30/11/2010

Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Revisiting the Use of Managed Land as a Proxy forEstimating National Anthropogenic Emissions andRemovals
Report of the IPCC Expert Meeting, May 2009, INPE, São José dos Campos, Sao Paulo, BRAZIL

Simon Eggleston, IPCC-TFI-TSU

Second Workshop on the Revision of the UNFCCC Annex I Reporting Guidelines for Reporting ofInventories under the Convention, 3–4 November 2010, Langer Eugen, 1916 Bonn, Germany

Reporting Anthropogenic• The UNFCCC requires the estimation and reporting ofanthropogenic emissions and removals of greenhouse gasesnot covered by the Montreal Protocol.
• Generally the definition of anthropogenic emissions is clear.
• However, emissions and removals associated with land use
activities (LULUCF and/or AFOLU ) occur together with thoseof natural origin, and it is not always straightforward how only toestimate the anthropogenic components.
components• In 2003 the IPCC reported that “The scientific community
cannot currently provide a practicable methodology that would
factor out direct human-induced effects from indirect humaninduced and natural effects for any broad range of LULUCF
activities and circumstances”.

130/11/2010

Managed Land Proxy• Therefore the IPCC Guidelines have adopted the use of
estimates of greenhouse gas emissions and removal on
managed land as a proxy for the estimation of anthropogenic
emissions and removals.
“Managed land is land where human interventions and practices
have been applied to perform production, ecological or socialfunctions.”((2006 IPCC Guidelines))• Since 2003 the scientific understanding of the drivers ofgreenhouse gas fluxes from LULUCF sources has developedand so the IPCC decided to revisit the use of the managed land
proxy.

Assumptionsi.

all direct human-induced effects on greenhouse gas
emissions and removals occur on managed lands only.
ii. many indirect human influences on greenhouse gases(e.g., increased N deposition, accidental fire) will bemanifested predominately on managed lands, wherehuman activities are concentrated..
iii. while local and short-term variability in emissions andremovals due to natural causes can be substantial … thenatural ‘background’ of greenhouse gas emissions andremovals by sinks tends to average out over time andspace• None are universally true2

30/11/2010

M ti C
MeetingConclusions
l iManaged Land Proxy• Despite valid concerns, the managed land proxy remains a globally
applicable, assessed and approved method for separating
anthropogenic emissions and removals.
• The meeting noted that the managed land proxy is a first approachfor distinguishing between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic
emissions and removals, and is the current approach in the 2003
Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-use Change andForestry and the 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories.
• Refinements are being developed that so far can only beimplemented with higher tier methodologies330/11/2010

Shortcomings• The meeting recognised that the managed land proxy has several
shortcomings and that for some national circumstances natural
disturbances can play a significant role in fluxes from managed land.
• For some countries and circumstances, use of the managed land
proxy may lead to emission and removal estimates dominated bynatural effects occurring on managed land and this would need to berecognised where inventory estimates were used in estimates ofanthropogenic or management effects.

Inter-annual variations• Inter-annual variations in fluxes (driven by natural effects) may swamp the changes
in fluxes due to mitigation efforts and there may be significant background uptakes.
 Tier 1 and Tier 2 approaches may not result in emission and removal estimates withsignificant inter-annual variability as input data may be averaged.
 Tier 3 can result in significant inter-annual variability where annual climatic effects andannual area disturbed are more correctly represented or measured.

• Inventories estimate annual emissions and removals – they do not try to remove orreduce the impact of inter-annual variations (e.g. those caused by climate effects)
 subsequent accounting (e.g. Kyoto Protocol accounting rules) can average out thisvariability in a transparent manner if so desired.

• However there is a requirement to be able to identify the impact of mitigation andmanagement efforts4

30/11/2010

Possible Replacements for the Managed
Land Proxy• The methods considered by the meeting were: Maintenance of the managed land proxy; Component separation (quantify the influence of different drivers and thenidentify which drivers contribute to anthropogenic emissions);
 Comparison of two time series (that represent two different levels of humanactivities, e.g. current management and no management, or improved
management vs. business as usual management) ; Default factors and optimal fingerprinting (without quantifying the relativecontributions apply a default factor which indicates the impact of the humancontributions,activity); Activity based approach (estimate emissions by different activities and sum up
anthropogenic contributions)Assessment• The participants recognized that these methods, which largely
involve Tier 3 representation of ecosystem dynamics, could
potentially refine the estimation of anthropogenic emissions andremovals but considered that they needed further work; in particular: with regard to the science; methodological implications;
 data requirements,
 Tier 1 – 3 variations, and consistency with the general principles of inventory guidelines.

• The meeting hoped that further work by the scientific community will
result in more mature approaches which can be assessed at a later
date.

5

30/11/2010

What do we mean by anthropogenic?
• A clearer common understanding of “anthropogenic” is needed
particularly in relation to the distinction between “direct”,
direct , “indirect”
indirectand “natural” effects, and how to classify effects that have a range ofnatural and direct influences, for example
 where there is a natural origin (e.g. wild fire) but the emission is mainly
determined by direct anthropogenic factors (e.g. harvest and re-planting) or where there is an anthropogenic origin (e.g. fire ignition) but the magnitude ofthe emissions is affected by natural causes (e.g. extreme drought or high fuelloading due to tree mortality from pest outbreaks or windthrow).
windthrow) One issue that will need to be addressed is how to deal with areas withsignificant natural fluxes, so that emissions estimated using the current IPCC
guidelines do not reflect the changes seen by the atmosphere. This situation
occurs in other sectors but is particularly acute in the wetland sector.

Summary6

30/11/2010

Managed Land Proxy• Anthropogenic emissions and removals should continue to be
estimated as the emissions and removals from managed land
 This approach was specified in the 2003 Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF
and continued in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
 Managed land is land where human interventions and practices have been
applied to perform production, ecological or social functions• The Managed Land Proxy remains a globally applicable, assessed
and approved method to identify anthropogenic emissions andremovals
 Alternatives have been proposed but need further development andassessment before they can be widely recommended.

Further Conclusions• A clearer understanding of “anthropogenic”, “direct”, “indirect” andnatural is needed“natural”• Continuing research needs:
 to quantify the contribution of indirect human and natural causes of emissions
and removals
 to develop methods for factoring out direct human impacts from all others
 on issues surrounding wetlands of all kinds

7

30/11/2010

Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Thank you8