Issues on the use of IPCC 2006GL for
sub‐national scale land useinventories and mitigation activities
Viorel Blujdea
Forest Research and Management InstituteBucuresti, Romania
presentation at "IPCC Expert Meeting on Application of 2006 IPCC Guidelines
to Other Areas", 1st to 3rd of July 2014, Sofia, Bulgaria

Content• Reasoning on need of sub‐national (regional,provincial) GHG inventories or MAs• Overview of reporting requirements on land
• 2006GL issues on regional land data, default
factors and methods for GHG inventories orMAs (incl. examples)Why regional GHG inventories?
• Administrative regions may drive reducing emissions withincountry, they should be encouraged and methodologicallysupported to implement GHG inventories /mitigation actions• For land use – regional approach is meaningful because of welldefined (administrative) boundaries and likely uniform land
management practices while giving weight to other locallyimportant issues: SLM, land degradation and biodiversity• If any, regional land resources assessment , e.g. forest inventory,a GHG inventory would add value to that

Overview of land reporting and accounting requirements
Cancun Agreement: Parties have committed for enhanced
implementation of UNFCCC, including by NAMAs• LULUCF is part of it, based on:– annual anthropogenic E and R inventory and trend for “landcategories” within national territory (GHG inventory)– “land activity” based accounting of emissions and removals vs.
target (KP commitments)• in principle, both reporting are methodologically covered by 2006GL,
but additional strong elements are required for accounting under KP(e.g. quantitative thresholds based land definitions, and only
Approach 2+ supplementary information, and Approach 3 aresuitable for KP lands)

2006GL on the “relationship to entity‐ or project level estimates”• In the Overview chapter: .... intended to help
prepare national inventories. Nonetheless, theGuidelines can also be relevant for estimating
actual emissions or removals at the entity or
project level• ......by providing guidance, decision trees,methods and default values for various factors/
parameters

Options for regional approach• always project under KP flexible mechanisms or voluntary market(restricted to Marakesh land activities, lot of bureacracy)• ....still, there are two other options to explore: GHG inventory orimplementation of specific mitigation activities (no restrictions
on activities, conditioned by methodological support)

Land data for a regional GHG INVENTORY• If complete and consistent land datasets areavailable, just follow 2006GL to estimate annual or
periodic estimates and the trend, but nota bene:– whole territory coverage key– breakdown of statistical sampling from national
grids may be less adequate, without additional
local effort to supplement data (assessment ofuncertainty)

Land data for regional MITIGATION PURPOSE• Selection of meaningful set of land activities (no GL), firstlooking to land data for high C stocks lands (forestlands,grasslands, wetlands, hot spots: e.g. organic soils) and land
conversions (e.g. to arable)• Statistical data often available (e.g. crops areas)• 2006GL might not be sufficient for land activity based actions(because of land identification, tracking and dhi
requirements)• Expansion in unmanaged lands and land abandonment,
conversions are difficult to follow, and this is often the casefor high C stock lands (forests, wetlands, grasslands)

Estimation of regional GHG inventory forforestland• IPCC estimation methods: gain‐loss or stockchange• Method selection according regional
circumstances following decision tree in 2006GL• Often errors: misinterpretation/use ofparameters or wrong application of formulasfrom 2006GL• They can be corrected if identified by a thoroughcheck/review

Example on estimation of forests sink – issues of method• Cautious use of 2006GL methods used for regional inventories of forests
sink ‐ stock change likely results in more reliable and accurate estimatesvs. gain‐loss, because of:– general availability and accurate estimates for wood volume standing
stock (although as periodic data) compared to annual current growth– less sensitive to large fluctuation in annual harvest– independent by third parties data and its quality (on harvest, woodcollection, disturbance statistics)– implicit consideration of activity data in the standing volume estimates(less uncertain, less prone to errors)– most of the quality standards are implemented and checks are
performed by forestry agencies

Risks of biased regional GHG inventory by use ofdefault factors• 2006GL provides global scale stratification anda selection of default factors as IPCC
climate/soil zoning. GIS capacity is needed todownscale at regional level• Difficult correspondence of default factors
with management practice and its changes• Even in Annex I countries, expert guess• These issues are difficult to identify andcorrect

Example: issues for estimation of SOM change in
agricultural soils by selection of default factors• Estimation of SOM change in agricultural soils bystock‐difference requires 4 variables:– reference C stock in soils (i.e. native vegetation that is
not degraded or improved), and,– 3 stock‐change factors (FLU, FMG and FI)• Effect on absolute estimates of C stocks :– strong, multiplicative for incorrect factors (especially
if they all increase or decrease)• Effect on net removal /emissions estimates:– small for actual changes/emissions in time, nomatter default or country specific dataLand mitigation activities at regional level• Addressing leakage – 2006GL provides methodological support toensure completness, to exclude ‘pools’• Address permanence and reversibility – land use balance and trends
in land use, control of disturbances• Effect of regional policies on low emissions – trend and pattern
against BAU since the policy implementation. Significant potential for
new activities that can be tracked individually under regularinstitutional activities (e.g. afforestation)• Cost effectiveness – 2006GL provides default methods and factors as
most economic solution for ER estimation especially for sub‐nationalactivities

Conclusions• 2006GL are guided by UNFCCCC reporting principles, among
which completeness and accuracy are key• 2006GL is suitable for assessment of annual national/regional
inventory and trends• ....but does not offer enough guidance for mitigation
activities, leaving on implementer how to proceed in practice• regional land data challenging, additional guidelines arenecessary• because of methodological complexity, institutional
challenges at regional level may be significant

Thank You!