Key elements and required capacities - GHG inventories

The discussion of requirements and elements (see Table 4.2.1) emphasizes that comprehensive capacities are required for the monitoring, reporting and accounting of emissions and removals of GHG from forest land. So far, non-Annex I Parties were not required to establish a GHG inventory. However, the development of UNFCCC national communications has stimulated support and engagement for countries to establish national GHG inventories and related national monitoring and reporting capacities. Figure 4.2.1 highlights the current status and the range of completeness for national GHG inventories. About 1/5 of non-Annex I Parties are listed with a fully developed inventory.

An additional 46 countries have taken significant steps with inventories in the range of 50-100 % complete. About half of the countries currently have systems less than 50 % complete. Although the information in Figure 4.2.1 refers to the establishment of full GHG inventories, where the LULUCF sector is only one component, Figure 3.5.1 provides a sense of a current capacity gap for national-level GHG estimating and reporting procedures using the IPCC GPG.

Figure 4.2.1. Status for completing national greenhouse gas inventories as part of Global Environment Facility support for the preparation of national communications of 150 non-Annex I Parties (UNFCCC, 2008b).

A status of country capacities for the monitoring of forest area change and changes in forest carbon stocks may be inferred from analyzing the most recent FAO global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) for 2005 (FAO 2006). Assuming that all available and relevant information have been used by countries to report under the FRA, Figures 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 summarize the relevant capacities for non-Annex I Parties.

In terms of monitoring changes in forest area, Figures 4.2.2 highlights that almost all non-Annex I Parties were able to provide estimate forest area and changes. About two-thirds of countries provided this information based on multi-date data; about one-third reported based on single-date data. Most of the countries used data from the year 2000 or before as most recent data point for forest area, while 46 of 149 countries we able to supply more recent estimates. Of the countries that used multi-date information there is an almost even distribution for the use of information sources between field surveying and mapping, remote sensing-based approaches, and, with less frequency, for expert estimates (Note: countries may have used multiple sources).

Figures 4.2.2. Summary of data and information sources used by 150 non-Annex I Parties to report on forest area change for the FAO FRA 2005 (FAO 2006).

A smaller number of countries provided estimates for carbon stocks (Figure 4.2.3). 101 of 150 countries reported on the overall stocks in aboveground carbon pool. Since the aboveground and belowground carbon pools are correlated almost the same number of countries reported on the carbon in below ground vegetation. Fewer countries were able to provide data on the other pools, in particular for carbon in the soils 23 (countries).

The reported forest carbon pool estimates are primarily based on growing stock data as primary observation variable. Of the 150 non-Annex Parties, 41 reported no growing stock data. 75 countries provided single-date and 34 multi-date growing stock data. A number of different sources are applied by countries for converting growing stocks to biomass (and to carbon in the next step), with the IPCC GPG default factors being used most commonly (Figure 4.2.3). The use of these default factors would refer to a Tier 1 approach for estimating carbon stock change using the IPCC GPG. Only 17 countries converted growing stock to biomass using specific and, usually, national conversion factors.

Figure 4.2.3. Summary of data for five different carbon pools reported (left) and information sources used by 150 non-Annex I Parties to convert growing stocks to biomass (right) for the FAO FRA 2005 (FAO 2006, countries may have used multiple sources for the conversion process).

Figures 4.2.2 & 4.2.3 emphasize the varying level of capacities among non-Annex I Parties. Given the results of FAO’s FRA 2005, the majority of countries have limitations in providing a complete and accurate estimation of GHG emissions and removals from forest land. Some gaps in the current monitoring capacities can be summarized by considering the five UNFCCC reporting principles:

 Consistency: Reporting by many countries is based either on single-date measurements or on integrating different heterogeneous data sources rather than using a systematic and consistent monitoring;

 Transparency: Expert opinions, independent assessments or model estimations are commonly used as information source for forest carbon data (Holmgren et al.

2007); often causing a lack of transparency in the methods used;

 Comparability: Few countries have experience in using the IPCC GPG as common estimation and reporting format among Parties;

 Completeness: The lack of suitable forest resource data in many non-Annex Parties is evident for both area change and changes of carbon stocks. Carbon stock data for aboveground and belowground carbon are often based on estimations or conversions using IPCC default data and very few countries are able to provide information on all five carbon pools.

 Accuracy: There is limited information on error sources and uncertainties of the estimates and reliability levels by countries and approaches to analyze, reduce, and deal with them for international reporting and for implementation of carbon crediting procedures.

In a 2009 study⁷², information from various consistent global information sources was analyzed to assess current national monitoring capabilities of for 99 tropical non-Annex I Parties (Figure 4.2.4). The assessment of current monitoring capabilities has emphasized that the majority of countries have limitations in their ability to provide a complete and accurate estimation of greenhouse gas (GHG) fluxes and forest losses. Less than 20%

of the countries have submitted a complete GHG inventory so far, and only 3 out of the 99 countries currently have capacities considered to be very good for both forest area change monitoring and for forest inventories. The current capacity gap can be defined as the difference between what is required and what currently exists for countries to measure and verify the success of REDD+ implementation actions using the IPCC GPG.

As a synthesis of this study, the figure below indicates the current distribution where the largest capacity gaps exist for countries:

 that have limited experience in estimation and reporting of national GHG inventories, in application of the IPCC GPG, and with limited engagement in the UNFCCC REDD+ process so far;

 with low existing capabilities to continuously measure forest area changes and changes in forest carbon stocks as part of a national forest monitoring system;

reporting carbon stock changes on the IPCC Tier 2 level is considered a minimum requirement;

 that face particular challenges for REDD+ implementation that may not be relevant for all countries, (e.g. they have high current deforestation rates and significant emissions from forest degradation, biomass burning and soil carbon stocks are currently not measured on a regular basis) and require investments to observe more IPCC key categories and move towards Tier 3 level measurements;

and

 where the availability of useful data sources for REDD+ monitoring is constrained.

In this study the focus is on the availability of common satellite data sources (i.e.

Landsat, SPOT) that may be limited in their use due to lack of receiving stations, persistent cloud cover, seasonality issues, topography or inadequate data access infrastructure.

72 available at http://princes.3cdn.net/8453c17981d0ae3cc8_q0m6vsqxd.pdf

Capacity building activities should consider the different entry points for countries in this process and work towards an ultimate goal that all interested countries have a minimum level of monitoring capacity in place within the next few years.

Figure 4.2.4. Spatial distribution of the capacity gap for the different countries analyzed.

4.2.3 Key elements and required capacities - current monitoring