Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and GPG Arising from the Kyoto Protocol (Sections 4.1 & 4.2)
description
Transcript of Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and GPG Arising from the Kyoto Protocol (Sections 4.1 & 4.2)
Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and GPG Arising from the Kyoto Protocol (Sections 4.1 & 4.2)
CLA: Bernhard Schlamadinger (Austria), Henry Janzen (Canada), Werner Kurz (Canada), Rodel Lasco (Philippines), Kansri Boonpragob (Thailand), and Pete Smith (UK)LA:Pascale Collas (Canada), El Nur Abdalla El Siddig (Sudan), Andreas Fischlin (Switzerland), Mitsuo Matsumoto (Japan), Alexander Nakhutin (Russia), Ian Noble (Australia), Gerome Pignard (France), Zoltan Somogyi (Hungary), and Xiao-Quan Zhang (China)CA: Mark Easter (USA), Genevieve Patenaude (Canada), Keith Paustian (USA, and Yoshiki Yamagata (Japan)
Presented by: Pete Smith, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
Objective
To describe the information requirements, methods and good practice guidance for the reporting of CO2 and non-CO2 emissions by sources and removals by sinks as required by the Kyoto Protocol (Articles 3.3, 3.4, 6 and 12) that are supplementary to those for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
General approach
Identify lands (definitional and temporal constraints) - eligible after human actions; provide supplementary methods to chapter 2
Establish estimate of C stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions on these lands; provide supplementary methods to chapter 3
Table of Contents
4.1 General overview 4.1.1 Roadmap to estimating and reporting supplementary information for
activities under articles 3.3, 3.4, 6 and 12 4.1.2 General rules for categorisation of land areas under articles 3.3 and
3.4 4.1.3 Relationship between annex I parties’ national inventories and
article 6 projects
4.2 Methods for estimation, measurement, monitoring and reporting of LULUCF activities under articles 3.3 and 3.4
4.2.1 Relationship between UNFCCC land categories and Kyoto Protocol (articles 3.3 and 3.4) land categories
4.2.2 Generic methodologies for area identification, stratification and reporting
4.2.3 Generic methodological issues for estimating C stock change and greenhouse gas emissions
4.2.4 Other generic methodological issues 4.2.5 Afforestation and reforestation 4.2.6 Deforestation 4.2.7 Forest management 4.2.8 Cropland management 4.2.9 Grazing land management 4.2.10 Revegetation
4.1.1. Roadmap
STEP 1. Defining “forest”, application of definitions to national circumstances, establishing a hierarchy among selected Article 3.4 activities
STEP 2. Identify lands subject to activities under Article 3.3 and any elected activities under Article 3.4
STEP 3. Estimate carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions on the lands identified under Step 2 above
STEP 4. Identify areas and estimate carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions in Article 12 projects.
Demonstration of classification of a unit of
land under Article 3.3 (ARD) or land under Article 3.4 (FM, CM,
GM and RV) as of year X of the Commitment Period (2008, 2009…
2012)
Classify unit ofland under D
YesHas the unit of land beensubject to a D activity since
31 December 1989?(Note 1)
Has the unit of land beensubject to an AR activity since
31 December 1989?
No Classify unit ofland under A
Classify unit ofland under R
Had the unit of landbeen non-forested for at least
50 years before the startof the conversion?
(Note 2)
Yes
Did yourcountry elect FM, CM, GM
or RV?
Did yourcountry elect FM, CM, GM
or RV?
Classify as unitof land under
AR or D
Classify underthis FM, CM,
GM or RVcategory for
year X
Classify as unit of land underAR or D with secondary (FM,CM, GM or RV) classification
for year X
Is theunit of land in
year X, or has the unitof land been previously (in thecommitment period) subject to
FM, CM, GM or RV?(Note 3)
No accounting ofthe unit of land
Is the unit of landsubject to FM, CM, GM or
RV in year X?
Classify under that FM,CM, GM or RV categoryunder which the land was
last during thecommitment period
Note 1: No matter whether it had beensubject to an AR activity beforeNote 2: The distinction between A and R isoften irrelevant, in particular if the samemethodologies apply. Yet sometimes Amay lead to soil carbon increase, while Rto a decrease.Note 3: Apply this test only to thoseactivities that your country has elected
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Is theunit of land in
year X, or has the unitof land been previously (in thecommitment period) subject to
FM, CM, GM or RV?(Note 3)
Relationship between Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities and basic land-use categories
Table 4.2.1 Relationship between activities of Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of TheKyoto Protocol and the basic Land-Use categories of Section 2.2.1.
Initial
Final
Forest land Cropland Grassland Wetland Settlements Other land
Forest land FM A or R A or R A or R A or R A or R
Cropland D CM or RV RV RV RV RV
Grassland D RV GM or RV RV RV RV
Wetland D
Settlements D
Other land D
Land Classification in the national inventories under the UNFCCC of a Hypothetical Country in
Year X of the Commitment Period
Wetland, Settlements, OtherLands
Unmanagedforest
Unmanagedgrassland
Managed grasslandManaged forest
Cropland/arable/tillage
Land classification for Kyoto Protocol reporting for a hypothetical country in year
X of the commitment period.
Wetland, Settlements, OtherLands
Unmanagedforest
Unmanagedgrassland
Managed GrasslandManaged forest
Cropland/arable/tillage
RV D
D**
AR*
RV#
D**RV#FM Art 3.4
CM Art 3.4
Two Reporting Methods for Land Subject to Articles 3.3 and 3.4 Activities
Relationship between Approaches in Chapter 2
and Reporting methods in Chapter 4.
Approaches
in Chapter 2
Reporting Method 1
(Broad area identification)
Reporting Method 2
(Completeidentification)
Approach 1 Not applicable
Could be good practice with the additionalspatial information
Not applicable
Approach 2 Not applicable
Could be good practice with the additionalspatial information
Not applicable
Approach 3 Good practice Good practice
with fine-scale spatial information
(statistical only)
(land-use transitions)
(full tracking of all land)
Decision Tree for Choosing Reporting Method for Land Subject to Activities
under Articles 3.3 and 3.4Start
Do you use Approach 3for national report?
Do you have spatialinformation of boundaries
encompassing units ofland or land under Article
3.3 and 3.4?
Do you have fine-scale spatial
information of unitsof land or land underArticle 3.3 and 3.4?
Development of spatialinformation of the
boundaries
Reporting Method 1 Reporting Method 2
Yes
Yes Yes
No
No
Development of additional spatialinformation by re-compiling detailed
inventory database
Common subsections for AR, D, FM, CM, GM and RV
Definitional and Methodological issues 1990 BASE YEAR (CM, GM, RV) Choice of methods for identifying lands Choice of methods for estimating C stock changes
Choice of activity data and emission factors Completeness Developing a consistent time series Reporting and documentation QA/QC
For CM, GM & RV – the following sections Mineral soils CO2 emissions/removals from organic soils
CO2 emissions from liming
Choice of methods for estimating non-CO2 emissions
Decision tree to determine
whether a land qualifies as
forest management
No
Yes
Use Tier 1(Note 1)
Yes
Obtain data from regionalor national measurement/research programmes or
other reliable sources
Use Tier 2(Note 2)
Use Tier 3
Are dataavailable to
calculate regional orcountry-specific C emission /
removal factors associated withmanagement practices, and
their duration ofimpact?
AreCO2 emissions
from croplands a keycategory?
Is therea national carboninventory system
available that allows CMactivities to beaccounted forseparately?
No
Yes
No
Note 1: Use the matrix/database of default values.Note 2: Use regionally specific parameters, soil data and duration of impact.
Decision tree to select the tier for estimating for carbon emissions/removals from mineral soils under the Kyoto Protocol
Summary table of greenhouse gas emissions by sources and
removals by sinks by articles 3.3 and 3.4 activities for the inventory
year y
Reporting is annual but measurements might be less frequent
Status
Meeting in KL - mainly to deal with comments from first government review
Focus in KL was on addressing comments, rationalisation and some major restructuring
Translation of statement of the scientific problem to practical GPG
Draft for Second Review submitted