Overview of MS LULUCF GHG inventories and common problems identified during the EU QA/QC V. Blujdea, G.Grassi European Commission Joint Research Centre,

Overview of MS’ LULUCF GHG inventories Overview of MS’ LULUCF GHG inventories and common problems identified during the and common problems identified during the

EU QA/QCEU QA/QC

V. Blujdea, G.GrassiV. Blujdea, G.Grassi

European CommissionEuropean CommissionJoint Research Centre, Ispra (IT)Joint Research Centre, Ispra (IT)

JRC technical workshop on LULUCF issues under the Kyoto ProtocolJRC technical workshop on LULUCF issues under the Kyoto Protocolorganized by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commissionorganized by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission

Brussels, 21 November 2011Brussels, 21 November 2011

- Latest improvements in the EU’s QA/QC process - Issues in MS’s 2010 ARRs (especially related to KP)- EU LULUCF Internal review exercise- Issues in MS’s 2011 SP- Issues in EU’s 2011 SP- Recommendations on filling in some KP tables

Presentation content

EU QA/QC 2011: 58 findings on UNFCCC (!263 in 2010!) + 134 findings on KP (!295 in 2010!)

EU’s QA/QC “completeness analysis” focus on “NE”, “NO” (“NA” ?) on Convention tables, with the purpose to check the completeness on land categories and pools

Upon the case, EU’s QA/QC “bilateral” focuses on very specific MS issues related to K (includes any “gap filling”)

… and hopefully a website-based approach to support improved communication (as last WG1)

Latest improvements in the EU’s QA/QC process

Activity Issues mentioned for old MS ( /15) and new MS( /10)Transparency Land Biomass DW LT SOC

FM (elected 10/15)

(7/10)

6/155/10

4/15 5/10

2/15 0/10

3/15 2/10

4/15 4/10

5/15 3/10

AR 8/158/10

7/156/10

5/150/10

8/157/10

6/154/10

6/154/10

D 10/155/10

8/157/10

4/152/10

4/153/10

6/153/10

4/15 2/10

Issues in MS’s 2010 ARRs (especially related to KP) (2)

• inconsistent land representation: missing land definitions, LUC matrix (or > 1990); time consistency, tables filing in, mngd/unmngd • inconsistency between “conversions” and KP activities, e.g.:

- convention KP tables including,- correct allocation of non-CO2 emissions with land activities: burnt areas among FM & ARD - in reporting year 2009: sum of areas in 5B2.1&5C2.1&5D2.1&5E2.1&5F2.1 = D in 5(KP-I)A.2.- also for 2009 AR = 5A2 (with exceptions expl. in NIR)- cumulated area in conversions both under convention and KP tables since 1990 or over transition period

- area FL=>CL on 5B2 T5(III); - organic soils area of cultivated histosols: T4Ds1 5B1+5B2 (should “5C2. 2. Cropland converted to Grassland” be included here?)- NIR chapters 7 and 11 (follow annotated NIR and D.15&16/CMP1)

Issues in MS’s 2010 ARRs (highlight of KP’s) (1)

Biomass • inexplicit formulas and parameters used• standing DW included in the Living Biomass• missing estimate of LB increase on D area or on pre-AR land;• BGB as “IE”• misallocation (i.e. thinning on AR with harvest under FM) • increasing ERT requests for CS data on LB in all LU

DOM (DW & LT) and SOC

• reporting aggregated pools (i.e. LT+SOC)• need to reconsider the mathematical approach “because of high

uncertainty”• more transparent reporting on model parameterization• missing references (or not transparent) or expert judgment based• direct use of Tier 1 (without justifications or improvements plan even

for KC)• missing demonstration for “not a source” • estimates provided over the review week• apparently ERT misunderstood reporting methods and assumptions (i.e.

DOM in France) (inconvenience of centralized review!)

Issues in MS’s 2010 ARRs (highlight of KP’s) (2)

Based on 2010 ARRs there is a higher demand for reporting in NIR on cross cutting issues:

- report uncertainty estimates and assumptions on all sub-categories, at least on each land sub-category, best on each C pool and non-CO2 source

- more information on QA/QC procedures applied on the GHG inventory estimations

-Verification activities (including comparison with IPCC default, independent estimates, peer-reviewed studies)

Issues in MS’s 2010 ARRs (especially related to KP) (3)

• Insufficient or lack of documented/additional verifiable and transparent information that demonstrates that a pool is not a net source, including information on variability and uncertainty to ensure that the conclusion for excluding the pool is justified

Major issues in MS’s 2010 ARRs

Internal EU LULUCF review 2011

Assess Ch. 7 and 11 of EU NIR on how JRC to improve them

List of suggestions (tables, graphs, text, …)

List of comments and suggestions

What else could be done at EU level to help improving the reporting

Look how MS implement “not a source” and which are the main issues & recommendation resulting from this practice;

Decision tree on C pools and application of “not a source”

Group of LULUCF reviewers (12, thank you!) asked to focus on the EU NIR 2011 report and compilations of MS, with following tasks:

Para/Issue in EU ARR 2010

JRC action Internal Reviewers comment/suggestion

The ERT … recommends that the the Party [EU] continue to encourage its MS to …

…. encourages the Party [UE] to continue its efforts to improve comparability and consistency among member States in future submissions.

… and further encourages the Party [UE] to provide further support to those MS that are still unable to fulfill the requirements on ….

1) Improved QA/QC process

2) A decision tree on the use of notation keys (by JRC + other experts) was sent to all MS early 2011

3) A decision tree on pools to be reported (and criteria to use the “not a source”) (by JRC + other experts)

4) KP LULUCF workshop

5) On request support

i) set up a support project for the MS to allow estimates or well-grounded non-source statements

ii) in-country visits and communication with the data providers by involving (and supporting) the available EU LULUCF reviewers and JRC experts

iii) request MS to provide information on their progress, and when and how they will be able to deliver complete reporting

iiii) (bilateral) planning of support to MS

iiiii) action for harmonizing forest inventories could be also listed here and adaptations of NFIs in order to improve the comparability between MS.

iiiiii) an EU-wide review of particular issue might be necessary to approve, or reject, the robustness of a particular approach of a country

-Missing guidelines on estimating C-stock changes in DOM and SOM when converting FL to SL (3 MS SP’s on this). Answers from MSs:

- further request to ERT for methodological clarification (ERT’s answer was that all pools must be reported, unless “not a source”), or

- IPCC GL (2006) provides a method for DOM (Tier 1 assumes all C stock is lost and there is no subsequent accumulation) and SOC (Tier 1 based on default stocks and factors)

- MS provided SOCref for SL and applied 1/20 annual emission on transition period

- Land identification and “direct human induced”- Incompleteness or pools reported as “IE” - Inappropriate method for sink/source estimation

MS SP issues in 2011 (EU 27)

EU’s SP issues in 2011

EU was requested to provide information which demonstrates that emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting from elected under 3.4 activities are not accounted for under activities under 3. 3 (para 9 (c) of the annex to 15/CMP.1)

EU implements several checks but a harmonized understanding of reporting of “units of land otherwise subject to 3.4 activities”, so …

• If no 3.4 activity is elected then “NA” in Table 5(KP-I)A.2.1. and Table 5(KP-I)A.1.3.

• If FM is elected then fill in in the T5(KP-I)A.2.1. “D” area value (but mind any D from AR)

• If CM or/and GM are elected then fill in in the Table 5(KP-I)A.1.3. AR with area coming from each of CM, GM

Filling in tables on “Units of land otherwise subject to elected activities under Art. 3.4” (informative item)

Recommendations on filling in KP tables (1)

“Filing in” the Accounting table: Art 3.3 offset is not mandatory! If you want to offset emissions from deforestation, then do appropriate settings in the CRF reporter:

Assuming all MS want to apply 3.3 offset then it seems that they did not do it right: FR; EST; LT; LV; SV. PRT applies a manual filing up !? Because it is a mismatch of all values among sectoral tables and the accounting table !

YES if you want to offset, NO if do

not want it !

Recommendations on filling in some KP tables (2)

Thank you !