table will have columns forcarbons stock changes (+ increase and – decrease) for all pools and the total C stock change, acolumn to convert this into CO2-equivalents with the signs in Chapter 3 and UNFCCC
reporting (+ emissions and – decrease).
The footnote in the biomass columns will be included for litter and dead wood if separation
into emissions/removals can be done [to be checked].
Following text will be included in the main body of the text:
In addition to the data in the compilation and summary tables (4.2.5 and 4.2.6), it is goodpractice to report the underlying assumptions and factors used for the calculation of the
carbon stock changes and emissions of CH4 and N2O, such as information included in theworksheets in Chapter 3 or equivalent information supporting the estimates obtained using
higher tiers or other methods.
Task 2- if tables are included they will have similar format as those in Chapter

(ha)Area of
Activity

(Gg
C/yr)

Above
groundbiomass8
(Gg
C/yr)

Below
groundbiomass8(Gg
C/yr)

Litter

(Gg
C/yr)

Dead
wood

(Gg
C/yr)

Soil

(Gg
C/yr)

Total
CarbonStock
Changes5(Gg CO2 e/yr)

Emissions (+)
or Removals (-)
from Carbon
Stock Changes6(Gg/yr)CH4Emissions(Gg/yr)N2O
Emissions

Increases (+) and Decreases (-) in Carbon Stock 4

Table 4.2.6. Compilation table for reporting carbon stock changes and emissions by sources and removals by sinks for the inventory year. A similar table should be completed for eachactivity/land (A and R1 not harvested during the first commitment period; A and R1 harvested during the first commitment period; A and R1 that are also subject to elected Article 3.4
activities2; D; D that is also subject to elected Article 3.4 activities2; FM if elected; CM if elected; GM if elected; RV if elected), as well as for units of land subject to Article 3.4, whichare, at the same time, lands subject to Article 3.3. A similar table for CM, GM and RV should be completed once for the base year
Activity:

7

ID

Inventory year:
Geographical
Location3

Serial No.
1
2
3
…
N
Total for theactivity: As afforestation (A) and reforestation (R) activities are treated the same way, they can be reported together. The separation of afforestation and reforestation lands that are harvested from those that are not1

harvested during the first commitment period is necessary because of the requirement set in Para 4, page 59, FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1.
Geographical location refers to the areas that encompass units of land subject to Article 3.3 and lands subject to Article 3.4 activities.

2: FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add 3.6, (b) (ii): Units of land subject to activities under Article 3.3 which would otherwise be included in land elected under Article 3.4 must be reported.
3

7

6

5

Those countries that use Tier 1 and Tier 2 methods that allow reporting of separate increase and decrease terms for biomass pools should report these as well as the net term. For the calculation of the total

ID: identifier of the geographic location

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

Total carbon stock changes are the sum of carbon stock changes of all five pools: If a pool is not reported, the text “NR” (for not reported) must be entered, and it must be demonstrated that the pool is not a source.

48

carbon stock changes the net terms of biomass stock changes are used.

20

ATTACHMENT 4
Language for making recommendations
Usage‘It is good practice to…’ or‘Good practice is to…’ or “Fig x
describes good practice”

When to use
For recommendations which a well-prepared inventory
should follow under the circumstances (notably, the Tierlevel) being described. Specific elements of good practicewhere the usages would be appropriate are described below.

These terms should not be used in Appendices or the Task 2
Report‘The
UN-FCCC/Kyoto For recommendations corresponding to requirements (shall
Protocol/Marrakesh
Accords language) in the corresponding international agreement or
require that…’
conclusions of Subsidiary Bodies.
‘must’ or ‘shall’
Avoid these verbs – the above formulations should be used as
appropriate‘should’
For recommendations which are highly desirable‘may’
For recommendations which are desirable‘it is efficient to’
For recommendations which lead to better use of resources
SPECIFIC PLACES TO USE “GOOD PRACTICE” LANGUAGE IN CHAPTER 3[Note: these are suggestions based on a quick review of GPG2000. Specific good practice language can beadapted to the characteristics of the category being discussed.]
Methodological Choice section− To describe what needs to be estimated for various tiers for particular subcategories and/or pools.
− To use the decision tree. (GPG2000 language was often: “The decision tree in Figure x describes goodpractice in choosing a method for estimating this category.”
Emission Factors/Parameters & Activity Data sections− Use good practice language to describe fundamental aspects of data collection and (if appropriate) use ofdata− Example: Where to get data for various tiers (Examples: “Under Tier 1, it is good practice to use thedefaults found in Table xxx.” “Under Tier 2, it is good practice to obtain country-specific data by doingx, y or z.”)− Example: To highlight any important considerations on data use (e.g., to ensure consistency of data,
avoid possible mistakes (like double counting), it is good practice to…)
Reporting & Documentation section− “It is good practice to report the following items:…”− “It is good practice to report the items contained in table…”
QA/QC− Two types of good practice, typically: First, good practice to use the cross-cutting guidance (“It is goodpractice to perform the Tier 1 QC checks described in Chapter 5, Section 5.3.”) Second, good practice todo some additional data checks related to the specific category. (“It is good practice to supplement thegeneral QA/QC related to data processing, handling and reporting with the following procedures:…”)Time Series− Following GPG2000, there may not be category specific good practice, although it should be a genericrequirement in Chapter 5.
21

Uncertainty− Following GPG2000, there may not be category specific good practice, although for some sources there
was a discussion and it should be a generic requirement in Chapter 5.
Completeness− Following GPG2000, there may not be specific good practice, although it should be a general
requirement in Chapter 5.

22

LIST OF PRATICIPANTS* SG (Steering Group Member)** CLA (Co-ordinating Lead Author)TASK 1
ARGENTINAMr Hector Daniel GINZO
Consejo National de Invetigaciones Cientificas y
Technologicas (CONICET), FIDNEU
Serrano 669, C1414DEM, C.A. Buenos Aires
Tel: (54 11) 4855 7674 ext. 56 / 4783 7467
Fax: (54 11) 48 54 56 02
hdginzo@arnet.com.ar

BAHRAIN
Dr Anwar Sheikhaddin Abdu KHALIL
College of Graduate Studies
Arabian Gulf University (AGU)
P.O.Box 26671, Manama
Tel: (973) 239 999 / 239608 / 449081
Fax: (973) 272555 / 274028 /239552
anwar@agu.edu.bh
BELARUSDr Vladimir SAVCHENKO
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection of the Republis of Belarus, for land,
forest and landscape protection
10, Kollektornaya st., Minsk, 220048
Tel: (375 17) 2205476
Fax: (375 17) 220 5583 / 220 5476
savchenko@tut.by

AUSTRALIA
Dr Simon BARRY
Bureau of Rural Sciences
PO Box E11, Kingston, ACT 2604
Tel: (61 2) 6727 4144
Fax: (61 2) 6272 4687
simon.barry@brs.gov.au
AUSTRALIA
Dr John RAISONCSIRO Forestry and Forest Products
PO Box E4008, Kingston ACT 2604
Tel: (61 2) 6281 8280
Fax: (61 2) 6281 8312
John.Raison@csiro.au

BOLIVIADr David Cruz CHOQUE
National Climate Change Programme
Calle Federico Suazo N 1972.1 Piso
P.O. Box: 5546, La Paz
Tel: (591 2) 2484835 / 244 2336
Fax: (591 2) 2491558 / 244 2336
davidcruzchoque@hotmail.com

AUSTRALIA
Dr Brian TURNER
Australian National University
SRES, BLDG 48, Canberra, ACT0200
Tel: (61 2) 6125 3548 / 6125 3458
Fax: (61 2) 6125 0746
brian.turner@anu.edu.au

BRAZILDr Thelma KRUG *Inter-American Institute for Global Change
Research
Avenida dos Astronautas 1758
Jardim da Granja, 12297-010 Sao Jose dos Campos,
SP
Tel: (55 12) 3945 6895
Fax: (55 12) 3941 4410
thelma@dir.iai.int

AUSTRIADr Bernhard SCHLAMADINGER **Joanneum Research, Institute of Energy Research
Elisabethstrasse 5, 8010 GRAZ
Tel: (43 316) 876 1340
Fax: (43 316) 876 91340
bernhard.schlamadinger@joanneum.at23

BRAZILDr Newton PACIORNIK **Ministry of Science and Technology of Brazil
Praia do Flamengo 200s/2401, 22210-901, Rio deJaneiroTel: (55 21) 2555 0308
Fax: (55 21) 2555 0306
newton@finep.gov.br

CANADADr Henry JANZEN
Environmental Health (Lethbridge Research Center)
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Box 3000, Lethbridge, Alberta, T1J 4B1
Tel: (1 403) 317 2223 / 327-4561
Fax: (1 403) 382 3156
janzen@agr.gc.ca

CANADADr Dominique BLAIN
Pollution Data Branch, Greenhouse Gas Division
Environment Canada
PVM, 19e etage, 351 boul. St-Joseph, Hull, Quebec,
K1A 0H3
Tel: (1 819) 953 6079
Fax: (1 819) 953 3006
dominique.blain@ec.gc.ca

CANADADr Werner KURZ **Natural Resources Canada
Canadian Forest Service
506 West Burnside Road, Victoria, BC, V8Z 1M5
Tel: (1 250) 363 6031
Fax: (1 250) 363 0775
wkurz@pfc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca
CHINA
Prof Erda LIN
Agrometeorology Institute
Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences
12 ZhongGuanCun South Street, Beijing 100081
Tel: (86 10) 6211 9688
Fax: (86 10) 6211 9688
Lined＠ns.ami.ac.cn / lined@ppi.caas.ac.cn

CANADA
Ms Pascale COLLAS
Environment Canada
19th Floor 351 St. Joseph Boul, Gatineau, Quebec,
K1A 0H3
Tel: (1 819) 994 0888
Fax: (1 819) 953 3006
pascale.collas@ec.gc.ca

CHINA
Dr Xiaoquan ZHANG
Chinese Academy of Forestry
Institute of Forest Ecology and Environment
Wan Shou Shan, Beijing 100091
Tel: (86 10) 62889512
Fax: (86 10) 62888840
xiaoquan@forestry.ac.cn

CANADADr Éric DUCHEMIN
DREXenvironnement2667 rue Knox, Montreal, QC H3K 1R3
Tel: (1 514) 937 5619
drexenv@cam.org
CANADADr Ted HUFFMAN
Research Branch
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Rm 4097 KW Neatby Bldg, 960 Carling Ave.
Ottawa, ON, K1A 0C6
Tel: (1 613) 759 1846
Fax: (1 613) 759 1924
huffmant@agr.gc.ca

ECUADORMr Julio CORNEJO VARGAS
Undersecretariat of Environmenal Quality
Ministry of Environment, Ecuador
Avenida Eloy Alfaro y Amazonas,
Edificio M.A.G., Piso 7, Quito
Tel: (593 2) 2508510
Fax: (593 2) 2508510
jcornejo@ambiente.gov.ec

24

FINLANDDr Markku KANNINEN
CIFOR, Indonesia
P.O.Box 6596, JKPWB, Jakarta, 10065, Indonesia
Tel: (62 251) 622 622
Fax: (62 251) 622 100
m.kanninen@cgiar.org

GAMBIAMr Bubu Pateh JALLOW **Department of Water Resources
7, Mariana Parade, Banjul
Tel: (220) 228 216
Fax: (220) 225 009
bubujallow@hotmail.com

FINLAND
Dr Kim PINGOUD
Finnish Forest Research Institute (Melta)
Unioninkatu 40A, 00170 Helsinki
Tel: (358 10) 2111
Fax: (358 10) 211 2104
kim.pingoud@metla.fi

GERMANYDr Rainer BARITZ
European Comission - Joint Research Centre
Climate Change Unit
TP051, Via E. Fermi, I-21020 Ispra(VA)
Tel: (39 0332) 78 5870
Fax: (39 0332) 78 5022
rainer.baritz@jrc.it

FINLAND
Dr Risto SIEVANEN
Vantaa Research Center, Finish Forest ResearchInstitute
PB 18, 01301 Vantaa
Tel: (358 9) 857373
Fax: (358 9) 857361
risto.sievanen@metla.fi

GERMANY
Dr Annette FREIBAUER **CarboEurope Cluster - European Office, MaxPlanck-Institute for Biogeochemistry
P.O. Box 10 01 64, 07701 Jena
Tel: (49 3641) 686 726 / 576 164
Fax: (49 3641) 686 710 / 577 100
afreib@bgc-jena.mpg.de

FRANCEDr Jean-Claude GERMON
Laboratoire de Microbiologie des Sols
Institut National de Recherche Agronomique,
INRA-CMSE, 17, rue Sully, 21065 Dijon Cedex
Tel: (33 3) 8069 3091
Fax: (33 3) 8069 3224
germon@dijon.inra.fr

HUNGARY
Dr Zoltan SOMOGYI
Department of Silviculture and Yield
Forest Research Institute (ERTI), Budapest
Frankel L. u. 42-44, Budapest, H-1023
Tel: (36 30) 465 2684 / (36 1) 438 5870
Fax: (36 1) 326 1639
Som9013@helka.iif.hu
somogyiz@erti.hu

FRANCEMr Gérôme PIGNARD
Ministry of Agriculture, Inventaire Forestier
National
IFN Place des Arcades
Maurin, BP 1001, 34971 Lattes Cedex
Tel: (33 4) 67 07 80 86 / 84
Fax: (33 4) 67 07 80 91
gpignard@cer.ifm.fr

IIVORY COAST
Mr Lucien DJA
Ivorian Climate Change Project, Ministry of State
Ministry of Environment
BPV 148 Abidjan, Antenne Sud INP-HB, Cocody
Danga
Tel: (225) 05 92 44 88
Fax: (225) 20 21 04 95
luciendja@hotmail.com

25

JAPANDr Mitsuo MATSUMOTO
Department of Forest Policy and Economics
Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute(FFPRI)
1 Matsunosato, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8687
Tel: (81 29) 873 3211 (Ex.641)
Fax: (81 29) 873 3799
machan@ffpri.affrc.go.jp

INDIA
Prof N.H. RAVINDRANATH **CES, Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore 560 012
Tel: (91 80) 360 1455 / 394 2785
Fax: (91 80) 360 1428 / 360 0683
ravi@ces.iisc.ernet.in
INDIA
Dr TP SINGHTERI School of Advanced Studies
Darbari Seth Block, Habitat Place, Lodhi RoadNew Delhi - 110 003
Tel: (91 11) 4682 100, 4682 1111
Fax: (91 11) 4682144,4682145
tpsingh@teri.res.in

JAPAN
Dr Toshinori OKUDA
Laboratory of Tropical Ecology
National Institute for Environmental Studies
16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba 305-0053
Tel: (81 29) 850 2426
Fax: (81 29) 850 2483
okuda@nies.go.jp

INDONESIA
Dr Rizaldi BOER
Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences,
Department of Geophysics and Meteorology
Bogor Agricultural University
Juruan GEOMET, FMIPA IPB
Kampus Baranangsiang, Jalan Raya Pajajaran
Bogor-West Java
Tel: (62 251) 376817
Fax: (62 251) 376817, (62 251) 313384
rboer@fmipa.ipb.ac.id

JAPAN
Dr Ryosuke SHIBASAKI
Center for Spatial Information Science
Institute of Industrial Science, University of Tokyo
4-6-1, Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8505
Tel: (81 3) 5452 6412
Fax: (81 3) 5452 6414
shiba@skl.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp
KENYA
Dr Phanuel OBALLA
Kenya Forestry Research Institute
P.O.Box 20412, Nairobi
Tel: (254 66) 32891/2/3 or (254 66) 32541
Fax: (254 66) 32844
pooballa@yahoo.com / kefri@arcc.or.ke

IRELAND
Dr Kenneth BYRNE
Forest Ecosystem Research Group, Faculty ofAgriculture
Department of Environmental Resource
Management
University College
Belfield, Dublin 4
Tel: (353 1) 716 7725
Fax: (353 1) 716 1102
kenneth.byrne@ucd.ie

MALAYSIADr Ismail BIN HARUNNatural Forest Division
Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM)
Kepong, 52109, Kuala Lumpur
Tel: (60 3) 6279 7000 / 6279 7173
Fax: (60 3) 6279 7878 / 6279 7857
ismail@frim.gov.my

JAMAICAMr Keith PORTER
Dir. Technical Services,
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry Department
173 Constant Spring Rd., Kingston 8, WI
Tel: (876) 9242667-8 / 9242125 / 969-9068
Fax: (876) 924-2626 / 931-2636
kporter@forestry.gov.jm
26

MALAYSIAMr SAMSUDIN BIN MUSA
Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM)
Kepong, 52109, Kuala Lumpur
Tel: (60 3) 6279 7000 / 6279 7180
Fax: (60 3) 6279 7857
shams@frim.gov.my

NEW ZEALAND
Dr Peter BEETSNZ Forest Research Institute Ltd.
Private Bag, 3020, Rotorua
Tel: (64 7) 343 5899
Fax: (64 7) 343 5661
peter.beets@forestresearch.co.nz

MALAYSIADr Jenny WONG
Natural Forest Division
Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM)
Kepong, 52109 Kuala Lumpur
Tel: (60 3) 6279 7212 (DL) / 6279 7000 ext 7212
Fax: (60 3) 6279 7857 / 6279 7878
jlpwong@frim.gov.my

NEW ZEALAND
Mr Justin FORD-ROBERTSON
Ford-Robertson Inititives
7 Lynmore Avenue, Rotorua
Tel: (64 7) 345 7868
Fax: (64 7) 345 7868
justinfr@clear.net.nz
NORWAYMr Harald AALDE
Norwegian Institute of Land Inventory (NIJOS)
P.O. Box 115, N-1431 Ås
Tel: (47 64) 94 97 76 / 94 97 00
Fax: (47 64) 94 97 86
harald.aalde@nijos.no

MOROCCODr Abdelkader ALLALI
Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development andForestry
DPV.BP.1387, Rabat
Tel: (212 37) 761747 / (212 065) 601170
Fax: (212 37) 761557
allali@mailcity.com

NORWAYDr Kristin RYPDAL **CICERO Centre for Environmental and Climate
ResearchBox 1129 Blindern, N-0318 OSLO
Tel: (47 22) 85 87 80
Fax: (47 22) 85 87 51
kristin.rypdal@cicero.uio.no

MOROCCODr Tijani MANDOURI
National Center of Forest Research andExperimentation
CNRF BOX 763, Agdal, Rabat
Tel: (212 37) 672547 / GSM (212 65) 70 26 04
Fax: (212 37) 671151
rechfor@iam.net.ma

PAPUA NEW GUINEAMr Vitus AMBIA
Papua New Guinea Forest Authority
P.O.Box 5055, Boroko, National Capital District
Port Moresby
Tel: (675) 3277907
Fax: (675) 3254433 / 3277839
vambia@datec.net.pg

NEW ZEALAND
Mr James BARTONNew Zealand Climate Change Office
Ministry for the Environment
Level 25 Grand Plimmer Tower
CNR Boulcott St & Glimer Terrace, Wellington
Tel: (64 4) 916 7628
Fax: (64 4) 916 7615
James.Barton@mfe.govt.nz

27

SWEDEN
Prof Göran STÅHL
Swedish Univ. of Agric. Sciences, Umea
SE-901 83 Umea
Tel: (46 90) 786 58 37
Fax: (46 90) 77 81 16
Goran.Stahl@resgeom.slu.se

PHILIPPINESProf Rodel LASCO **Environmental Forestry Programme CFNR
University of the Philippines at Los Banos
College, 4031 Laguna
Tel: (63 49) 536 5314
Fax: (63 49) 536 3206 / 536 5314
rLasco@Laguna.net

THAILANDDr Kansri BOONPRAGOB **Department of Biology, Faculty of Science
Ramkhamhaeng University
Bangkok 10240
Tel: (66 2) 310 8395 / (66 2) 319 5219 ext.231
Fax: (66 2) 310 8395 / (66 2) 310 8381
kansri@ram1.ru.ac.th

RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Dr Michael GYTARSKY *Institute of Global Climate and Ecology (IGCE)
Federal Service of Russia for Hydrometeorology
and Environmental Monitoring, Russian Academyof Sciences
20-B Glebovskaya str., Moscow 107258
Tel: (7 95) 169 2198
Fax: (7 95) 160 0831
Mike.Gytarsky@g23.relcom.ru /Mike.Gytarsky@ru.net

UGANDAMr Paul DRICHI
Forestry Department, National Biomass Study,
Kampala31 Springs Road, Kampala
Tel: (256 41) 251779
Fax: (256 41) 251778
nbsfd@imul.com

SOUTH AFRICA
Ms Martina R. VAN DER MERWE
Division for Water, Environment and Forestry
Technology
c/o Dr Robert Scholes, Environmentek, CSIR
P.O.Box 395, Pretoria, 0001
Tel: (27 12) 841 3397
Fax: (27 12) 841 2689
mvdmerwe2@csir.co.za

UK
Dr Ronnie MILNE **Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (Edinburgh)Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian, EH26 0QB
Tel: (44 131) 445 4343 / 445 8575 (direct)
Fax: (44 131) 445 3943
rmilne@ceh.ac.uk

SPAIN
Dr Maria-Jose SANZ-SANCHEZ
Fundacion Centro de Estudios Ambientales delMediterraneo
Parque TecnológicoCharles R.Darwin, 14, 46980 Paterna, Valencia
Tel: (34 96) 1318227
Fax: (34 96) 1318190
mjose@ceam.es

UK
Dr Jim PENMAN *Global Atmosphere Division
Department of the Environment, Transport &Regions
Room 3/F2, 123 Victoria St, London SW1E 6DE
Tel: (44 20) 7944 5225
Fax: (44 20) 7944 5219
Jim.Penman@defra.gsi.gov.uk

SUDAN
Dr Elnour Abd Alla EL SIDDIG
Department of Forest Management
University of Khartoum, Faculty of Forestry
ShambatTel: (249 13) 310104
Fax: (249 11) 780295
elnour_elsiddig@yahoo.com
28

USA
Dr Linda HEATH
USDA Forest Service
Northeastern Research Station
PO Box 640, Durham, NH 03824
Tel: (1 603) 868 7612
Fax: (1 603) 868 7604
Lheath@fs.fed.us

URUGUAY
Dr Daniel MARTINO
CarbosurConstituyente 1467/1202, Montevideo 11.100
Tel: (598 2) 401 6279
Fax: (598 2) 400 3533
carbosur@adinet.com.uy
USA
Ms Kathryn BICKEL
Global Change Program Office
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Room 4407 South Building, 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-3810
Tel: (1 202) 720 9978
Fax: (1 202) 401 1176
kbickel@oce.usda.gov

USA
Mr Bill HOHENSTEIN **USDA
Global Change Program Office300 7th Street, SW, Room 670, Reporters Building
Washington, DC 20250
Tel: (1 202) 702 6698
Fax: (1 202) 401 1176
whohenst@mailoce.oce.usda.gov

USA
Ms Barbara BRAATZ
Duke University Center on Global Change
Box 90658, Durham, N.C, 27708-0658
Tel: (1 919) 681 7181
Fax: (1 919) 681 7176
braatz@duke.edu

USA
Mr Bill IRVINGUS Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20460 (6204N)
Tel: (1 202) 564 9065
Fax: (1 202) 565 6673
irving.bill@epa.gov

USA
Dr Sandra BROWN
Winrock International
1621 N Kent St, Suite 1200, Arlington, VA 22209
Tel: (1 703) 525 9430, ext 678
Fax: (1 703) 525 1744
sbrown@winrock.org

USA
Ms Dina KRUGER *US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW (6202J)
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: (1 202) 564 9039
Fax: (1 202) 565 2134
kruger.dina@epa.gov

USA
Dr Marlen EVE
Resource Exchange Intnl andNatural Resource Ecology Lab (CSU)
2123 N Road, West Point, NE 68788
Address 2: NREL, Rm A210, NESB
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523-1499
Tel: (1 970) 420 0354
Fax: 970 491 1965
AridEve@aol.com
meve@nrel.colostate.edu

USAProf Keith PAUSTIAN
Department of Soil and Crop Science &Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory
Colorado State University
NREL, Ft. Collins, CO 80523
Tel: (1 970) 491 1547
Fax: (1 970) 491 1965
keithp@nrel.colostate.edu

29

USA
Dr Ken SKOG
USDA Forest Service
One Gifford Pinchot Dr., Madison, WI 53726-2398
Tel: (1 608) 231 9360
Fax: (1 608) 231 9508
kskog@fs.fed.us

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONEUROPEAN COMMISSIONDr Giorgio MATTEUCCIEC - Joint Research Centre
Inst. For Environment and Sustainability
T.P. 051, I-21020 Ispra (VA)
Tel: (39 0332) 78 5808
Fax: (39 0332) 78 5022
giorgio.matteucci@jrc.it

TASK 1REVIEW EDITORSAUSTRALIA
Dr Ian CARRUTHERSGreenhouse Policy Group
Australian Greenhouse Office
GPO Box 621, Canberra ACT 2601
Tel: (61 2) 6274 1405
Fax: (61 2) 6274 1439
ian.carruthers@greenhouse.gov.au

CUBA
Dr Carlos LOPEZ
Institute of Meteorology
Loma de Casablanca, Regla, CP 11700, Habana 17
Tel: (537) 867 0711
Fax: (537) 338 010
cmlopezca@yahoo.com
GERMANY
Ms Anke HEROLD
Oeko-Institut
Novalisstrasse 10, 10115 Berlin
Tel: (49 30) 2804 8686
Fax: (49 30) 2804 8688
a.herold@oeko.de

BRAZILMr Jose Domingo MIGUEZ
Ministry of Science and Technology
Esplanada Dos Ministerios Bloco E Sala 242
Zip 70067-900, Brazilia-DF
Tel: (55 61) 317 7512 / 7923
Fax: (55 61) 317 7657
miguez@mct.gov.br

MAURITIUS
Mr Soobaraj Nayroo SOK APPADU
Meteorological Services
St Paul Road, VACOAS
Tel: (230 696) 5626
Fax: (230 686) 1023
meteo@intnet.mu

CANADADr Michael APPS
Canadian Forest Service - Pacific Forestry Centre
Natural Resources Canada
506 West Burnside Road, Victoria, BC, V8Z 1M5
Tel: (1 250) 363 0625
Fax: (1 250) 363 0775
mapps@NRCan.gc.ca / mapps@pfc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca

NETHERLANDS
Ms Eveline TRINESTreeness Consult
Laan van Meerdervoort 126, 2517 BD The Hague
Tel: (31 70) 3468 530
Fax: 31 842226347
Eveline@TrinesOnline.com

CHILE
Dr Sergio GONZALEZ-MARTINEAUX
Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIA)
Avenida Santa Rosa 11.610 (La Pintana), Santiago
Tel: (56 2) 75 75 115 / (56 2) 75 75 122 / (56 2) 63
58 659Fax: (56 2) 75 75 120 / (56 2) 54 17 667
sgonzale@platina.inia.cl / sgonzal@ctcreuna.cl

30

USA
Mr Tom WIRTH
Non-CO2 Gases and Sequestration Branch
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW (6202J)
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202 564 9108
Fax: 202 565 2079
wirth.tom@epa.gov

TANZANIA
Prof. Jamidu KATIMA
University of Dar es Salaam
P.O.Box 35131, Dar es Salaam
Tel: (255 22) 241 0754
Fax: (255 22) 241 0114
katima@cpe.udsm.ac.tz /Jamidu_Katima@yahoo.co.uk

TASK 2
AUSTRALIA
Dr Gary RICHARDS **Carbon Accounting TeamGreenhouse Policy Group
Australian Greenhouse Office
Edmund Barton Building, GPO Box 621,
Canberra ACT 2601
Tel: (61 62) 741926
Fax: (61 62) 741381
gary.richards@greenhouse.gov.au
BOLIVIADr Juan Ivar ARANA PARDO
National Climate Change Programme
Viceministry Natural Resource and Environment
1972 Calle Federico Suazo N, Primer Piso, PO Box
9513
La PazTel: (591 2) 244 2336
Fax: (591 2) 244 2336
ivararana@hotmail.com
CANADADr Marie BOEHM
Research Branch, Agriculture andAgri-Food Canada
51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan, S7N 5A8
Tel: (306) 975 4143
Fax: (306) 966 4609
boehmm@agr.gc.ca

CHINA
Prof Shirong LIU **Institute of Forest Ecology, Environment &Protection
The Chinese Academy of Forestry
Beijing 100091, P.R.
Tel: 86 10 6288 9554
Fax: 86 10 6288 9555 / 6288 4972
liusr@prot.forestry.ac.cn
FINLAND
Prof Timo KARJALAINEN **Finnish Forest Research Institute
Joensuu Research Centre
Yliopistokatu 7, Box 68, FIN-80101, Joensuu
Tel: (358 10) 211 3080
Fax: (358 10) 211 3251
timo.karjalainen@metla.fi
JAPAN
Dr Masamichi TAKAHASHIForestry and Forest Products Reserch Institute
1 Matsunosato, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8687
Tel: (81 29) 873 3211 ext.357
Fax: (81 29) 874 3720
masamiti@ffpri.affrc.go.jp
MALAWIMr Samuel KAINJA **Forestry Department
Box 30048, Lilongwe 3
Tel: (265) 771 761, (265) 918582, (265) 1 771 000
Fax: (265) 778 268
skanja@malawi.net

31

MEXICODr Tomas HERNANDEZ-TEJEDA **Instituto National de Investigaciones Forestales,
Agricolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP)
Av. Progreso #5. Colonia Coyoacan, 04110. Mexico,
D.F.
Tel: (52 55) 5554 3035 ext. 161
Fax: (52 55) 5554 0357 / (52 55) 5554 8453
thtejeda@colpos.mx
POLANDDr Roman MICHALAK
Department of Forest Management Planning andMonitoring
Forest Research Instituteul. Bitwy Warszawskiej 1920 r. nr 3, PL 00-973
Warszawa
Tel: (48 22) 822 49 38
Fax: (48 22) 822 49 35
R.Michalak@ibles.waw.pl

USA
Mr H. Gyde LUND III
Forest Information Services
6238 Settlers Trail Place, Gainesville, VA 20155
Tel: (1 703) 743 1755
Fax: (1 703) 742 1756
gyde@comcast.net
USA
Dr Stephen P. PRISLEY **Department of Forestry
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Tel: (1 540) 231 7674
Fax: (1 540) 231 3698
prisley@vt.edu

TASK 2REVIEW EDITORSCANADA
Mr Art JAQUES
Environment Canada
351 St-Joseph, 19th floor, Hull, P.Q. K1A 0H3
Tel: (1 819) 994 3098
Fax: (1 819) 953 3006
art.jaques@ec.gc.ca

UGANDAMr Ignatius OLUKA-AKILENG
National Biomass Study,
Forest Department
P.O. Box 1613 / P.O.Box 1752, Kampala
Tel: (256 41) 251779 / 251776
Fax: (256 41) 251778
NBSFD@IMUL.COM / oluka_akileng@yahoo.com

CHILE
Dr Sergio GONZALEZ-MARTINEAUX
Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIA)
Avenida Santa Rosa 11.610 (La Pintana), Santiago
Tel: (56 2) 75 75 115 / (56 2) 75 75 122 / (56 2) 63
58 659Fax: (56 2) 75 75 120 / (56 2) 54 17 667
sgonzale@platina.inia.cl / sgonzal@ctcreuna.cl

UZBEKISTANDr Evgeniy BOTMAN
Uzbek Scientific Research Forestry Institute of the
Republic of Uzbekistan
2, apt.17, Darkhan village
702017 Tashkent region
Tel: (998 71) 125 72 32
Fax: (998 71) 125 71 80
nii@les.org.uz

NEW ZEALAND
Ms Helen PLUME
New Zealand Climate Change Office
PO Box 10362, Wellington,
Tel: (64 4) 916 7627
Fax: (64 4) 916 7615
helen.plume@mfe.govt.nz

32

OBSERVERSUNFCCCMr Roberto ACOSTA
Martin Luther King Strasse 8, D-53175 Bonn
Tel: (49 228) 815 1445
Fax: (49 228) 815 1499
racosta@unfccc.int

Mr Heikki GRANHOLM
Martin Luther King Strasse 8, D-53175 Bonn
Tel: (49 228) 815 1601
Fax: (49 228) 815 1499
hgranholm@unfccc.int

AGO
Ms Georgina USHER
Natural Carbon Accounting System
Australian Greenhouse Office
GPO Box 621, Canberra ACT 2601
Fax: (61 62) 74 1381
georgina.usher@greenhouse.gov.au

IPCC
TASK FORCE BUREAU CO-CHAIRSBRAZILDr Thelma KRUG *Inter-American Institute for Global Change
Research
Avenida dos Astronautas 1758
Jardim da Granja, 12297-010 Sao Jose dos Campos,
SP
Tel: (55 12) 3945 6895
Fax: (55 12) 3941 4410
thelma@dir.iai.int

JAPAN
Mr Taka HIRAISHI *c/o Institute for Global Environmental Strategies(IGES)
2108-11, Kamiyamaguchi
Hayama, Miura, Kanagawa 240-0115, Japan
Tel: (81 46) 855 3750
Fax: (81 46) 855 3808
hiraishi@iges.or.jp

IPCC-NGGIP/TSU
Dr Riitta PIPATTI
c/o Institute for Global Environmental Strategies(IGES)
2108-11, Kamiyamaguchi
Hayama, Miura, Kanagawa 240-0115, Japan
Tel: (81 46) 855 3750
Fax: (81 46) 855 3808
pipatti@iges.or.jp

Ms Kyoko MIWA
c/o Institute for Global Environmental Strategies(IGES)
2108-11, Kamiyamaguchi
Hayama, Miura, Kanagawa 240-0115, Japan
Tel: (81 46) 855 3750
Fax: (81 46) 855 3808
miwa@iges.or.jp

Mr Leandro BUENDIA
c/o Institute for Global Environmental Strategies(IGES)
2108-11, Kamiyamaguchi
Hayama, Miura, Kanagawa 240-0115, Japan
Tel: (81 46) 855 3750
Fax: (81 46) 855 3808
buendia@iges.or.jp

Dr Todd NGARA
c/o Institute for Global Environmental Strategies(IGES)
2108-11, Kamiyamaguchi
Hayama, Miura, Kanagawa 240-0115, Japan
Tel: (81 46) 855 3750
Fax: (81 46) 855 3808
ngara@iges.or.jp
33

Ms Akiko KAWASE
c/o Institute for Global Environmental Strategies(IGES)
2108-11, Kamiyamaguchi
Hayama, Miura, Kanagawa 240-0115, Japan
Tel: (81 46) 855 3750
Fax: (81 46) 855 3808
kawase@iges.or.jp

Mr Kiyoto TANABE
c/o Institute for Global Environmental Strategies(IGES)
2108-11, Kamiyamaguchi
Hayama, Miura, Kanagawa 240-0115, Japan
Tel: (81 46) 855 3750
Fax: (81 46) 855 3808
tanabe@iges.or.jp
Dr Fabian WAGNER
c/o Institute for Global Environmental Strategies(IGES)
2108-11, Kamiyamaguchi
Hayama, Miura, Kanagawa 240-0115, Japan
Tel: (81 46) 855 3750
Fax: (81 46) 855 3808
wagner@iges.or.jp34