1

Analysis and proposals for enhancing LULUCF MRV

Administrative Arrangement Nº 071201/2011/611111/CLIMA A.2

By Raul Abad Viñas, Giacomo Grassi, Roland Hiederer H03 Unit –JRC (http://forest.jrc.ec.europa.eu/) JRC technical workshop 2014 - LULUCF for 2nd CP. Arona (NO), Italy May 2014.

2

Summary

1. Overview of the LULUCF MRV project

2. Task 3 – Analytical input for harmonizing MRV in the EU

• Modelling CSC of forest soils

• Selecting IPCC default factors for estimate CSC

• Biomass burning reporting - Comparative assessment of

data reported under UNFCCC and EFFIS -

3

DG CLIMA

JRC Administrative Arrangement- LULUCF MRV

1a) Comparative assessment of the methods, approaches and nomenclature used for estimating emissions/removals.

1b) Assessment of the current situation in relation to reporting/accounting requirements which may

pose challenges in near future.

2a) Recommendations for improving LULUCF MRV.

2b) Start to implement the recommendations from task 2a. (HRV, EST, GRC, ITA, LVA, POL, ROU)

Task 1 - Assess the current MRV capacity and the future challenges

Task 2 - Develop recommendations/actions plans to help MSs improving LULUCF MRV

Task 3 – Analytical input for harmonizing MRV in the EU

Overview LULUCF MRV

Help MS improve LULUCF MRV in terms of the 5 principles.

Improve the comparability and consistency of LULUCF estimates

among MS

4

Task 3

Input to improving the comparability in MRV across EU MS and the preparedness for the new reporting requirements (deadline: end of July)

Task 3

In the recent JRC LULUCF workshops it has been repeatedly pointed out that methods used by MS in their LULUCF inventories are heterogeneous.

While in most cases this is unavoidable, and not necessarily a problem (as long as IPCC guidance is applied), some steps toward harmonization within

the EU could be considered for specific issues.

5

3.1.-Modeling carbon stock change of forest soils:

From previous tasks it emerged that reporting forest mineral soils is one of the main challenges of LULUCF inventory compilers.

The purpose of this task is to test the feasibility and utility of expanding the currently quite limited use of models for reporting emissions and removals from forest soils (or provide evidences for the “not a source” provision).

For this purpose this task uses the YASSO model, involving MS already using this model (FIN, AUT, CHE) and 4 selected MS (ESP, FRA, ROU, EST) in which

YASSO will be tested.

Modelling CSC of forest soils TASK 3.1

6

Selecting IPCC default factors for estimate CSC

3.2.-Selecting IPCC default factors for estimate CSC:

Based on the work of previous tasks it emerged that some MS do not implement

a proper disaggregation of lands (i.e. climate zones, soils types and GEZ), as suggested by IPCC when default factors need to be chosen, therefore resulting in under/overestimation of CO2 from various carbon pools is

expected.

The purpose of this task is analyze the number of MS using Tier 1 method for which the land is not properly disaggregated, as well as develop

recommendations for future GHG inventories.

Having in mind that more KP activities are becoming mandatory for 2nd CP and that, at least, for the first years some MS may choose apply Tier 1 methods for reporting CSC on these new mandatory activities, JRC have developed individual suitable maps for supporting MS in the selection of IPCC default

factors.

TASK 3.2

7

Selecting IPCC default factors for estimate CSC

IPCC Climate zones IPCC provides a world map based on elevation, Mean annual temperature (MAT), Mean annual precipitation (MAP), Mean annual precipitation to potential evapo-transpiration ratio (MAP:PET),frost occurrence

IPCC Soil types IPCC suggests to use the decision tree in Annex 3 & 4 to classify soils from soil taxonomic systems like USDA and WRB into IPCC soil types.

IPCC Ecological zones The IPCC Guidelines follows the FAO Global Ecological Zones, based on observed climate and vegetation patterns. Data for geographic information systems is available at: http://www.fao.org

This classification should be used for Tier 1 methods because the default emission and stock change factors

were derived using this scheme.

TASK 3.2

Values t C/ha of SOC ref

with HAC soils

Selecting IPCC default factors for estimate SOC changes TASK 3.2

Available in http://forest.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities/lulucf/ipcc-classifications/

9

Biomass burning reporting

3.3.-Biomass burning reporting - Comparative assessment of data reported under UNFCCC and EFFIS –

From IPCC 2006: Steps of the GHG inventory reporting include: Implement quality control checks, verification, and expert

peer review of the emission estimates.

The purpose of verifying national GHG is to establish their reliability and to check the accuracy of the reported numbers by independent means.

The overall goals of verification are to:

• Provide inputs to improve inventories;

• Build confidence on estimates and trends; • Help to improve scientific understanding.

Verification refers to the collection of activities and procedures that can be followed during the planning and development, or after the completion of an inventory, that can help to establish its

reliability for the intended application of the inventory.

One approach as provided in the IPCC 2006 is COMPARISON TO OTHER INFORMATION

TASK 3.3

10

Biomass burning reporting TASK 3.3

Comparative assessment of data reported under UNFCCC and EFFIS

-

• The European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS) (JRC technical report 2011)

•Forest Fires Database – country reporting

-Total Burnt Area is the sum of the Forest Area, Other Wooded Land and Other Non-Wooded Natural Land.

•Rapid Damage Assessment – satellite mapping estimation

- Total burnet areas > 40 ha classified following the CORINE Land Cover Classes (up to level 3 – 44 classes)

including wildfires and controlled.

• UNFCCC reporting (Submissions 2013)

•UNFCCC Data – CRF table 5(V)

-Burned areas disaggregated by land use and type of fires (controlled and wildfires)

11

Biomass burning reporting TASK 3.3

Specifically, figures on biomass burning used in this report are:

• Annual official areas burned by forest fires reported by MS to EFFIS, (hereinafter EFFIS).

• Data of burned areas produced every year by EFFIS, as detected by MODIS satellite,

(hereinafter MODIS)

• Official data reported by MS to UNFCCC, submission 2013,

(hereinafter UNFCCC)

12

Biomass burning reporting TASK 3.3

*UNFCCC data includes total area burnt in ha when reported in CRF table 5 (V) * CZE, LVA and SVK report all the fires in CRF table 5(V) as Kg dm.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

AU

T

BEL

BG

R

CY

P

CZE

DEU

DN

K

EST

FIN

UK

HR

V

HU

N

IRL

LTU

LUX

LVA

MLT

ND

L

PO

L

RO

U

SVK

SVN

SWE

ha

Burnt areas (2011)

EFFIS

MODIS

UNFCCC

Comparison for Spain

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

ha

SPAIN

MODIS

EFFIS

UNFCCC

Biomass burning reporting TASK 3.3

UNFCCC only FL- If different forest definitions are applied why only fire under forest land are reported? UNFCCC only wildfires - if controlled burned areas explain differences why only wildfires are reported?

EFFIS > UNFCCC MODIS > UNFCCC

Comparison for Portugal

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

ha

PORTUGAL

MODIS

EFFIS

UNFCCC

Biomass burning reporting TASK 3.3

EFFIS > UNFCCC MODIS > < UNFCCC

UNFCCC Why UNFCCC (FL+ CL + GL) data is smaller that EFFIS data? UNFCCC only wildfires - if controlled burned areas explain differences why only wildfires are reported?

Comparison for Greece

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

ha

GREECE

MODIS

EFFIS

UNFCCC

Biomass burning reporting TASK 3.3

EFFIS > UNFCCC MODIS > < UNFCCC

UNFCCC includes– Is the area unmanaged the reason why UNFCCC is smaller than MODIS and EFFIS?

Comparison for Italy

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

ha

ITALY

MODIS

EFFIS

UNFCCC

Biomass burning reporting TASK 3.3

EFFIS = UNFCCC MODIS < UNFCCC

EFFIS includes forest vegetation (woody + non woody) UNFCCC includes FL + CL + GL + SL Why the numbers reported are the same?

Comparison for France

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

ha

FRANCE

MODIS

EFFIS

UNFCCC

Biomass burning reporting TASK 3.3

EFFIS = UNFCCC MODIS < UNFCCC

Forest areas reported to UNFCCC should include also forest fires in oversea territories but EFFIS should only include European continental territories Why the forest burnt areas are the same?

General findings arising from this assessment

• Some MS report biomass burning using ha while others Kg dm

• Some MS report controlled burning and wildfires while others only wildfires

• Some MS report burnt areas disaggregated by land use while others report all the fires under forest land

• Large differences in many cases between burnt areas in UNFCCC and EFFIS (not

necessarily means inconsistent reporting)

• Some MS match burnt areas under UNFCCC and EFFIS, although EFFIS does not

include agriculture

• For some MS both estimations from EFFIS (database & MODIS) are well above

UNFCCC reporting (even if MODIS data is always expected to be smaller)

18

Biomass burning reporting TASK 3.3

Input for improving biomass burning reporting

• Report AD using ha would increase the comparability among MS and would allow to fill in EU CRF table 5(V)

• Report area burned disaggregated by fire type or include information proving that controlled burning is not allowed

• Disaggregate total burnt area by land use, using if needed the available geo-information in http://forest.jrc.ec.europa.eu/effis/

• Verify areas reported to UNFCCC against areas reported to/by EFFIS having in mind that large differences not necessarily means inconsistent reporting but differences need to be explained

19

Biomass burning reporting TASK 3.3

20

Thank you for your attention