INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
WMO

NATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORIES PROGRAMMEUNEP

IPCC EXPERT GROUP MEETING ON FACTORING OUTDIRECT HUMAN-INDUCED CHANGES IN CARBON STOCKSAND GHG EMISSIONS FROM THOSE DUE TO INDIRECT
HUMAN-INDUCED AND NATURAL EFFECTS

Report of the Meeting

Geneva, Switzerland
16 – 18 September 2002
Supporting material prepared for consideration by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
This supporting material has not been subject to formal IPCC review and approval process.

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by Riitta Pipatti, Leandro Buendia, Kiyoto Tanabe, Todd Ngara, Kyoko
Miwa, and Akiko Kawase of the Technical Support Unit for the IPCC National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories Programme. In preparing this report, consultations were made with TFB Co-Chairs: Taka
Hiraishi and Thelma Krug, the facilitators and rapporteurs of the Breakout Groups, and all meeting
participants. We are grateful for the contributions from them all.

2

1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
1. The Marrakesh Accords decision 11/CP.7 on Land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF)
invites the IPCC to develop methodologies and good practice guidance for LULUCF related
issues. The IPCC has divided this work into three tasks in the NGGIP-LULUCF Programme:
Task 1 - Development of good practice guidance for the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories and supplementary methods and good practice guidancearising from the Kyoto Protocol (covers paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) in 11/CP.7).
Task 2 - Development of definitions for direct human induced 'degradation' and 'devegetation'and methodological options to inventory and report on emissions from these activities (covers
para 3(c) in 11/CP.7).
Task 3 - Development of practicable methodologies to factor out direct human-induced changes
in carbon stocks and greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks from changes incarbon stocks and greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks due to indirect
human-induced and natural effects (such as those from carbon dioxide fertilization and nitrogen
deposition), and effects due to past practices in forests (covers 3(d) in the 11/CP.7).
2. Task 1 and 2 have started their work and the First-Order Drafts of the reports are underpreparation to be sent out for the first combined Government/Expert Review in December 2002.
These tasks are scheduled to be finalised by COP9 in December 2003.
3. Task 3 is still in its scoping phase. The Expert Group Planning Meeting was organised to advancethe scoping of the task. The objectives and tasks of the meeting were
•

•
•

•
•

To assess science relevant to changes in carbon stocks and greenhouse gas emissions andremovals due to indirect human-induced and natural effects (such as those from carbon
dioxide fertilization and nitrogen deposition), and effects due to past practices in forests(prereference year).
To identify categories of activities that cause direct human-induced changes in carbon stocks
and greenhouse gas emissions and removals.
To assess capability for the development of practicable methodologies to factor out directchanges in carbon stocks and greenhouse gas emissions and removals from changes in carbon
stocks and greenhouse gas emissions and removals due to indirect human-induced and naturaleffects (such as those from carbon dioxide fertilization and nitrogen deposition), and effects
due to past practices in forests in pre-reference year.
To develop a recommendation on type of report for IPCC work for the Task.
To develop TOR, TOC and WP for the task

2 DAY 1: PLENARY 1 PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS
2.1 OPENING OF THE MEETING
4. The meeting was opened by Taka Hiraishi (Co-Chair of the TFB) who introduced Geoff Love, theSecretary of the IPCC, Thelma Krug (the other Co-Chair of the TFB), Riitta Pipatti (TSU Head)as well as members of the Planning Group ( Sergio Gonzales and Art Jaques) of Task 3 who were
present at the meeting and WGIII representative (Eduardo Calvo). Geoff Love made opening3

remarks on the importance of inventory work, the challenges in the work as well as extended
words of welcome to the experts.
2.2 AGENDA OF THE MEETING
5. Taka Hiraishi talked about the preliminary draft of the agenda of the meeting and highlighted thefact that it was flexible. A major item in the agenda was the initial presentations of the different
background papers by selected experts in areas of expertise relevant to the deliberations of themeeting. The range of presentations in terms of content and subject matter could be either
narrower or wider since they were meant to be mere examples of aspects of the task ahead. The
purpose of the presentations was to set the stage for the main discussions of the meeting oralternatively to introduce the brainstorming phase of the meeting.
6. They were no amendments to the provisional agenda.
2.3 PRESENTATIONSTaka Hiraishi(TFB Co-Chair):Background and objectives of the meeting
7.
(a) Taka Hiraishi gave the background to the meeting citing paragraph 3(d) of the Marakesh Accords(Decision 11/CP7) and the invitation to the IPCC by the UNFCCC to undertake the task whose
finished product is expected to be submitted to COP10 in 2004. He emphasized the fact that the
mandate of this meeting was to develop a draft plan for the execution of the task and not todevelop methodologies for the task as yet.
(b) Taka Hiraishi also mentioned that the IPCC Panel had established a Planning Group to oversee
the initial stages of the Task.
(c) In consonant with one of the objectives of the meeting, Taka Hiraishi also dwelt at length on thetypes of reports produced by the IPCC (Assessment reports, Methodological reports, Special
reports – new sciences and Technical Papers – only information already included in IPCC reports.
Either a Special Report (SR) or Methodology Report would be applicable for Task 3. The SR
would include a Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) which would need a line-by-line approval by
the IPCC Panel). The Expert Group Planning Meeting was requested to recommend to the IPCC
Panel the type of report to be produced.
(d) This was followed by some discussions on the stages and type (Governments and Experts) ofreviews of various IPCC products. Taka Hiraishi also informed the meeting that the LULUCF
methodology reports on Task 1 and Task 2 will be reviewed in two stages by both Governments
and Experts.
(e) In the case of the Task at hand, the next IPCC Bureau and Panel will approve or amend the TOR,
TOC and WP coming out of this meeting. The slate of authors will be approved or amended by
the IPCC Bureau.
(f) Some discussions on the tightness of the timeline for completion of the work followed.
Heikki Granholm (UNFCCC):
Background to the invitation to the IPCC on “factoring out” in the Marrakesh Accords
8. Heikki Granholm’s presentation focused on the following:4

(a)“Factoring out” has been a key negotiating issue and it has influenced the decisions related to
LULUCF accounting:- Limited gross-net accounting for Afforestation, Reforestation and Deforestation - since 1990
(Art 3.3);- Revegetation, Cropland management and Grazing land management – net-net accounting (Art.
3.4)- Forest Management - cap for individual countries (limited gross-net-accounting), partly derived
from application of a discounting formula (Art. 3.4);
One of the guiding principles in draft decision on Land use Change and Forestry explicitly
mentions that the accounting excludes removals resulting from some indirect human-induced
effects and past practices;(b) Issues for consideration in the work could include: the list on possible indirect effects (such as
CO2 fertilization and nitrogen deposition - not comprehensive), the importance of different effects,
the spatial distribution, uncertainty (especially management of uncertainty). Development ofpracticable methodologies to be applied by all Parties may bring in the question of Tiers into themethodologies as well as the answer to the questions – can the separation be done and at whatcosts?
(c) The ensuing discussions highlighted the fact the results of the “factoring out.” Task 3 might bemore relevant for the 2nd Commitment Period whose negotiations are expected to start in 2005
since caps etc. are already in place for the first Commitment Period. It was also noted that theresults for this Task should not only be scientifically relevant but also policy relevant. The
invitation expects submission of the report on the practicable methodologies for factoring out by
COP10.
Luiz Glyvan Meira Filho (Brazil) Paper summarised by Thelma Krug
Why factor out the removal of CO2 into the terrestrial biosphere not directly attributable to humanaction?
9. This paper emphasized the necessity of factoring out residual CO2 flux. The transfer of carbon
from the atmosphere to the terrestrial biosphere is estimated by global carbon cycle models to be of
the order of 2 Gt C/year. This is much bigger than the estimated emission reduction commitments
under the Kyoto Protocol, which are in the order of 0.35 Gt C/year. It was noted that though thispaper is relevant from a scientific point of view, it tackled the problem from a top-down approachrather than a bottom-up approach which is what is required in Task 3.
Brian Stocks(Canada):
Natural Disturbance Regimes in Boreal Forests
10. Brian Stocks focused on natural effects including synergies attributed to loss of carbon due toinsect defoliation of forests as well as forest fires on the boreal carbon budget in Canada. The
following points were highlighted:(a) Annual area affected by insects defoliation of forests is comparable to that of forest fires.
Knowledge on episodic/annual forest fires in Canada is essential for ecosystem maintenance andthe carbon budget cycle since approximately 40 percent of the terrestrial carbon is found in the
boreal forests.
(b) It was also graphically shown that in Canada, changes in fire disturbance regimes in the past
influence the GHG sources/sinks today. Brian Stocks further explained that increased fire
suppression in Canada is not economically possible (law of diminishing returns) or ecologicallydesirable (annual fires encourage regrowth and are important for biodiversity).

5

(c) He gave some circum-boreal forest fire statistics: Annual burned area – 5 to15 million ha mainly
in Canada, Alaska and Russia. In Canada about 8 000 fires cover 2.8 million ha/year; Lightning
fires account for 35 % of total annual fires and 85% of the total annual fire area; Fire size - 3% offires burn greater than 200 ha and these represent 97 percent of the area burned. In general,
number of fires and area burned show considerable inter-annual variability.
(d) The presentation showed that boreal fires are characterised by high fuel consumption (approx. 25
tonnes/ha); fast spread rates; sustained high intensity levels, towering columns - upper
troposphere/stratosphere and long-range smoke transport.
(e) Preliminary estimates for atmospheric averages for carbon release through fire (usually episodic)
are 27 Tg C/yr (20 percent of Canada’s fossil fuel emissions). There is also biogenic carbon
release through decomposition. Post fire carbon sequestration is weaker, as carbon sequestration
is weaker in younger forests than in mature forests. Satellites measurements show that it takes 2030 years to fully recover after fire.
(f) Projected impacts of fire episodes were also presented as the following: More area burned;
 Shorter fire return intervals;
 Eco-system boundary/vegetation shifting; Less terrestrial storage;
 Positive feedback to climate change (changes in albedo and carbon transport).
11. In the subsequent discussions, the issue on how forest fires influence the C sequestration andwhether they should be considered in the factoring out or not were addressed. Thelma Krugraised the question of how to categorize action or non-action by Governments in the event of fires
that have human-induced or natural origins. She also noted that accounting of carbon loss due tofires may not be necessary because of the regrowth process. However, this is not the case withmethane and nitrous oxide emissions.
Walter Baethgen (IFDC):
Factoring out changes in carbon stocks – methodologies and data availability
Mark Broadmeadow (United Kingdom):
Process models as tools to factor out impacts of elevated CO2, nitrogen deposition and atmosphericpollutants
12. The two papers mentioned above dealt with process or physiological models that could be used
to “factor out” non-human induced changes in carbon stocks as well as those due to naturaleffects.
a) Walter (IFDC) talked at length on carbon balances and use of Simulation models such as Century,
DSSAT and IDSS. Constraints associated with these models were mentioned. These included
data availability and extension of plot simulation results to global scales. He also addressed how
field measurements (long time scales, specific difficulties with certain gases like methane, etc.)
and remote sensing data could contribute to the task. Factoring out of elevated CO2
concentrations or N deposition is challenging due to the huge site-specific variations in the effects
due to the complex interactions with other variables and limiting factors for growth.
b) Broadmeadows (UK) addressed in brief the trends in CO2 levels and concentrations of air
pollutants (nitrogen compounds, tropospheric ozone, SO2) that could be important in factoring6

out. He also mentioned that the impacts of climate change (rising temperature etc.) would be
important. He further emphasized that process models are the only tools (so far) available for thefactoring out. However, these models have considerable technological complexities andshortcomings related to verifiability of the models; representativeness of the results; suitable scale(temporal and spatial), applicability to GHG inventories and available input data.
13. Other points which were raised in the discussion included the following: Considerable variability of stomatal behaviour in elevated CO2 in as far as it relates tophotosynthesis;
 How does one take are of stochastic events which are not part of the process models?
 Process models have been so far successful in plots, extension to global or regional scales is still
an area of research; The long-term effects, especially effects on changes in soils, make modelling difficult. The
relationship between effects of the aboveground biomass and soils is interesting. Yoshiki
Yamagata wondered whether the generally positive effects on biomass could be cancelled by theeffects on soils. Broadmeadow was not aware of this kind of results; an increase in abovegroundbiomass generally results in an increase in soil carbon also.
 Mats Olsson asked whether changes in the ground-water table in natural peatland and theirimpact on CO2 and N emissions would be considered as direct or indirect human-induced effect.
1.4 MANDATES OF BOGS
14. After the presentations and discussions on the background papers, Taka Hiraishi explained that
Attachment 1 (Draft Scoping Paper to Address Request outlined in Decision 11CP/7 in the
Marrakesh Accords) and Attachment 2 (Preliminary Draft TOR and TOC for Task 3 in NGGIP
LULUCF Programme) developed at the Expert Group Planning Meeting in Geneva 6-8 August
2001 have not yet been discussed by the Panel. This will be done at IPCC XX in February 2003.
The revised versions will be sent up-line through the following procedure: Task 3 PlanningGroup, TFB, IPCC Bureau and finally the IPCC Panel for approval.
15. The Co-chairs then introduced discussion on the mandates of the break-out groups (BOGs). It
was decided to start the work in two BOGs. BOG1 was tasked to deal with natural and indirect
human-induced changes in carbon stocks and the BOG2 with direct human-induced changes incarbon stocks. The suggestion to pay enough attention to the “past practices” was accepted. It wasagreed that this would be done within BOG2.
16. There were also some discussions on whether the type of report to be produced should be
discussed in a separate BOG. It was, however, agreed that this issue could be decided only after
the substantive BOG discussions since the type of report depended on the BOG outcomes.
Similarly, it was also decided that the discussion on procedures or Work Plan should come after
the scientific discussions.
17. The BOGS were further mandated to critically examine the draft TOR and TOC and amend them,
if necessary, so as to be clear enough to give guidance to the authors.

7

2 BREAK-OUT GROUP 1
2.1 BOG1 MANDATE
18. Walter Oychantcabal (Uruguay) and Mark Broadmeadow (UK) were the facilitators and Peter
Stephens (New Zealand) the rapporteur for the group.
19. The group was tasked to discuss the following: The general approach to factoring out;
 Relevant factors associated with factoring out indirect and natural effects;
 Modelling approaches that could be used to factor out effects;
 Develop table of contents for the IPCC work for the Task (Task 3), and Develop terms of reference for the work Task 3
2.2 GENERAL APPROACHES TO FACTORING OUT
20. It was noted that process models are by their very nature data intensive and not necessarily
applicable at global scale. Their qualification for discussion in the factoring out process is thatthey are predictive and can be used to simulate growth responses to a range of known
anthropogenic changes, a number of which are outlined in Table 1 below. The challenge is toformulate a mechanism by which model simulations can provide robust estimates applicable at aninventory scale (representative of the entire global climatic environmental range) of those naturaland indirect factors that are deemed as necessary to discount. Both positive and negative factors
should be considered by the modelling system, although only a limited number (of positive
factors) are likely to be applied.
Where available, empirical data should be used to augment and validate the modelling approach.
Although a modelling or interpretive theoretical approach may complicate the factoring out
process and reduce clarity, it is a necessary process for separating those elements of observed
stock changes that are a result of direct human-induced activity from those resulting from naturalchange or indirectly, through human activity.
21. Taking cognisance of this, Mike Apps (Cananda) presented two optional approaches for the Task.
In the first approach (Figure 1), the natural and indirect human-induced effects, and the direct
human-induced effects would be separately estimated. The sum of these effects should then beequal to what is actually seen on the ground – i.e., the actually observed or measured quantity(carbon stocks, GHG balance, etc). A difficulty with this approach is ensuring that the sum of theseparate estimates agrees with reality (the observed or measured state of the system being
accounted).

8

Figure 1 1st Approach
Starts with separate estimates of natural or indirect contributions and direct contributions to the C
stocks, changes and GHG
Various factors: indirect human influences (N, CO2, climate change, etc), natural causes, response to
Pre -1990 activities, etc

Natural, or
indirectcontribution+

Directhuman
inducedcontribution

Overall C
stock change
GHGemissions

Actually observed or measured
state of the system:
Land base (area, stratified?,
contiguous?)
Measured/estimated C stocks, ∆C,
GHG balance
Error estimates; Specified time(e.g., CP)

Various human activities (post 1990) to be accounted/credited – positive (sinks) and negative(sources):- Plantations, reduced tillage, shelterbelts,etc- degradation, erosion, overgrazing,etc

9Figure 2. 2nd Approach
Starts with actual observed or estimated state of thesystem, estimates influence of natural or indirect
influences on results of human activity, and thencalculates the direct human influence as the residual.

OverallC stock,

Natural, or
Natural,orindirectindirect effectNatural, oreffectindirectcontribution

Xi %

GHG
balance(1- Xi)%Actually observed or measured state of the system
Land base (area, stratified?, contiguous?)
Measured/estimated C stocks, ∆C, GHG balance
Error estimatesSpecified time (e.g., CP)

DirectDirecthuman
inducedDirecthumaninducedhuman
inducedcontribution
Reduced tillage
grazing
plantations

Human activity

In the second approach (Figure 2), the starting point would be the observed or measured effect. The
natural and indirect human influence (nitrogen or CO2 fertilization, climate change effect etc) would
be estimated by the factor subscript Xi (where the subscript i refers to the different indirect or natural
influences to be considered or factored out) and the direct human-induced component then estimatedas the residual. The factor Xi could be estimated by the process models, experimental data or
whatever other source of information exists. (An alternative and mathematical identical approachview would be to use the transformed variables with factor Yi = 1-Xi for the direct human-induced
influence and the indirect/natural effects as the residual 1-Yi). A refinement of this approach would
to segregate the indirect influences into their different influences on the various direct humanactivities/practices as shown in Figure 2.

10

A secondary advantage to this second approach is that it lends itself to cost-benefit estimation for
Parties to decide how much effort reduction in uncertainty is worth to them. To err on the side of
caution, the degree to which the credited influence (i.e., the direct component) is reduced (i.e.,
how much assigned factor Xi is increased) would increase with certainty in that factor. (For a lesscertain factor, less credit results for the direct influence). The uncertainty in a given Party’s
estimates could be reduced by more extensive research and measurements but this has cost
implications: the costs probably rise on a marginal cost curve as in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Cost implications for reducing uncertainty
Err on side of caution:
Discounting of credited amount inversely proportional to Certainty in estimate of factor Xi
High certainty, little discount,100
Certainty
in factor
Xi

0
cost
22. The group favoured the second approach which was taken as the starting point for the work in thegroup. The question whether a land-based or activity-based accounting would be more suitable
for the factoring out was also addressed.
23. BOG1 considered the following factors (variables, environmental drivers) needed to beconsidered in the factoring out exercises:CO2, N (NOx, NH3), O3 (PANs etc.), SO2, VOCs,
acidification, particulates, heavy metals, temperature, water availability, vapour pressure deficit,
wind, solar radiation, fire, pathogens, insects, and growing season.
24. BOG 1 agreed that the best way to consider the factors was to list them in a table, along withlikely approaches, constraints and magnitude of effects. Table 1 shows this information. Not all
rows have been completed. BOG1 considered that only rows related to different groups ofvariables need be completed, to indicate the type of information and consideration that deemed
appropriate.

11

Table 1 Shows list of important variables and associated activities
Spatial exposure

Methodology(empiricalor model)Spatially operating +/-/0
limiting factors

Comments
Potential
magnitudeoffactor(LMH)

CO2N
O3 (PANs)

N
Y
Y

Y*
Y*
Y=doseN=response

N, P, climate, age

+
0/+

H
H

SO2
AcidificationParticulates

Y

Y=doseN=response

-/+

L

Y

Y****

+/-

H

Climate,age, +/biome,
cause,
management

H

Variable

Heavy
metals etc.
Temperature
Water
availability
VPD
Wind
Solar
radiation
Fire
Pathogens
Insects
Growingseason

Fact
or
out?

H20,

many

May be local effects of microclimate
through changes in air temperature

Storm damage
Y

Y*

Y
X

Y***

Potentially huge effect on annual fluxes;
long time response
Biology not well understood
Biology not well understood12

Comments/explanations of the table:
The table and data is still incomplete. The column headers would need to be assessed and their descriptiveness improved.
Factor Out? The intention was to provide an answer in the column if it would be feasible to develop practicable methodologies for factoring out
for the variable. BOG1 was unsure whether to insert Y or N here. Discussions were not completed.
Spatial exposure. Whether variable varied spatially
Methodology. Likelihood of empirical or process model being available and suitable for the variable. Asterisks (*) denoted where there wassome concern about suitability of methodology, and the level of concern was related to number of asterisks.
Spatially operating limiting factors. This column showed the factors (which varied spatially) that need to be considered (in models etc.) andwhich have an influence on the magnitude any factoring out component. To also show that inter-relationships between variables, and the natureof datasets required.
+/-/0. Shows whether the impact is likely to be positive, negative or zero. There was some discussion in BOG 1 about being concerned about
negative impacts. The Group decided that it was important to consider what science could contribute, regardless of impact.
Potential magnitude of Factor (L,M,H). Could be useful when there was a need to rank or score variables/effects.
Comments. As required.

13

2.3 MODELLING APPROACHES:
25.Modelling approaches that would need to be considered included the following: Empirical models
 Statistical models- multivariate analysis
 Remote sensing Process driven (‘full-blown’, plant functional type, biome, ecosystem, modifying
inventory, and ‘stratified’) approaches
26. Considerations on the scale should also be addressed:
 Spatial ( stand, grid square, national, regional, continental) considerations would entail
national break-up of country into bioclimatic zones.
 Temporal considerations would include hour, day, month, year, commitment periods.
 UNFCCC reporting at annual scale; yearly reporting for the Kyoto Protocol, but
accounting can be done also for the whole commitment period. According to theDecision 19/CP.7, annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.2,
paragraph 8(d), Parties are requested to provide, prior the beginning the 1st
commitment period, information “Identification of whether, for each activity under
Article 3, paragraph 3 and 4, it [a Party] intends to account annually or for the entire
commitment period:”
27. The following modelling/factoring out issues (validation/verification; scale of errors gross emissions versus carbon stocks; mean climate during commitment period; default
parameters and models and the question whether Parties can use individual models andparameters?) as wells their applicability (whether country/Party level, Commitment period
and whether model scale must be equal or smaller than inventory scale) were identified.

2.4 ELABORATION OF THE TOR AND TOC
28. The group elaborated the draft TOR and TOC. Its view was that the report would need asection where the science of factoring out would be assessed to provide the basis andrationale for the methodology. Therefore a hybrid between a SR with a methodology
report was considered to best meet the request of the SBSTA invitation to the IPCC. A
sentence reflecting this view was proposed to be included in the TOR for the Task.
29. The preliminary draft of the Annotated Table of contents was elaborated so that:
Chapter 1 would give background for the work by e.g. addressing the following:- what is meant by direct and indirect human-induced, and natural effects;- giving a short summary of what was written in the SR LULUCF and also latest
scientific information on the issue and the importance of the residual terrestrial sinkin the global carbon balance would also be addressed in this chapter.
Chapter 2 would give the scientific basis for the methodologies. The preliminary draft
was to elaborate the following issues:- the relative magnitude of the effects indicating regional variability;- guidance on the certainty of the factoring out values and cost related to narrowing
14

the uncertainties and a review of available driving data and suitable developing andemerging models.
Chapters 3 and 4 were proposed to be merged. The new chapter 3 would address themethodological guidance, the scientific assessment would be in Chapter 2. An argument
for minimizing the number of chapters was that it facilitates the consistency andminimises possible contradictions within the report.

3 BREAK-OUT GROUP 2
3.1 BOG2 MANDATE AND ITS REVIEW FOR IPCC WORK
30. The facilitators for the BOG were Mike Jebson (New Zealand) and Emil Cienciala (Czeck
Republic) while Opha Pauline Dube (Botswana) and Mats Olsson (Sweden) were therapporteurs.
31. The BOG was tasked to discuss the following: Identify the categories of significant “direct human induced” practices that effect;changes in carbon stocks and other greenhouse gas emissions and removals;
 effects due to past practices in forests (pre- reference year); review/assess the state of science relevant to these activities, and consider terms of reference and table of contents for the development of factoring out
methodologies.
32. BOG2 reviewed its mandate on the issue of whether the focus for developing
methodologies to “factor out” should be for all Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry(LULUCF) activities under article 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto protocol or be restricted toissues associated with only “Forest Management” under article 3.4.
33. It considered that the main focus for the work should be on developing factoring out
methodologies related to “forest management”. It further noted that although the request
to the IPCC in paragraph 3(d) of decision 11/CP.7 covers carbon stocks and othergreenhouse gas emissions and removals in general, the Kyoto Protocol and Marrakesh
Accord decision 11/CP.7 define afforestation, deforestation and reforestation in article 3.3
as direct human induced activities and undertaken since 1990. The restriction of Article
3.3 activities to activities taken since 1990 and the practice of net-net accounting forcropland management, grazing land management, and revegetation activities appears tolessen the need to develop methodologies for these activities.
34. The facilitators of BOG2 noted that this is a matter that may require further considerationby the IPCC Bureau and/ or guidance from SBSTA of the UNFCCC.
35. The BOG2 discussed the distinction between “practices” and “activities” and noted thatthe 11/CP.7 referred to the following LULUCF activities:
15

Article 3.4
 “Forest management”,
 “Cropland management”,
 “Grazing land management”,
 “Revegetation” andArticle 3.3:
 “Afforestation,
 “Reforestation” and “Deforestation

36. “Practices” in this context were considered to be those “direct human induced” actions
that had an effect on greenhouse gas emissions and removals attributable to the listed
LULUCF activities. According to Marrakesh Accords forest management, cropland
management and grazing land management have been defined as “the system of practices”.
3.2 APPROCHES: FACTOR OUT OR FACTOR IN
37. BOG2 identified that measurable and verifiable changes in carbon stock and other green
house gas emissions and removals attributable to the land use activities such as forest
management are the sum of the effects of: “direct human induced” practices that occurred before the reference year 1990 (e.g.
past practices in forests such as species selection) plus;
 “direct human induced” practices that occurred after the reference year 1990 plus (e.g.
pest/weed fire management) plus;
 “natural effects” (e.g. sunshine hours) plus
 “indirect human induced” effects (e.g., CO2 fertilisation).
38. One way of quantifying “natural” and “indirect human induced” effects and effects due topast practices pre the reference year, for the purposes of factoring out these effects during
the second commitment period, is not to measure these effects directly but to instead
quantify and “factor in” the effects of “direct human induced” practices that occurred after
1990.
39. This was an alternative approach to that being considered by BOG1. BOG1 wasconsidering the reverse situation - quantifying “natural” and “indirect human effects”.
40. It was noted that there was a significant number of “direct human induced” practices thatwould have an influence on changes in greenhouse gas emissions and removals associatedwith each of the LULUCF activities and that there could be significant spatial andtemporal variation in the size of these effects. Consequently, the approach of factoring in
the effects of “direct human induced” practices would be more suitable for thedevelopment of Tier 2 methodologies. This would have influence on the development of
the Table of Contents.

163.3 IDENTIFICATION (“DIRECT HUMAN INDUCED”)
41. BOG2 developed the matrix in Table 2 and brainstormed the list of direct human induced
practices as recorded down the x axis and listed the LULUCF activities across the y axis.
A subgroup was tasked with grouping and rationalising the list of practices.
Table 2 Direct human-induced effects / changes and significance for different activities
Practices
Pest management
Weed management
Change rotation length
Fertilization / mycorrhyzation
Introduce continuous cover
Production of fuelwood / biofuels
Change species mix
Water management changes (draining,
irrigation, etc.)
Improved (natural) regeneration
Change harvesting systems (incl. reduced
impact logging)
Change stocking rates
Change pruning regime
Improved community practices
Thinning practices
Wood ash application
Breeding practices / genetic selection
Sylvo-pastoral management/ Agroforestry
Conservation/ biodiversity protection
Ecotourism development ***Urban forest management (planting,pruning) ***Tillage practices
soil pH management
Residue management
Crop rotation (incl. fallow systems)
Shelterbelts, windbreaks, shade trees andriparian zones
Slash and burn ***Organic fertilisation, green manure
Grazing intensity: density /rotation
Fire management (incl. Prescribedburning)
Grassland rejuvenation

Activities in 3.4
CroplandGrazing-landmanagement management
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√

√
√
√
√

√
√

√

√

√

√
√
√
√

√
√
√

√
√
√
√
√

√

√

?
√
√

Forestmanagement
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√

Revegetation
√
√

√
√

√
?

√
√
√
√
?
√
√
√
?

√

√
√
√
?

√

√

√
√
?
√
√

√
?

√
√

√

√
√

√
√

√

*** These are "overarching" concepts that incorporate other individual practices
42. Practices prior to 1990 may significantly affect the sequestration during the commitment
period by changed species composition, age structure, adequacy of stocking, nutrientbalance, etc.

1743. BOG2 noted that many of the categories of “direct human induced” practices wereapplicable to the majority of LULUCF activities. For “forest management”, BOG2
suggested that the authors should: consider the significance (high, medium, low) of the individual practices with respect
to their effect on the uptake and removal of greenhouse gases.
 indicate the state of scientific knowledge concerning the quantification of the effect ofeach practice.
44. BOG2 considered that this would help to prioritise the development of practicalmethodologies for measuring and “factoring in” direct human induced effects as analternative approach to factoring out natural and indirect effects.

3.4 FACTORING OUT EFFECTS DUE TO PAST PRACTICES IN FORESTS
45. BOG2 assumed that the reference to factoring out effects due to past practices in forest
implies direct human induced effects including planting history as well as other forest
management practices. Several approaches to this problem were discussed. It further
noted that there was a requirement to factor out the “effects” of “forest management”
practices that occurred prior to 1990 but there is no requirement to factor out effects
arising from the application of practices post 1990. The joint chairs considered that it
would be difficult in some circumstances to separate the pre- and post reference years
effects.
3.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
46. BOG2 considered that it should work in conjunction with BOG1 in reviewing the draft
TOR and TOC.
47. The BOG2 recommended that the work under Task 3 should be coordinated with thedevelopment of LULUCF good practices (Task 1) and definitions of direct human induced
degradation and devegetation (Task 2).

4 DAY 2: PLENARY 2 (AFTERNOON) DISCUSSIONS (continued)
48. The discussions and outcomes of BOGs 1 and 2 were presented (see above chapters 2 and
3).
49. Based on the BOG2 presentation there were considerable discussions on whether tofactor out activities only under Article 3.4 or also under Article 3.3. It was noted that therequest to the IPCC in paragraph 3(d) in Decision 11/CP7 covers both carbon stocks ingeneral. However, restriction of Article 3.3 activities to activities undertaken since 1990
and the practice of net-net accounting for cropland and grazing land management andrevegetation activities appears to reduce the need to develop methodologies for factoringout in these areas. Some experts felt that this issue should not be highlighted.

18

50. BOG1 had almost finalised its tasks whereas the BOG2 had not had time to address the
TOR and TOC. In the interest of time, it was felt that Plenary 3 should continue (openended) with further elaboration of the TOR, TOC and discuss and develop the work plan.

5 DAY 3: PLENARY 3 DISCUSSIONS (continued)
51. The Day 3 Plenary Session started with a presentation by the BOG2 facilitator Mike
Jebson on the outcomes of BOG2 that would affect the development of the TOR and TOC.
52. Before the final modifications on the TOR and TOC, the recommendation on the type ofreport was discussed (methodological report or special report). The Co-chairs intimatedthat a clear recommendation would be desirable (a “hybrid report” does not yet exist in
the IPCC history). A recommendation on a special report with a SPM, containing two
components, i.e., (i) scientific assessment, and (ii) methodological framework was agreed
upon.
53. Discussions on whether there should be a two stage Governments/Experts review or that
Governments should be approached only once for the second review (normal IPCC
procedure). On this point, Co-chairs advised it may be prudent to involve Governments
right from the beginning. They also advised that this question would be addressed insubsequent considerations by the Planning Group and the IPCC Bureau. After somediscussions this was agreed upon.
54. Mohammed Yassin suggested that the zero-order drafts of Tasks 1 and 2 (after
Governments/Experts Review) should be made available to the Task 3 authors for better
coordination. This was accepted by both the Co-Chairs and the experts.
55. The development of TOR, TOC was based on the draft produced by BOG1. The tight timeschedule for the Task caused concerns and these were addressed in the development of the
WP by the attempt to have the first Authors/Experts meeting in April 2003 andintroducing chapter writing team meetings and expert workshops on practical applicationof methodologies to the programme
56. The Co-Chairs summarised the way forward: that the report will be forwarded to the Task
3 Planning Group, TFB in November, IPCC Bureau in December and the IPCC Panel inFebruary. The Co-Chairs thanked the experts for their time and the good work done.
3.6 OVERVIEW OF THE DISCUSSIONS
57. After three days of discussions, the Expert Group Planning Meeting recognised thechallenges ahead both in terms of the availability of the necessary science to meet theobjectives of the Task as well as the short timelines for producing the IPCC Special
Report as outlined in the draft TOR (Attachment 1) below. The meeting also noted thehigh expectations to produce a firm set of numbers for factoring out, while the scientificcommunity consensus on these expected numbers has not yet been reached. Over andabove that, the IPCC is expected to produce this Report in two years’ time. This explains19the sentiments expressed by some to explore the possibility of delaying product delivery
beyond COP10.
The widespread concerns expressed at the meeting were against this background. In viewof these potential difficulties, it was felt that the IPCC should only promise a framework,at least, that could be modified with time rather than a definite methodology completewith facts and figures. The draft TOR (Attachment 1), draft TOC (Attachment 2) and thedraft Work Plan (Attachment 3) should be considered/ read against these guarded
sentiments lest the IPCC finds itself in a potentially damaging position of failing to deliverdefinite factoring out methodologies by COP 10 as contained in the invitation.

20

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4

Draft Terms of Reference
Draft Table of Contents
Draft Work plan
List of Participants

ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR)
In response to the decisions of the IPCC XVII, XVIII and IPCC XIX and to the invitation indecision (11/CP.7) from the UNFCCC, the IPCC will develop a report on addressing
practicable methodologies to factor out direct human-induced changes in carbon stocks, andgreenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks, from changes in carbon stocks
and greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks due to indirect humaninduced effects, natural effects and effects due to past practices in forests.
The IPCC will base its work, inter alia, on: IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry
 All IPCC Assessment Reports (FAR, SAR, and TAR) Latest Scientific Information on the subject matter
A scientific assessment is deemed as necessary to provide the basis and rationale for thedevelopment of practicable factoring out methodologies, and therefore the report will containtwo components, i.e., (i) scientific assessment (Chapter 2), and (ii) methodological framework(Chapter 3). The report will contain Summary for Policy Makers, and consequently it will be
an IPCC Special Report.

21

ATTACHMENT 2
DRAFT ANNOTATED TABLE OF CONTENTS (TOC)•

SUMMARY FOR POLICY MAKERS•

PREFACE(This will consist of a summary of the structure of the report)

Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter will provide background information for development of practicable
methodologies to factor out direct human-induced changes in carbon stocks, and greenhousegas emissions by sources and removals by sinks, from changes in carbon stocks andgreenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks due to indirect human-induced
effects, natural effects and effects due to past practices in forests, taking into account, among
others; A scientific assessment which is deemed as necessary to provide the basis andrationale for the development of practicable factoring out methodologies, and What is meant by direct and indirect human induced and natural effects and thosedue to past practices in forests (pre-reference year) in the context of this report.
A short summary of the latest scientific information related to the theme, including thosecontained in SR LULUCF and TAR will be provided. The importance of the residual
terrestrial sink in the global carbon balance will be assessed to provide the context.

Chapter 2: Scientific bases for development of practicable methodologies
Identified direct and indirect human-induced effects as well as natural effects that may
influence the changes in carbon stocks and greenhouse gas emissions by sources andremovals by sinks will be assessed.
Both positive and negative effects on carbon removal from the atmosphere and greenhousegases exchange will be addressed. Guidance will be given on the relative magnitude andduration of these effects, indicating regional variability in carbon stock and greenhouse gas
emissions and removals by sinks. Guidance will be given on the certainty in the factoring out
values, and costs, in particular those related to narrowing the uncertainties will be assessed. A
review of available driving-data and suitable models and technologies applicable to deriving
the factoring out factors will be provided. Developing and emerging technologies,
programmes and data collection/management approaches that are relevant to the factoring out
process will be discussed.

22Chapter 3: Methodologies for factoring out
This chapter will review methodological approaches and options for factoring out, andprovide practicable methodologies that could be used to separate direct human-induced
effects from indirect and natural effects. The interactions between direct and indirect effects
will be discussed including the practicability of separation across multiple time periods. This
chapter will also include the relationship to inventory accounting and links to the LULUCF
Good Practice Guidance work.
The development of practicable methodologies will include an assessment of applying
possible methodologies given the range of potential LULUCF management actions. This
assessment will include an estimation of the costs and uncertainties related to theimplementation.

Endnote: 1
Issues on factoring out the effects of past practices in forests will be addressed in Chapters 2
and 3 as specified separate sub-chapters. These sub-chapters will provide background andmethodologies that might be used to factor out the effects of past practices in forests (prereference year). They will also include the relationship to inventory accounting and links togood practice guidance.
The sub-chapter in chapter 2 would provide the science review, background information, andmodel descriptions, while the sub-chapter in chapter 3 will be the basis of the methodologicalguidance.
The development of practicable methodologies will include an assessment of applying
possible methodologies given the range of potential LULUCF management actions. This
assessment will include an estimation of the costs of implementing the approaches.

23

ATTACHMENT 3
DRAFT WORKPLAN (WP) for “Factoring Out Direct Human-Induced Changes”
ReportDate
16 – 18 September 2002

Activity
Expert Meeting

December 2002

Planning Group
IPCC Bureau

Objectives and expected output
Draft TOR, TOC, Workplan and arecommendation of the type ofreportApproval of the TOR, TOC,
Workplan and type of report
December 2002
Nomination letter to Governments’ recommendations
governmentsof authors
February 2003
IPCC Panel
Approval of the TOR, TOC,Work plan and type of reportFebruary 2003
Planning
group Draft Slate of authors
consideration
February 2003
Bureau consideration on Approval of authors
Slate of authors
April 2003
First authors meeting
Zero order draft
Mid 2003
Chapter writing team [subject to budget approval bymeetings (3 sessions of IPCC XX: Additional CHF 200K
CLAs/LAs) and two (50 travel supports)](TBC)
expertworkshops on practicalapplicationofmethodologies.
September 2003
Second authors meeting First order draft (Zero order draft
SPM)
December 2003 – January Review(Combined Comments on first order draft
2004
Governments/experts)
March 2004
Third authors meeting
Second order draft
May - June 2004
Review(Combined Comments on second order draft
Governments/experts)
July 2004
Fourth authors meeting Final draft for government
consideration
September 2004
IPCC Panel
Acceptance/approval of the report
October-November 2004
COP10
Presentation of the report for
COP/SBSTA.

24

ATTACHMENT 4
List of Participants for IPCC Expert Group Meeting on Factoring Out Direct Human-Induced
Changes in Carbon Stocks and GHG Emissions from those Due to Indirect Human Induced andNatural Effects
WMO Headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland
16-18 September 2002

ARGENTINA, REPUBLICAMr Hector Daniel GINZOFIDNEU
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

BOTSWANADr Opha Pauline DUBE
DepartmentofEnvironmental
University of Botswana
Tel: (267 3) 55 2513
Fax: (267 3) 55 2784
dubeop@mopipi.ub.bw

AUSTRALIADr Cristopher Leigh BRACK
Australian National University
School of Resources, Envirnment and Society
Building 48 A.N.U.
Canberra, A.C.T. 0200
Tel: (61 2) 6125 3535
Fax: (612) 6125 0746
Cris.Brack@anu.edu.au

BRAZILDr Bernardo F. T. RUDORFF
National Institute for Space Research
SERE II, Room 05
Av. dos Astronautas, 1758
P. O. Box 515
12..210-970 São José dos Campos, SP
Tel: (55 12) 3945 6490
Fax: (55 12) 3945 6488
bernardo@ltid.inpe.br

BOLIVIAMr Juan Ivar ARANA PARDO
Land Use Change and Forestry Consultant,
Environment, Natural Resource and Forestry
Development/ Climate Change National
Programme
Av. 20 de Octubre
No 2230. 4 Piso Oficina No. 401
Tel: (591 2) 2423497
Fax: (591 2) 2423497
ivararana@hotmail.com

CANADADr Mike APPS
Natural Resources Canada
BP 6486 OUAGADOUGOU
Tel: (1 226) 31 24 64
Fax: (1 226) 31 64 91
mapps@NRCan.gc.ca
CANADADr Henry JANZEN
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

25

Science,CANADADr Brian STOCKSNatural Resources Canada
Great Lakes Forestry Centre
1219 Queen Street East
Sault Ste Marie
Ontaria, P6A2E5
Tel: (1 705) 541 5568
Fax: (1 705) 541 5701
bstocks@nrcan.gc.ca

DENMARKDr Kjeld RASMUSSEN
Geographical Institute, Copenhagen University
Oster Voldgade 10
DK 1350 Copenhagen K
Tel: (45 3) 5322563
Fax:
kr@geogr.ku.dk
GEORGIADr George KORDZAKHIAState Department of Hydrometeorology ofGeorgia
150 Ave, David Agmashenebeli
380012. Tbilisi
Tel: (995 32) 95 02 01 / 95 02 14
Fax: (995 32) 95 50 06
g_kordzakhia@hotmail.com

CHILE
Dr. Sergio GONZALEZ-MARTINEAUX
Centro Regional de Investigacion La Platina
INIA
Tel: (56 2) 5417 223 (ext. 11)
Fax: (56 2) 5417 667
sgonzale@platina.inia.cl
CHILE
Mr Aquiles NEUENSCHWANDER
Ministry of Agriculture
Foundation for Agrarian Innovation (FIA)Av. Santa Maria 2120
Providencia, Santiago
Tel: (56 2) 431 3052
Fax: (56 2) 334 6811
aquilesn@fia.gob.cl
fia@fia.gob.cl

GERMANY
Dr Jürgen AUGUSTIN
Centre for Agricultural Landscape and Land
Use Research
Eberswalder Str. 84, D-15374 Müncheberg
Tel: (49 3) 3432 82376
Fax: (49 3) 3432 82330
jaug@zalf.de
JAPAN
Dr Masahiro AMANO
Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute
1 Matsunosato, Kukisaki
Inashiki-gun, Ibaraki, 305-8687
Tel: (81 298) 73 3211
Fax: (81 298) 73 3799
masahiro@ffpri.affrc.go.jp

CHINA
Mr Zhenlin CHEN
China Meteorological Administration
46 Zhongguancun Nandajie
Beijing 100081
Tel: (86 10) 62172957 / (86 10) 68406662
Fax: 86 10 62174797
cdccc@cma.gov.cn

JAPAN
Dr Yoshiki YAMAGATA
National Institute for Environmental Studies(NIES)
Onogawa 16-2, Tsukuba-shi
Ibaraki 305-8506
Tel: (81 298) 50 2545
Fax: (81 298) 50 2960
yamagata@nies.go.jp

CZECH REPUBLICDr Emil CIENCIALA
Institute of Forest Ecosystem Research
254 01 Jílové u Prahy 1544
Tel: (420 2) 4195 0607
Fax: (420 2) 4195 1205
Emil.Cienciala@ifer.cz

26LEBANON
Dr Michel KHOUZAMI
Forestry Consultant, Birut
P.O.Box 16 6758, Achrafieh 1100 21050
Tel: (961 1) 329821, (961 3) 244 736 (mobile)
Fax: (961 1) 981 059
mkhouzami@hotmail.com

NEW ZEALAND
Mr Peter STEPHENS
Landcare Research
Private Bag 11-052
Palmerston North 5301
Tel: (64 6) 3567154
Fax: (64 6) 3559230
stephensp@landcareresearch.co.nz
stephensp@landcare.cri.nz

MEXICODr Tomas HERNANDEZ
Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales,
Agricolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP)
Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganaderia, Desarrollo
Rural, Pesca y Alimentacion (SAGARPA)
Av. Progreso #5, Colonia Coyoacan
04110 Mexico, D.F.
Tel: (52 55) 5658 4612 / 3596
Fax: (52 55) 5554 0357
thtejeda@colpos.mx
textom99@yahoo.com

NORWAYDr Heleen DE WIT
Norwegian Institute for Land Inventory
Raveien 9, N-1431 Ås
Tel: (47 64) 94 97 00
Fax: (47 64) 949786
heleen.de.wit@nijos.no
hdw@nijos.no
PERU
Mr Jose DANCE
National Agrarian University of La Molina
12C Apartado 404, La Molina, Lima 12 Peru
Tel: (51 1) 224 5181
Fax: (51 1) 349 2041/2248597
jdance@lamolina.edu.pe
josedance26@ hotmail.com
endf @endf.org.pe

MOROCCOMr Mohamed YASSIN
National Centre of Forest Research
B.P.763 10050, Rabat - Agdal
Tel: (212 37) 67 38 30
Fax: (212 37) 67 11 51
yassin.mohamed2@caramail.com
rechfor@iam.net.ma
NETHERLANDS
Ms Eveline TRINESMinistry of Environment
Rijnstraat 8, P.O.Box 30945
2500 GX The Hague
Tel: (31 70) 339 3031
Fax: (31 70) 339 1310
eveline.trines@minvrom.nl

PERU
Mr Eduardo CALVO
Arteaga 549, Lima 41 Peru
Tel: (51 1) 3462299
Fax: (51 1) 3462299
ecalvo@terra.com.pe
e13calvo@hotmail.com
PHILIPPINESDr Rex Victor CRUZ
ENFOR-CFNR
University of the Philippines Los Banos
College, Laguna 4031
Tel: (63 49) 536 5314
Fax: (63 49) 536 5314
rexcruz@laguna.net

NEW ZEALAND
Mr Mike JEBSON
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526, WELLINGTON
Tel: (64 4) 498 9863 (work)(64 4) 239 9434 (home)
Fax: ( 64 4) 498 9898
Mike.Jebson@maf.govt.nz
jebsonm@maf.govt.nz

27

POLAND
Dr Wojciech GALINSKISILVATICA Research ConsultantsŻabieniec, ul. Glówna 29
05-500 Piaseczno
Tel: (48 22) 756 78 54(48 501) 185 105 (mobile)
Fax: (48 22) 756 78 54
wgalinski@silvatica.pl wgalinski@polbox.pl

SUDAN
Mr Nagmeldin Goutbi ELHASSAN
Higher Council for Environment and Natural
Resources
P.O.Box 10488, Gama Street, Khartoum
Tel: (249 11) 787616 / 784279(249 12) 252578 (mobile)
Fax: (249 11) 787617
goutbi@yahoo.com
hcenr@sudanmail.net

RUSSIAN FEDERATIONDr Anna ROMANOVSKAYA
Institute of Global Climate and Ecology
Glebovskaya Str., 20-B, Moscow, 107258
Tel: (7 095) 169-2198 (office)Fax: (7 095) 160 0831
an_roman@mail.ru
AROMANOVSKAYA@gmx.net

SWEDENProf Peter HÖGBERG
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences(SLU)
SE-90183, Umea
Tel: (46 90) 786 5007
Fax: (46 90) 786 7750
Peter.Hogberg@sek.slu.se

SLOVENIADr Primoz SIMONCIC
Slovenian Forest Institute
Vecna pot 21000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Tel: (386 1) 2007800
Fax: (386 1) 257 3589
primoz.simoncic@gozdis.si
SPAIN
Ms Maria-Jose SANZ-SANCHEZ
Centrode Estudios Ambientales
Mediterraneo (CEAM)
Charles Darwin 14
Parque Technologico de PATERNA
46980 Valencia (Paterna)
Tel: (34 96) 1318227
Fax: (34 96) 1318190
mjose@ceam.es

SWEDENProf Mats OLSSON
Swedish Univ. of Agriculture Sciences
Dep Forest Soils, Box 7001, 750 07 Uppsala
Tel: (46 18) 672213 / (46 70) 6316054
Fax: (46 18) 673470
mats.olsson@sml.slu.se
SWEDENDr Håkan STAAF
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
SE-106 48, Stockholm
Tel: (46 8) 698 144
Fax: (46 8) 698 1402
Hakan.Staaf@naturvardsverket.sedelSWITZERLAND
Dr Frank HAGEDORN
Swiss Federal Institute for Forest
Zurcherstrasse 111, CH-8903 Birmensdorf
Tel: (41 1) 7392463
Fax: (41 1) 739 2215
Hagedorn@wsl.ch

28

UGANDAMr B. James MAGEZI-AKIIKI
Department of Meteorology
P.O. BOX 7025, KAMPALA
Tel: (256 41) 251798 / 255609 / 233559(mobile:(256 77) 413311)
Fax: (256 41) 251797
meteoug@infocom.co.ug
OMUBIITO@netscape.net

UNITED STATESDr Jennifer Caroline JENKINSUSDA Forest Service
705 Spear St, South Burlington, VT 05403
Tel: (1 802) 951 6771 x1210
Fax: (1 802) 951 6368
jjenkins@fs.fed.us
UNITED STATESDr Steven George MCNULTYUSDA Forest Service
920 Main Campus Drive
Suite 300, Venture Center 2
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
Tel: (1 919) 515 9489
Fax: (1 919) 513 2978
steve_mcnulty@ncsu.edu

UNITED KINGDOMDr Mark BROADMEADOW
Forest Research
Forest Research Station
Alice Holt Lodge, Wrecclesham
Farnham, Surrey, GU10 4LH
Tel: (44 1420) 526 204
Fax: (44 1420) 520180
Mark.Broadmeadow@forestry.gsi.gov.uk

UNITED STATESDr Steve RUNNING
School of Forestry
University of Montana
Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group(NTSG)
Missoula, MT59812
Tel: (1 406) 243 6311
Fax: (1 406) 243 4510
swr@ntsg.umt.edu

UNITED KINGDOMDr Jim PENMAN
Department for Food Environment, Food &Rural Affairs
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
URUGUAY
Dr Walter OYHANTCABAL
Ministry of Agriculture
Constituyente 1476, p3. Montevideo
Tel: (5982) 412 63 62 / 412 63 74
Fax: (5982) 410 70 03
woyha@mgap.gub.uy

29

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONSEUROPEAN COMMISSION
Dr Guenther SEUFERT
Ispra
Institute for Environment and Sustainability
T.P. 051, 21020 Ispra (Varese)
Tel: (39 0332) 785784
Fax: (39 0332) 785022
guenther.seufert@jrc.it

UNFCCCMr Heikki GRANHOLM
Martin Luther King Strasse 8
D-53175, Bonn, GERMANY
Tel: (49 228) 815 1601
Fax: (49 228) 815 1999
hgranholm@unfccc.int

IFDC
Dr Walter BAETHGENIFDC - Urguay
Juan M. Perez 2917 Apt. 501
Montevideo 11300 URUGUAY
Tel: (5982) 712 0838
Fax: (5982) 711 6958
wbaethgen@undpfim.org.uy
TASK FORCE BUREAU MEMBERS
CANADA
Mr Art JAQUES
Environment Canada
351 St Joseph Bld., Hull, Quebec
K1A 0H3
Tel: (1 819) 729 8025
Fax: (1 819) 953 3006
art.jaques@ec.gc.ca

BRAZILDr Thelma KRUG
Ministerio da Ciencia e Tecnologia, Esplanada
dos Ministerios
Bloco E - 2o andar, Brasilia DF 70067-900
Tel: (55 61) 317 8128
Fax: (55 61) 226 0834

tkrug@mct.gov.br
JAPAN
Mr Taka HIRAISHINational Institute for Environmental Studies(NIES)
C/o Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies (IGES)
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi
Hayama, Miura, Kanagawa Japan 240-0115
Tel: (81 468) 55 3750
Fax: (81 468) 55 3808

CHILE
Mr Sergio GONZALES
Minisitry of Agriculture
La Platina Regional Research Centre,
Agricultural Research Institute
Av. Santa Rosa 11.61.
(Comuna de La Pintana)Santiago, R.M. Post Box 439/3
Tel: (56 2) 5417223 (official)(56 2) 6358659 (private)
Fax: (56 2) 5417667
sgonzale@platina.inia.cl sgonzal@ctcreuna.cl

KUWAIT
Dr.Dhari AL-AJIMI
Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research
P.O. Box 24885, Safat-13109
Tel:
(965)
4815176/9084836
(mob)
Fax:
(965)
4815176
dajmi@kisr.safat.edu.kw

30

IPCC-NGGIP/TSUTSU
Dr Riitta PIPATTII
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi
Hayama, Miura, Kanagawa Japan
240-0115
Tel: (81 468) 55 3752
Fax: (81 468) 55 3810
pipatti@iges.or.jp
TSU
Dr Todd NGARA
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi
Hayama, Miura, Kanagawa Japan
240-0115
Tel: (81 468) 55 3751
Fax: (81 468) 55 3809

ngara@iges.or.jp
TSU
Ms Kyoko MIWA
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi
Hayama, Miura, Kanagawa Japan 240-0115
Tel: (81 468) 55 3750
Fax: (81 468) 55 3808

miwa@iges.or.jp31