Vol 4

Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU)
DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Government Consideration
2
3
4
VOLUME 4
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND

OTHER LAND USE (AFOLU)
Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
V4.i
Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
1
Co-ordinating Lead Authors
Keith Paustian (USA), N.H. Ravindranath (India), and Andre van Amstel (The Netherlands)
3
4
Review Editors
5
6
Michael Apps (Canada), Helen Plume (New Zealand), Bernhard Schlamadinger (Austria), and Soobaraj Nayroo
Sok Appadu (Mauritius)
V4.ii
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU)

Contents
2
3
Chapter 1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................1.1
Chapter 2 Generic Methodologies Applicable to Multiple Land Use Categories......................................2.1
Chapter 3 Consistent Representation of Lands ..........................................................................................3.1
Chapter 4 Forest land ................................................................................................................................4.1
Chapter 5: Cropland ..................................................................................................................................5.1
Chapter 6: Grassland .................................................................................................................................6.1
Chapter 7: Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................7.1
10
Chapter 8: Settlements ...............................................................................................................................8.1
11
Chapter 9: Other land.................................................................................................................................9.1
12
Chapter 10: Emissions from Livestock and Manure Management ..........................................................10.1
13
14
Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and
Urea Application.............................................................................................................11.1
15
Chapter 12: Harvested Wood Products....................................................................................................12.1
16
Annex 1: AFOLU Worksheets ...............................................................................................................A1.1
17
Annex 2: Summary of Equations...........................................................................................................A2.1
18
19
Appendix 1 CO2 Removals in Residual Combustion Products (charcoal): Basis for

future methodological development............................................................................Ap1.1
20
Appendix 2: CH4 Emissions from Flooded Land: Basis for future methodological development .......Ap2.1
21
V4.iii
Chapter 1: Introduction

2
3
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
1
Authors
Keith Paustian (USA), N.H. Ravindranath (India), and Andre van Amstel (The Netherlands)
3
4
Michael Gytarsky (Russia), Werner A. Kurz (Canada), Stephen M. Ogle (USA), Gary Richards (Australia) and
Zoltan Somogyi (European Commission/Hungary)
1.2

Contents
1.1
Introduction
1.2
Overview of Greenhouse Gas emissions and removals in the AFOLU Sector
1.2.1
Science Background
1.2.2
Carbon pool definitions and non-CO2 gases
1.3
Overview of Inventory Preparation for the AFOLU Sector
1.3.1
Land-use and Management Categories
10
1.3.2
Tier Definitions for Methods in AFOLU
11
1.3.3
Identification of Key Categories
11
10
1.3.4
Steps in Preparing Inventory Estimates
15
Organisation of Volume 4 in 2006 Guidelines
15
11
1.4
12
Annex 1A
13
1A.1
14
15
1A.2
Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
(GPG2000)
22
16
1A.3
22
Historical Background on IPCC Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance for AFOLU Sector
Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines
21
21
Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry (GPG-LULUCF)
17
18
Figures
19
Figure 1.1 The main greenhouse gas emission sources/removals and processes in managed ecosystems. ..7
20
21
Figure 1.2 Decision tree for identification of appropriate Tier level for land remaining in the same landuse category, using forest land remaining forest land as an example.................................13
22
23
Figure 1.3: Decision tree for identification of appropriate Tier level for land converted to another land-use
category, using land converted to forest land as an example. ............................................14
24
Figure 1.4 Structure of AFOLU Reporting.................................................................................................17
25
26
Tables
27
Table 1.1 Definitions for Carbon pools used in AFOLU for each Land-use Category..............................10
28
29
Table 1.2 Land-use categories, carbon pools and non-CO2 gases to be estimated under Tier 1, their
relevance to AFOLU sections, and the reference to 1996 Guidelines................................18
30
1.3
Boxes
Box 1.1 Framework of tier structure for AFOLU methods.........................................................................12
1.4

1.1 INTRODUCTION
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Volume 4 provides guidance for preparing annual greenhouse gas inventories in the Agriculture, Forestry and
Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector. This volume integrates the previously separate guidance in the Revised 1996
IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories for Agriculture (Chapter 4) and Land Use, Land-Use
Change and Forestry (Chapter 5). This integration recognizes that the processes underlying greenhouse gas
emissions and removals, as well as the different forms of terrestrial carbon stocks, can occur across all types of
land. It recognizes that land-use changes can involve all types of land. This approach is intended to improve
consistency and completeness in the estimation and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals.
9
10
11
12
The principal changes compared with the 1996 Guidelines (for both Land-use Change and Forestry, and
Agriculture) made in these 2006 Guidelines reflect the elaborations of the 1996 Guidelines introduced in the
Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (GPG2000) and
Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry (GPG-LULUCF). These include:
13
14
15
16
Adoption of the six land-use categories used in GPG-LULUCF (i.e., forest land, cropland, grassland,
wetlands, settlements, and other land see Chapter 3). These land categories are further sub-divided
into land remaining in the same category and land converted from one category to another. The landuse categories are designed to enable inclusion of all managed land area within a country;
17
18
Reporting on all emissions by sources and removals by sinks from managed lands, which are
considered to be anthropogenic, while emissions and removals for unmanaged lands are not reported.
19
20
Additional reporting elements introduced in reporting all emissions and removals for managed lands,
(see Table 1.2).
21
22
23
Generic methods for accounting of biomass, dead organic matter and soil C stock changes in all landuse categories and generic methods for greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning that can be
applied in all land-use categories;
24
25
26
Incorporating methods for non-CO2 emissions from managed soils and biomass burning, and livestock
population characterization and manure management systems from Agriculture (Chapter 5 of the 1996
Guidelines and GPG2000;
27
28
Adoption of three hierarchical tiers of methods that range from default emission factors and simple
equations to the use of country-specific data and models to accommodate national circumstances;
29
30
Description of alternative methods to estimate and report C stock changes associated with harvested
wood products;
31
32
Incorporation of key category analysis for land-use categories, C pools, and CO2 and non-CO2
greenhouse gas emissions;
33
Adherence to principles of mass balance in computing carbon stock changes;
34
35
Greater consistency in land area classification for selecting appropriate emission and stock change
factors and activity data;
36
37
38
Improvements of default emissions and stock change factors, as well as development of an Emission
Factor Database (EFDB) that is a supplementary tool to the 2006 Guidelines, providing alternative
emission factors with associated documentation. The EFDB is described in Chapter 2 of Volume 1.
39
40
41
Incorporation of methods to estimate CO2 emissions from flooded land with methods for CH4 emissions
contained in Appendix 2 (CH4 Emissions from Flooded Land: Basis for future methodological
development), reflecting the limited availability of scientific information.
42
43
44
45
The AFOLU sector has some unique characteristics with respect to developing inventory methods. There are
many processes leading to emissions and removals of greenhouse gases, which can be widely dispersed in space
and highly variable in time. The factors governing emissions and removals can be both natural and
anthropogenic (direct and indirect) and it can be difficult to clearly distinguish between causal factors1. While
1
This general observation was made in the IPCC Report on Current Scientific Understanding of the Processes Affecting
Terrestrial Carbon Stocks and Human Influences upon Them (July 2003, Geneva, Switzerland). As a specific example,
emissions from wildfires on managed (and unmanaged) land can exhibit large interannual variations that may be driven by
either natural causes (e.g. climate cycles, random variation in lightning ignitions), or indirect and direct human causes (e.g.
historical fire suppression and past forest harvest activities) or a combination of all three causes, the effects of which
cannot be readily separated.
1.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
recognizing this complexity, inventory methods need to be practical and operational. The 2006 Guidelines are
designed to assist in estimating and reporting national inventories of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions
and removals. For the AFOLU sector, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and removals by sinks are
defined as all those occurring on managed land. Managed land is land where human interventions and practices
have been applied to perform production, ecological or social functions. All land definitions and classifications
should be specified at the national level, described in a transparent manner, and be applied consistently over time.
Emissions/removals of greenhouse gases do not need to be reported for unmanaged land. However, it is good
practice for countries to quantify, and track over time, the area of unmanaged land so that consistency in area
accounting is maintained as land-use change occurs.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
This approach, i.e., the use of managed land as a proxy for anthropogenic effects, was adopted in the GPGLULUCF and that use is maintained in the present guidelines. The key rationale for this approach is that the
preponderance of anthropogenic effects occurs on managed lands. By definition, all direct human-induced
effects on greenhouse gas emissions and removals occur on managed lands only. While it is recognized that no
area of the Earths surface is entirely free of human influence (e.g. CO2 fertilization), many indirect human
influences on greenhouse gases (e.g. increased N deposition, accidental fire) will be manifested predominately
on managed lands, where human activities are concentrated. Finally, while local and short-term variability in
emissions and removals due to natural causes can be substantial (e.g. emissions from fire, see footnote 1), the
natural background of greenhouse gas emissions and removals by sinks tends to average out over time and
space. This leaves the greenhouse gas emissions and removals from managed lands as the dominant result of
human activity.
21
22
Guidance and methods for estimating greenhouse gas emissions and removals for the AFOLU sector now
include:
23
24
CO2 emissions and removals resulting from C stock changes in biomass, dead organic matter and mineral
soils, for all managed lands;
25
CO2 and non-CO2 emissions from fire on all managed land;
26
N2O emissions from all managed soils;
27
CO2 emissions associated with liming and urea application to managed soils;
28
CH4 emissions from rice cultivation;
29
CO2 and N2O emissions from cultivated organic soils;
30
31
CO2 and N2O emissions from managed wetlands (with a basis for methodological development for CH4
emissions from flooded land in an Appendix 2);
32
CH4 emission from livestock (enteric fermentation);
33
CH4 and N2O emissions from manure management systems; and
34
C stock change associated with harvested wood products.
35
36
The scientific background and rationale for these inventory components are given in the next section.
38
1.2 OVERVIEW OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

AND REMOVALS IN THE AFOLU SECTOR
39
1.2.1 Science Background
40
41
42
43
Land use and management influence a variety of ecosystem processes that affect greenhouse gas fluxes (Figure
1.1), such as photosynthesis, respiration, decomposition, nitrification/denitrification, enteric fermentation, and
combustion. These processes involve transformations of carbon and nitrogen that are driven by the biological
(activity of microorganisms, plants, and animals) and physical processes (combustion, leaching, and run-off).
44
45
46
47
48
49
Greenhouse Gases in AFOLU
37
The key greenhouse gases of concern are CO2, N2O and CH4. CO2 fluxes between the atmosphere and
ecosystems are primarily controlled by uptake through plant photosynthesis and releases via respiration,
decomposition and combustion of organic matter. N2O is primarily emitted from ecosystems as a by-product of
nitrification and denitrification, while CH4 is emitted through methanogenesis under anaerobic conditions in
soils and manure storage, through enteric fermentation, and during incomplete combustion while burning organic
1.6

1
2
3
4
5
matter. Other gases of interest (from combustion and from soils) are NOx, NH3, NMVOC and CO, because they
are precursors for the formation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Formation of greenhouse gases from
precursor gases is considered an indirect emission. Indirect emissions are also associated with leaching or runoff of nitrogen compounds, particularly NO3- losses from soils, some of which can be subsequently converted to
N2O through denitrification.
6
7
Figure 1.1 The main greenhouse gas emission sources/removals and processes in managed
ecosystems.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Emission and Removal Processes

Greenhouse gas fluxes in the AFOLU sector can be estimated in two ways: 1) as net changes in C stocks over
time (used for most CO2 fluxes) and 2) directly as gas flux rates to and from the atmosphere (used for estimating
non-CO2 emissions and some CO2 emissions and removals). The use of C stock changes to estimate CO2
emissions and removals, is based on the fact that changes in ecosystem C stocks are predominately (but not
exclusively) through CO2 exchange between the land surface and the atmosphere (i.e. other C transfer process
such as leaching are assumed to be negligible). Hence, increases in total C stocks over time are equated with a
net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere and decreases in total C stocks (less transfers to other pools such as
harvested wood products) are equated with net emission of CO2. Non-CO2 emissions are largely a product of
microbiological processes (i.e., within soils, animal digestive tracts and manure) and combustion of organic
materials. Below, emission and removal processes in the AFOLU sector are described for the major ecosystem
stocks and processes, organized by ecosystem components, i.e., 1) biomass, 2) dead organic matter, 3) soils and
4) livestock.
Biomass
Plant biomass, including above-ground and below-ground parts, is the main conduit for CO2 removal from the
atmosphere. Large amounts of CO2 are transferred between the atmosphere and terrestrial ecosystems, primarily
through photosynthesis and respiration. The uptake of CO2 through photosynthesis is referred to as gross primary
production (GPP). About half of the GPP is respired by plants, and returned to the atmosphere, with the
remainder constituting net primary production (NPP), which is the total production of biomass and dead organic
matter in a year. NPP minus losses from heterotrophic respiration (decomposition of organic matter in litter,
dead wood and soils) is equal to the net carbon stock change in an ecosystem and, in the absence of disturbance
losses, is referred to as net ecosystem production (NEP).
1.7
1
Net Ecosystem Production (NEP) = Net Primary Production (NPP) Heterotrophic respiration
2
3
4
5
NEP minus additional C losses from disturbance (e.g. fire), harvesting and land clearing during land-use change,
is often referred to as net biome production (NBP). The carbon stock change that is reported in national
greenhouse gas inventories for land-use categories is equal to NBP 2.
Net Biome Production (NBP) = NEP Carbon Losses from Disturbance/Land-Clearing/Harvest
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
NPP is influenced by land use and management through a variety of anthropogenic actions such as deforestation,
afforestation, fertilization, irrigation, harvest, and species choice. For example, tree harvesting reduces biomass
stocks on the land. However, harvested wood requires additional consideration because some of the carbon may
be stored in wood products in use and in landfills for years to centuries. Thus, some of the carbon removed from
the ecosystem is rapidly emitted to the atmosphere while some carbon is transferred to other stocks in which the
emissions are delayed. In non-forest ecosystems (i.e., cropland, grassland), biomass is predominantly non-woody
perennial and annual vegetation, which makes up a much smaller part of total ecosystem carbon stocks than in
forest lands. The non-woody biomass turns over annually or within a few years and hence net biomass carbon
stocks may remain roughly constant, although stocks may diminish over time if land degradation is occurring.
Land managers may use fire as a management tool in grasslands and forests or wild fires may inadvertently burn
through managed lands, particularly forest lands, leading to significant losses of biomass carbon. Fires not only
return CO2 to the atmosphere through combustion of biomass, but also emit other greenhouse gases, directly or
indirectly, including CH4, N2O, NMVOC, NOx and CO.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Dead Organic Matter

The bulk of biomass production (NPP) contained in living plant material is eventually transferred to dead
organic matter (DOM) pools (i.e., dead wood and litter see Table 1.1 for definitions). Some DOM decomposes
quickly, returning carbon to the atmosphere, but a portion is retained for months to years to decades. Land use
and management influence C stocks of dead organic matter by affecting the decomposition rates and input of
fresh detritus. Losses due to burning dead organic matter include emissions of CO2, N2O, CH4, NOx, NMVOC,
and CO.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Soils
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Soil organic carbon stocks are influenced by land-use and management activities that affect litter input rates and
soil organic matter loss rates. Although the dominant processes governing the balance of soil organic carbon
stocks are C inputs from plant residues and C emissions from decomposition, losses as particulate or dissolved
carbon can be significant in some ecosystems. Inputs are primarily controlled by decisions impacting NPP and/or
the retention of dead organic matter, such as how much harvested biomass is removed as products and how much
is left as residues. Outputs are mostly influenced by management decisions that affect microbial and physical
decomposition of soil organic matter, such as tillage intensity. Depending on interactions with previous land use,
climate and soil properties, changes in management practices may induce increases or decreases in soil C stocks.
Generally, management-induced C stock changes are manifested over a period of several years to a few decades,
until soil C stocks approach a new equilibrium. In addition to the influence of human activities, climate
variability and other environmental factors affect soil C dynamics (as well as biomass and DOM).
47
48
49
50
In flooded conditions, such as wetland environments and paddy rice production, a significant fraction of the
decomposing dead organic matter and soil organic matter is returned to the atmosphere as CH4. This can be a
major source of emissions in countries with a considerable amount of land dedicated to paddy rice production.
Although virtually all flooded soils emit methane, net soil C stocks may either increase, decrease or remain
As dead organic matter is fragmented and decomposed it is transformed into soil organic matter (SOM). Soil
organic matter includes a wide variety of materials that differ greatly in their residence time in soil. Some of this
material is composed of labile compounds that are easily decomposed by microbial organisms, returning carbon
to the atmosphere. Some of the soil organic carbon, however, is converted into recalcitrant compounds (e.g.
organic-mineral complexes) that are very slowly decomposed and thus can be retained in the soil for decades to
centuries or more. Following fires, small amounts of so-called black carbon are produced, which constitute a
nearly inert carbon fraction with turnover times that may span millennia.
Harvested wood or other durable products derived from biomass (e.g. clothing) products are not included in NBP; harvested
wood products (HWP) are dealt with in Chapter 12.
1.8

1
2
constant over time, depending on management and environmental controls on the overall carbon balance. In
well-drained soils, small amounts of CH4 are consumed (oxidized) by methanotrophic bacteria.3
3
4
5
Soils also contain inorganic C pools, either as primary minerals in the parent material from which the soil was
formed (e.g. limestone), or as secondary minerals (i.e. pedogenic carbonates) that arise during soil formation.
Inorganic soil C stocks can be affected by management, although typically not to the extent of organic C pools.
6
7
8
9
10
Some soil management practices impact greenhouse gas emissions beyond simply changing the C stock. For
example, liming is used to reduce soil acidity and improve plant productivity, but it is also a direct source of CO2
emissions. Specifically, liming transfers C from the earths crust to the atmosphere by removing calcium
carbonate from limestone and dolomite deposits and applying it to soils where the carbonate ion evolves into
CO2.
11
12
13
14
15
16
Nitrogen additions are a common practice for increasing NPP and crop yields, including application of synthetic
N fertilizers and organic amendments (e.g., manure), particularly to cropland and grasslands. This increase in
soil N availability increases N2O emissions from soils as a by-product of nitrification and denitrification.
Nitrogen additions (in dung and urine) by grazing animals can also stimulate N2O emissions. Similarly, land-use
change enhances N2O emissions if associated with heightened decomposition of soil organic matter and
subsequent N mineralization, such as initiating cultivation on wetlands, forests or grasslands.
17
18
19
20
With current state of scientific knowledge, it is possible to provide methods for estimating CO2 and N2O
emissions associated with management of peatlands, and CO2 from conversion to wetlands by flooding. A
methodological appendix (Appendix 2) has been included setting out a basis for development of a methodology
for estimating CH4 emissions from flooded land
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Livestock
Animal production systems, particularly those with ruminant animals, can be significant sources of greenhouse
gas emissions. For example, enteric fermentation in the digestive systems of ruminants leads to production and
emission of CH4. Management decisions about manure disposal and storage affect emissions of CH4 and N2O,
which are formed in decomposing manures as a by-product of methanogenesis and nitrification/denitrification,
respectively. Furthermore, volatilization losses of NH3 and NOx from manure management systems and soils
leads to indirect greenhouse gas emissions.
28
1.2.2 Carbon pool definitions and non-CO 2 gases
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Within each land-use category, C stock changes and emission/removal estimations can involve the five carbon
pools that are defined in Table 1.1. For some land-use categories and estimation methods, C stock changes may
be based on the three aggregate carbon pools (i.e., biomass, DOM and soils). National circumstances may
require modifications of the pool definitions introduced here. Where modified definitions are used, it is good
practice to report and document them clearly, to ensure that modified definitions are used consistently over time,
and to demonstrate that pools are neither omitted nor double counted. Carbon stock changes associated with
harvested wood products (which can include several pools) are normally reported at the national scale (see
Chapter 12).
37
38
39
The non-CO2 gases of primary concern for the AFOLU sector are methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O).
Emissions of other nitrogenous gases including NOx and NH3, which can serve as a source of subsequent N2O
emissions (and hence referred to as indirect emission sources), are also considered (see Chapter 11).
40
41
1.3 OVERVIEW OF INVENTORY PREPARATION FOR

THE AFOLU SECTOR
42
43
44
45
46
To prepare inventories for the AFOLU sector, emissions and removals of CO2 and non-CO2 greenhouse gases
are estimated separately for each of six land-use categories. Other CO2 emission and non-CO2 categories, such as
livestock related emissions, emissions from soil N management, soil liming emissions and harvested wood
products, may be estimated at the national scale, since often only aggregate data are available. However, they
can be broken out according to land-use category if data are available.
47
Disturbance through land-use change and addition of nitrogen (i.e. as fertilizer) have been found to reduce rates of methane
oxidation.
1.9
1
DEFINITIONS FOR CARBON
Biomass
Pool
Aboveground
biomass
Dead
Organic
Matter
Belowground
biomass
Deadwood
Litter
Soils
Soil organic
matter1
TABLE 1.1
POOLS USED IN AFOLU FOR EACH LAND-USE CATEGORY
Description
All biomass of living vegetation, both woody and herbaceous, above the soil
including stems, stumps, branches, bark, seeds, and foliage.
Note: In cases where forest understory is a relatively small component of the
above-ground biomass carbon pool, it is acceptable for the methodologies and
associated data used in some tiers to exclude it, provided the tiers are used in a
consistent manner throughout the inventory time series.
All biomass of live roots. Fine roots of less than (suggested) 2mm diameter are
often excluded because these often cannot be distinguished empirically from
soil organic matter or litter.
Includes all non-living woody biomass not contained in the litter, either
standing, lying on the ground, or in the soil. Dead wood includes wood lying on
the surface, dead roots, and stumps, larger than or equal to 10 cm in diameter
(or the diameter specified by the country).
Includes all non-living biomass with a size greater than the limit for soil
organic matter (suggested 2 mm) and less than the minimum diameter chosen
for deadwood (e.g. 10 cm), lying dead, in various states of decomposition
above or within the mineral or organic soil. This includes the litter layer as
usually defined in soil typologies. Live fine roots above the mineral or organic
soil (of less than the minimum diameter limit chosen for below-ground
biomass) are included in litter where they cannot be distinguished from it
empirically.
Includes organic carbon in mineral soils to a specified depth chosen by the
country and applied consistently through the time series2. Live and dead fine
roots within the soil (of less than the suggested diameter limit for below-ground
biomass) are included with soil organic matter where they cannot be
distinguished from it empirically.
1
Includes organic material (living and non-living) within the soil matrix, operationally defined as a specific size fraction (e.g. all matter
passing through a 2 mm sieve). Soil C stock estimates may also include soil inorganic C if using a Tier 3 method. CO2 emissions from
liming and urea applications to soils are estimated as fluxes using Tier 1 or 2 methods.
2
Carbon stocks in organic soils are not explicitly computed using Tier 1 or 2 methods, (which estimate only annual C flux from organic
soils), but C stocks in organic soils can be estimated in a Tier 3 method. Definition of organic soils for classification purposes is provided in
Chapter 3.
1.3.1 Land-use and Management Categories
4
5
6
A brief overview of how land area is categorized for inventory purposes is given here. Chapter 3 provides a
detailed description of land representation and categorization of land area by land-use and management systems
as well as stratification of land area by climate, soil and other environmental strata.
The six land-use categories (see definitions in Chapter 3) in the 2006 Guidelines are:
forest land
cropland
10
grassland
11
wetlands
12
settlements
13
other land
14
15
16
17
18
19
Each land-use category is further subdivided into land remaining in that category (e.g., forest land remaining
forest land) and land converted from one category to another (e.g., forest land converted to cropland). Countries
may choose to further stratify land in each category by climatic or other ecological regions, depending on the
choice of the method and its requirements. Greenhouse gas emissions and removals determined for each specific
land use includes CO2 (as carbon stock changes) from biomass, dead organic matter and soils, as well as non-
1.10

1
2
CO2 emissions from burning and, depending on the land-use category, emissions from other specific sources (e.g.
CH4 emissions from rice).
3
4
5
6
Emissions (CH4 and N2O) from livestock management are estimated for major animal types, e.g., dairy cows,
other cattle, poultry, sheep, swine and other livestock (buffalo, goats, llamas, alpacas, camels etc). The animal
waste management systems include anaerobic lagoons, liquid systems, daily spread, solid storage, dry-lot,
pasture/range/paddock, and other miscellaneous systems.
7
8
9
10
Nitrous oxide emissions from managed soils are usually estimated from aggregate (national-level) data on N
supplied to soils, including N fertilizer usage or sales, crop residue management, organic amendments and landuse conversions that enhance mineralization of N in soil organic matter. Similarly, CO2 emissions from liming
and from urea application to managed soils are typically estimated using aggregate data (e.g. national-level).4
11
12
13
Harvested wood products constitute a component of the carbon cycle for which carbon stock changes can be
estimated (guidance provided in Chapter 12), based on national-level data; however, estimation and reporting of
greenhouse gas emissions for HWP is currently a matter of policy negotiations.
14
1.3.2 Tier Definitions for Methods in AFOLU
15
16
17
18
19
The concepts underpinning the three tiered approach, as they relate to methods used in the AFOLU sector, are
outlined here (see Box 1.1). In general, moving to higher Tiers improves the accuracy of the inventory and
reduces uncertainty, but the complexity and resources required for conducting inventories also increases for
higher tiers. If needed, a combination of Tiers can be used, e.g., Tier 2 can be used for biomass and Tier 1 for
soil carbon.
20
21
22
The methods and data presented focus on Tier 1 inventories. The methods will be generally applicable to Tier 2
inventories, but the default data presented for Tier 1 will be partly or wholly replaced with national data as part
of a Tier 2 estimation. Tier 3 methods are not described in detail, but good practice in application is outlined.
23
1.3.3 Identification of Key Categories
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
The background discussion on the approach and methods for key category analysis are given in Volume 1
Chapter 4 (Methodological Choice and Identification of Key Categories). This chapter describes the approach to
key category analysis for AFOLU. A key source/sink category is defined in Volume 1 Chapter 4 as one that is
prioritized within the national inventory system because its estimate has a significant influence on a countrys
total inventory of greenhouse gases in terms of the absolute level of emissions and removals, the trend in
emissions and removals, or uncertainty in emissions and removals.,. Key category analysis helps a country to
achieve the most reliable inventory given the resources available. Key category analysis is required to identify
the following:
32
Which land-use and management activities are significant;
33
Which land-use or livestock (sub)category is significant;
34
Which CO2 emissions or removals by sinks from various carbon pools are significant;
35
Which non-CO2 gases and from what categories are significant
36
Which tier is required for reporting
37
No default methodology exists for estimation of CH4 removals in aerobic soils because of limited studies addressing landuse and management impacts on methane oxidation. Countries that wish to estimate and report CH4 removals should
develop, validate and document an appropriate national methodology for estimating CH4 removals, including analysis of
uncertainty.
1.11
1
2
BOX 1.1
FRAMEWORK OF TIER STRUCTURE FOR AFOLU METHODS
3
4
5
6
7
Tier 1 methods are designed to be the simplest to use, for which equations and default parameter
values (e.g. emission and stock change factors) are provided in this volume. Country-specific
activity data are needed, but for Tier 1 there are often globally available sources of activity data
estimates (e.g. deforestation rates, agricultural production statistics, global land cover maps,
fertilizer use, livestock population data, etc.), although these data are usually spatially coarse.
8
9
10
11
12
13
Tier 2 can use the same methodological approach as Tier 1 but applies emission and stock change
factors that are based on country- or region-specific data, for the most important land-use or
livestock categories. Country-defined emission factors are more appropriate for the climatic
regions, land-use systems and livestock categories in that country. Higher temporal and spatial
resolution and more disaggregated activity data are typically used in Tier 2 to correspond with
country-defined coefficients for specific regions and specialized land-use or livestock categories.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
At Tier 3, higher order methods are used, including models and inventory measurement systems
tailored to address national circumstances, repeated over time, and driven by high-resolution
activity data and disaggregated at sub-national level. These higher order methods provide estimates
of greater certainty than lower tiers. Such systems may include comprehensive field sampling
repeated at regular time intervals and/or GIS-based systems of age, class/production data, soils
data, and land-use and management activity data, integrating several types of monitoring. Pieces of
land where a land-use change occurs can usually be tracked over time, at least statistically. In most
cases these systems have a climate dependency, and thus provide source estimates with interannual
variability. Detailed disaggregation of livestock population according to animal type, age, body
weight etc., can be used. Models should undergo quality checks, audits, and validations and be
thoroughly documented.
25
26
27
28
The following chapters provide methodologies covering a broad array of source/sink categories in AFOLU. Not
all categories are expected to be key and hence simple default methods (Tier 1) are provided to enable a
complete inventory of AFOLU without requiring large investments of resources in relatively minor categories.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
The analysis should be performed at the level of IPCC source or sink categories as suggested in Table 4.1 of
Volume 1. The analysis should be performed using CO2-equivalent emissions estimated using the global
warming potentials for each gas. The key category evaluation should be performed for each of these gases
separately because the methods, emission factors and related uncertainties differ for each gas, pool and category.
Source categories that use the same emission factors based on common assumptions should be aggregated before
analysis. For each key category, the inventory agency should determine if certain sub-categories represent a
significant share of the emissions. In the case of CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation in domestic livestock,
for example, emissions from particular species (e.g. cattle, buffalo or sheep) are likely to represent the major
share of emissions (GPG2000, Chapter 7). In the case of CO2 emissions/removals, a certain land category (e.g.
land converted to forest land) and further a certain carbon pool (e.g., above-ground biomass) may contribute to a
dominant share of net CO2 emissions/removals.
40
41
42
43
44
The level of aggregation or disaggregation of different land-use (see Chapter 3) and livestock categories (see
Chapter 10) depends on the share of a given land-use or livestock system within a countrys greenhouse gas
inventory and on the level of resources available in the country for inventory activities. Disaggregation of land
and livestock categories helps in reducing the uncertainty; however it increases the cost of the inventory process.
Thus, there is a need for balance between level of disaggregation and the resources available for inventory.
45
46
Once identified the key sources are used for methodological choice via decision trees as shown. Those for the
AFOLU include:
47
48
decision tree for identification of appropriate tier level for land remaining in the same land-use category
(Figure 1.2), for e.g., forest land remaining forest land
49
50
decision tree for identification of appropriate tier level for land converted to another land-use category
(Figure 1.3), for e.g., other land converted to forest land
51
52
decision trees for enteric fermentation and manure management are provided in the relevant sectoral
chapter (see Chapter 10)
53
54
1.12

1
2
Figure 1.2 Decision tree for identification of appropriate Tier level for land remaining in the
same land-use category, using forest land remaining forest land as an example.
3
START
4
5
6
7
Repeat for each land-use category:

- FF-Forest land remaining forest land
- CC-Cropland remaining cropland
- GG-Grassland remaining grassland
- WW-Wetland remaining wetlands
- SS-Settlement remaining settlements
- OO-Other land remaining other land
10
No
Report Not
Occurring
No
Use tier level most

appropriate for
available data
(Note 6)
Yes
8
9
Do
managed
forests exist?
(Note 1)
Repeat for each gas:

- CO2 (carbon)
- CH4
- N2O
Is FF a
key category?
(Note 2)
11
Yes
12
Repeat for each subcategory*:
- Biomass
- Dead organic matter
- Soils
Ask
for each subcategory under FF
(Note 3):
Is this subcategory
significant?
(Note 4)
No
Are
country-specific
data available?
(Note 6)
Yes
Develop or obtain
representative
data and EFs
Yes
Are
country-specific
data available?
(Note 6)
Yes
No
Yes
Are
advanced
methods and detailed
data for FF available
in your
country?
No
Use advanced methods

and detailed countryspecific activity data
(Note 5)
Use country-specific
EFs
(Note 5)
Use default methods

and Efs
(Note 5)
Box 3: Tier 3
Box 2: Tier 2
Box 1: Tier 1
Note 1: The use of 20 years, as a threshold, is consistent with the defaults contained in IPCC Guidelines. Countries may use different periods where appropriate to national
circumstances (see Chapter 2).
Note 2: See Volume 1 Chapter 4, "Methodological Choice and Identification of Key Categories" (noting section 4.1.2 on limited resources), for discussion of key categories and use of
decision trees.
Note 3: See Table 1.2 for the characterisation of subcategories.
Note 4: A subcategory is significant if it accounts for 25-30% of emissions/removals for the overall category.
Note 5: See Box 1.1 for definition of Tier levels.
Note 6: Data availability refers to both data needed for developing country-specific emission factors and data on land use and management practices (activity data)
* If a country reports harvested wood products (HWP) as a separate pool, it should be treated as a subcategory.
1.13
1
2
Figure 1.3: Decision tree for identification of appropriate Tier level for land converted to
another land-use category, using land converted to forest land as an example.
3
START
4
5
6
7
Repeat for each land-use category:

- LF- Land converted to forest land
- LC- Land converted to cropland
- LG- Land converted to grassland
- LW- Land converted to wetlands
- LS- Land converted to settlements
- LO- Land converted to other land
Are
there any land
conversions to forest
land?
(Note 1)
No
Report Not
Occurring
Yes
Repeat for each gas:

- CO2 (carbon)
- CH4
- N2O
10
Is LF a
key category?
(Note 2)
No
Use tier level most

appropriate for
available data
(Note 6)
11
Yes
12
13
Repeat for each subcategory*:
14
- Biomass
- Dead organic matter
- Soils
Ask
for each subcategory under LF
(Note 3):
Is this subcategory
significant?
(Note 4)
No
Are
country-specific
data available?
(Note 6)
Yes
Develop or obtain
representative
data and EFs
Yes
Are
country-specific
data available?
(Note 6)
Yes
No
Yes
Are
advanced
methods and detailed
data for LF available
in your
country?
No
Use advanced methods

and detailed countryspecific activity data
(Note 5)
EFs
(Note 5)
Use default methods

and Efs
(Note 5)
Box 3: Tier 3
Box 2: Tier 2
Box 1: Tier 1
Note 1: The use of 20 years, as a threshold, is consistent with the defaults contained in IPCC Guidelines. Countries may use different periods where appropriate to national
circumstances (see Chapter 2).
Note 2: See Volume 1 Chapter 4, "Methodological Choice and Identification of Key Categories" (noting section 4.1.2 on limited resources), for discussion of key categories and use of
decision trees.
Note 3: See Table 1.2 for the characterisation of subcategories.
Note 5: See Box 1.1 for definition of Tier levels.
Note 6: Data availability refers to both data needed for developing country-specific emission factors and data on land use and management practices (activity data)
* If a country reports harvested wood products (HWP) as a separate pool, it should be treated as a subcategory.
1.14

1.3.4 Steps in Preparing Inventory Estimates
The following steps describe the compilation of the greenhouse gas inventory for the AFOLU sector:
1.
Divide all land into managed and unmanaged (Chapter 3).
4
5
6
2.
Develop a national land classification system applicable to all six land-use categories (forest land,
cropland, grassland, wetlands, settlements and other land) and further subdivide by climate, soil type
and/or ecological regions (i.e. strata) appropriate for the country, as described in Chapter 3.
7
8
9
10
3.
Compile data on the area of land and the change in area of land in each land-use category (by category)
if available. Categorize land area by specific management systems defined for each land-use category
(by category) if available -this categorization provides the basis for assigning emission factors and stock
change factors, required for a particular estimation approach (see Chapter 3).
11
12
13
4.
Compile national-level statistics for livestock, manure management systems, soil N management,
liming and urea application (if land-use specific activity data are available for soil fertilization and
liming activities, these emissions categories can be stratified as in Step 2).
14
15
16
17
18
5.
Estimate CO2 emissions and removals and non-CO2 emissions at the appropriate tier level in support of
a key category analysis. A preliminary inventory is likely to utilize a Tier 1 or Tier 2 approach.
However, it may be preferable to proceed with a Tier 3 approach if the methods have been previously
developed and the supporting activity and input data have been compiled (see Chapter 2 for general
guidance on methods).
19
20
6.
Re-estimate CO2 emissions and removals and non-CO2 emissions if a higher Tier is recommended,
based on the key category analysis (see Volume 1 Chapter 4 for methods to identify Key Categories).
21
22
23
7.
Estimate uncertainties (see Volume 1 Chapter 3) and complete QA/QC procedures (which are initiated
at Step 1) using the methods provided in Volume 1 Chapter 6, along with additional guidance provided
in Chapters 2 to 12 of this volume.
24
25
26
8.
Sum CO2 emissions and removals and non-CO2 emissions over the inventory period for each source
category by land use and stratum, as well as emissions from livestock, manure, and N management (if
not analyzed separately for each land-use category).
27
28
29
30
31
9.
Transcribe summary information into reporting tables, converting C stock changes to emissions or
removals of CO2 and entering non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions, by land-use categories, if available.
Combine with any emission estimates that are based on national aggregate data (e.g. livestock, manure
management and soil management/amendment) to estimate the total emissions and removals for the
AFOLU sector (See Volume 1 Chapter 8, Reporting Guidance and Tables).
32
33
34
10. Document and archive all information used to produce an inventory, including activity and other input
data, emission factors, sources of data and metadata documentation, methods descriptions and model
software or code, QA/QC procedures and reports, in addition to the results for each source category.
35
36
37
11. Set priorities for future inventories in AFOLU sector based on completeness of current inventories,
uncertainties, and issues arising during QA/QC. Revise key category analysis based on the newly
completed inventory to aid in decisions regarding future priorities.
39
1.4 ORGANISATION OF VOLUME 4 IN 2006

GUIDELINES
40
The material in Volume 4 should be used as follows:
38
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chapter 2 describes generic methods for carbon pools and biomass burning that can be applied within
each of the six land-use categories, i.e., the methods are not specific to a particular land use. These
consist of estimating ecosystem C stock changes and CO2 and non-CO2 emissions from fires and
biomass burning. To avoid redundancy in the subsequent land-use specific chapters, Chapter 2 provides
guidance on choice of method and decision trees for Tier selection. Tier 1 equations are provided along
with tables of generic emission factors and other parameters.
47
48
49
50
Chapter 3 deals with the consistent representation of land. In particular, the multiple approaches for
classification of land-use categories are presented in this chapter, along with the level of disaggregation.
Users will find this material helpful for understanding the general issues surrounding representation of
systems, which will be needed later in order to use the estimation methods that are specific to a
1.15
1
2
3
particular land-use and/or source category. After consulting Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, users should
proceed to the appropriate chapter addressing the issues specific to a particular land-use or source
category.
4
5
6
Chapters 4-9 provide information for specific land-use categories. These chapters contain information
on the application of the generic methods described in Chapter 2 and they also contain full method
descriptions and application for any land-use specific methods.
7
8
9
Chapter 4 deals with estimation of emissions and removals from forest lands. Separate
sections cover forest land remaining forest land and land converted to forest land. Harvested
wood products are addressed separately in Chapter 12.
10
11
12
Chapter 5 deals with estimation of emissions and removals from cropland. Separate sections
cover cropland remaining cropland and land converted to cropland. Methane production from
rice cultivation, which is specific to cropland, is also addressed in this chapter.
13
14
Chapter 6 deals with estimation of emissions and removals from the grassland. Separate
sections cover grassland remaining grassland and land converted to grassland.
15
16
17
18
Chapter 7 deals with estimation of emissions and removals from wetlands, including peat
extraction in natural peatlands and flooded lands. Methods specific to wetlands, for estimation
of CO2, are provided with a basis for future methodological development for CH4 emissions in
an Appendix.
19
20
Chapter 8 deals with estimation of emissions and removals from settlements. Separate sections
cover settlements remaining settlements and land converted to settlements.
21
22
23
24
25
26
Chapter 9 deals with Other land, which includes areas with bare soil, rock, and ice, in
addition to all land areas that do not fall into the other five land-use categories treated in
Chapters 4 to 8. Since greenhouse gas emissions and removals are not reported for unmanaged
lands, methods and guidance in this chapter apply only to lands converted to other land, for
example, from extreme degradation of forest, cropland or grassland to barren land that is no
longer managed for useful purposes.
27
28
Chapter 10 provides guidance on livestock related emissions, including methane emissions from enteric
fermentation and CH4 and N2O (direct and indirect) emissions from manure management.
29
30
31
32
33
Chapter 11 provides guidance for emissions sources from managed soils, associated primarily with
application of fertilizer, crop residues, manure, lime and urea to soils. Specifically, methods and
guidance are provided for estimating N2O emissions from managed soils and CO2 emissions from
liming and urea applications. Activity data for these sources are typically not broken out by individual
land use, hence Tier 1 methods are based on (national) aggregate data.
34
35
36
Chapter 12 provides methodological guidance for estimation of C stock changes and emissions from
harvested wood products, and is neutral with regards to the multiple alternative approaches to inventory
estimation that are given.
37
38
Figure 1.4 presents the structure of AFOLU reporting with categories (including category codes) that are listed in
Table 8.2 of Volume 1.
39
40
41
42
Annex 1 provides worksheets for each sub-category that can be used to estimate emissions based on Tier 1
methods and appropriate emission/stock change factors and activity data. The Reporting Tables for the
greenhouse gas emissions/removals at sectoral and national levels are provided in Volume 1 Chapter 8 of the
Guidelines.
43
Annex 2 is the summary of all equations in AFOLU that serves as quick reference for inventory compilers.
44
45
46
Table 1.2 provides the summary information as to what carbon pools and activities emitting non-CO2 gases in
each land-use category are treated under Tier 1 methods; in what section in AFOLU Volume the guidance are
discussed, and their reference to the 1996 Guidelines.
47
1.16

Figure 1.4 Structure of AFOLU Reporting
2
3
4
5
6
1.17
1
TABLE 1.2
LAND-USE CATEGORIES, CARBON POOLS AND NON-CO2 GASES TO BE ESTIMATED UNDER TIER 1, THEIR RELEVANCE TO
AFOLU SECTIONS, AND THE REFERENCE TO 1996 GUIDELINES
Land-use
category/
Chapter
Forest land
(Chapter 4)
Sub-category
Forest land
Remaining Forest
land (FF)
Land Converted to
Forest land (LF)
Cropland
(Chapter 5)
Cropland remaining
Cropland (CC)
Land Converted to
Cropland (LC)
Grassland
(Chapter 6)
Grassland
Remaining
Grassland (GG)
Land Converted to
Grassland (LG)
C-pool & non-CO2

gases
Methods
Section
Chapter 2
Methods
Linkage to
1996
Guideline
Tier 1
Methods
Above-ground biomass
4.2.1
2.3.1.1
5A
Below-ground biomass
4.2.1
2.3.1.1
NE
Dead organic matter
4.2.2
2.3.2.1
NE
Soil Carbon
4.2.3
2.3.3.1
5D
Non-CO2 from biomass

burning
4.2.4
2.4.1
NE
4.3.1
2.3.1.2
5A, 5C
Below-ground biomass
4.3.1
2.3.1.2
NE
Dead organic matter
4.3.2
2.3.2.2
NE
Soil Carbon
4.3.3
2.3.3.1
5D

burning
4.3.4
2.4.1
4E, 4F
5.2.1
2.3.1.1
5A
Dead organic matter
5.2.2
2.3.2.1
NE
Soil Carbon
5.2.3
2.3.3.1
5D
Non-CO2 from crop

residue burning
5.2.4
2.4.1
4F
Methane emissions from

rice
5.5
4C
5.3.1
2.3.1.2
5B
Dead organic matter
5.3.2
2.3.2.2
NE
Soil Carbon
5.3.3
2.3.3.1
5D

(crop residue) burning
5.3.4
2.4
4E, 5B
6.2.1
2.3.1.1
5A
Dead organic matter
6..2.2
2.3.2.1
NE
Soil Carbon
6.2.3
2.3.3.1
5D

burning
6.2.4
2.4
4E
6.3.1
2.3.1.2
5B
Dead organic matter
6.3.2
2.3.2.2
NE
Soil Carbon
6.3.3
2.3.3.1
5D

burning
6.3.4
2.4
4F, 5B
2
3
1.18

1
TABLE 1.2 (CONTINUED)
Land-use
category/
Chapter
Wetlands
(Chapter 7)
Settlements
(Chapter 8)
Sub-category
Methods
Section
Chapter 2
Methods
Linkage
to 1996
Guideline
Tier 1
Methods
CO2 emissions
7.2.1.1
NE
Non-CO2 emissions
7.2.1.2
NE
Land being
converted for peat
extraction
CO2 emissions
7.2.2.1
NE
NA
Non-CO2 emissions
7.2.2.2
NE
Flooded lands
remaining flooded
lands
CO2 emissions
NG
NE
Appendix
2
NE
7.3.2
NE
Appendix
2
Peatlands
remaining
peatlands
Non-CO2 emissions
Land converted to
flooded lands
CO2 emissions
Settlements
remaining
Settlements (SS)
Above-ground
biomass
8.2.1
2.3.1.1
5A
Dead organic matter
8.2.2
2.3.2.1
NE
Soil Carbon
8.2.3
2.3.3.1
NE
Above-ground
biomass
8.3.1
2.3.1.2
5B
Dead Organic Matter
8.3.2
2.3.2.2
NE
Soil Carbon
8.3.3
2.3.3.1
NE
Above-ground
biomass
9.3.1
2.3.3.2
5B
Dead Organic Matter
9.3.2
2.3.2.2
NE
NA
Soil Carbon
9.3.3
2.3.3.1
NE
Land converted to
Settlements (LS)
Other land
(Chapter 9)
C-pool & non-CO2

gases
Land converted to
Other land (LO)
Non-CO2 emissions
1.19
1
Land-use
category/
Chapter
Livestock
(Chapter 10)
Managed soils
(Chapter 11)
Harvested
wood products
(Chapter 12)
Sub-category
C-pool & non-CO2

gases
Methods
Section
Chapter 2
Methods
Linkage
to 1996
Guideline
Tier 1
Methods
Enteric
fermentation
CH4 emissions
10.3
4A
Manure
Management
CH4 emissions
10.4
4B
N2O emissions
10.5
4B
Soil management
N2O emissions
11.2
4D
Liming
CO2 emissions
11.3
Urea application
CO2 emissions
11.4
NE
Wood products
C stock changes
Chapter
12
NE
The IPCC Guidelines cover the following categories: 5A Changes in Forest and Other Woody Biomass Stocks; 5B Forest and Grassland
Conversion; 5C Abandonment of Managed Lands; 5D Emissions and Removals from Soils, and 5E Other (Reporting Instructions p. 1.14 1.16)
NE: not estimated under default method in the 1996 Guideline
NG no guidance provided in the Guidelines
Notes for column Tier 1 method:

- Tier 1 methods and default parameters are available in the Guidelines.
0 = Tier 1 (default) assumption is that emissions are zero or in equilibrium; no methods and parameters are provided in the Guidelines.
1 = Tier 1 and default parameters available only for organic soils.
2 = Tier 1 method available to estimate HWP variables which may be used to compute HWP Contribution to AFOLU.
NA not applicable
2
3
4
1.20

ANNEX 1A HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ON IPCC

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY GUIDANCE FOR
AFOLU SECTOR
1A.1 Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
The emission and removal categories covered together in Volume 4 of the 2006 Guidelines were previously
separated in different chapters of the 1996 Guidelines: Chapter 4 (Agriculture) and Chapter 5 (Land-use Change
and Forestry, LUCF). The fundamental basis for the methodology in LUCF rested upon two linked themes: i)
that the flux of CO2 to and from the atmosphere can be equated to changes in terrestrial carbon stocks and
product pools and ii) changes in carbon stocks can be estimated by determining land use and management (e.g.,
logging, burning, tillage, grazing, etc.) at various points in time. Simple assumptions are then applied about their
impact on carbon stocks and biological response to a given land-use and management system. In contrast, the
Agricultural chapter dealt only with direct flux estimates from different source categories and therefore did not
incorporate the stock change concept.
14
A GRICULTURE (C HAPTER 4
15
16
The 1996 Guidelines focused on activities associated with managed agricultural systems and that are potentially
large sources of emissions in a country, including:
17
18
19
CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation in domestic livestock. Methane is produced as a by-product of
enteric fermentation, where ruminant animals (e.g., cattle, sheep) are the major source but some nonruminant animals (e.g., pigs, horses) also emit CH4.
20
21
22
CH4 and N2O emissions from manure management. Methane is produced from the decomposition of
manure under anaerobic conditions while N2O is produced under aerobic or mixed aerobic/anaerobic
conditions. Hence emissions of each gas depend on the type of manure and the storage system.
23
24
25
26
CH4 emissions from rice cultivation. Anaerobic decomposition of organic material in flooded rice fields
produces methane, which escapes to the atmosphere primarily through air-bubbles and by transport through
the rice plants. The amount emitted is a function of rice species, number and duration of harvests, soil type
and temperature, irrigation method, and fertilizer use.
27
28
29
30
CH4, N2O, CO, NOX emissions from prescribed burning of savannas (or other types of grassland) and
crop residues. Burning of savannas and crop residues does not create a net-release of CO2 to the
atmosphere because vegetation regrows between burning cycles. However, burning releases other gases that
are either direct or indirect sources of greenhouse gases, including CH4, N2O, CO, and NOx.
31
32
33
34
35
Emissions of N2O from soils. Produced through microbial processes in soils, emissions are largely a
function of the amount of nitrogen added to soils from (1) synthetic fertilizers, (2) animal waste, (3)
biological fixation, (4) crop residues, and (5) sewage sludge or other organic N additions, which can be
emitted directly where the N is applied, or indirectly, from N leached as NO3 or volatilized as NH3 and
NOx and redeposited in other locations.
36
LUCF (C HAPTER 5
37
38
The inventory methods for Land-use Change and Forestry (LUCF) focused on the most important land-use and
management changes that result in CO2 emissions and removals, including four broad categories:
39
40
41
42
Changes in forest and other woody biomass stocks. Effects of human interaction with forests and wood
products are considered in a single broad category, which includes commercial management, harvest of
industrial roundwood (logs) and fuelwood, production and use of wood commodities, and establishment and
operation of forest plantations as well as planting of trees in urban, village and other non-forest locations.
43
44
45
Forest and grassland conversion. Conversion of forests and grasslands to pasture, cropland or other
managed land uses, can significantly reduce carbon stores in biomass and soils. Deforestation is an example
of this type of conversion.
IN THE
IN THE
R EVISED 1996 G UIDELINES )
R EVISED 1996 G UIDELINES )
1.21
1
2
3
Abandonment of managed lands (croplands, pastures, plantation forests, or other managed lands).
Abandoned lands often accrue carbon in biomass and soils over time, particularly if the conditions approach
those found in natural grasslands or forests.
4
5
6
CO2 Emissions and removals from soils. Changing management can alter the CO2 emissions and
removals from soils, particularly through adoption of conservation practices or increasing crop and forage
production.
7
8
9
10
The 1996 Guidelines briefly described general issues and methodological approaches for other possible
categories such as below-ground biomass, natural disturbances (including fire), shifting cultivation and flooding
and drainage of wetlands. The methods also addressed release of non-CO2 trace gases (CH4, CO, N2O, NOx)
from the open burning of biomass from forest clearing.
11
12
1A.2 Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management

in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (GPG2000)
13
14
15
16
GPG2000 provided supplementary information to the 1996 Guidelines to improve inventory transparency,
documentation, consistency over time, completeness, and comparability. GPG2000 also provided methods for
addressing uncertainties and implementing quality control and quality assurance. In the Agriculture sector,
guidance was provided for all of the emission sources included in the 1996 Guidelines (see above).
17
18
19
20
21
GPG2000 introduced a method for identifying key sources that should be given high priority because of their
significance in affecting the absolute level or trend in emissions, their uncertainty, or qualitative factors such as
unexpectedly high or low estimates. The goal of this method is to provide practical guidance on how to develop
a national inventory with an efficient use of resources, identifying sources that are candidates for using a more
detailed (higher tier) estimation method.
22
23
1A.3 Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-use

Change and Forestry (GPG-LULUCF)
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
GPG-LULUCF elaborated on the 1996 Guidelines to adopt an approach based on land-use categories for
organizing the methodologies and good practices associated with estimating emissions and removals in the Land
Use, Land-use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector, including forest land, cropland, grassland, wetlands,
settlements and other land. Each land category was further sub-divided into land remaining in the same category
(e.g., forest land remaining forest land) or land converted to another land category (e.g., grassland converted to
forest land). Methods for estimating carbon stock changes associated with harvested wood products (HWP) were
included as an appendix, reflecting the unresolved issues and ongoing negotiations of including HWP in national
inventories. As with GPG2000, GPG-LULUCF adopted the hierarchical Tier approach for methods descriptions,
as well as the concept of key source categories, and similarly included guidance on quality assurance
(QA)/quality control (QC), reconstruction of missing data, time series consistency, sampling techniques,
quantification and combination of uncertainties, and verification.
35
1.22
Chapter 2: Generic Methodologies Applicable to Multiple Land-use Categories

2
3
4
5
CHAPTER 2
GENERIC METHODOLOGIES
APPLICABLE TO MULTIPLE LANDUSE CATEGORIES
2.1
1
Authors
2
3
4
5
6
7
Harald Aalde (Norway), Patrick Gonzalez (USA), Michael Gytarsky (Russia), Thelma Krug (Brazil), Werner A.
Kurz (Canada), Rodel Lasco (Philippines), Daniel L. Martino (Uruguay), Brian G. McConkey (Canada),
Stephen M. Ogle (USA), Keith Paustian (USA), John Raison (Australia), N.H. Ravindranath (India), Dieter
Schoene (FAO), Pete Smith (UK), Zoltan Somogyi (European Commission/Hungary), Andre van Amstel (The
Netherlands), and Louis Verchot (ICRAF/USA)
2.2

Contents
2.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2
Inventory Framework.................................................................................................................................. 6
2.2.1 Overview of carbon stock change estimation............................................................................................. 6
2.2.2 Overview of non-CO2 emission estimation.............................................................................................. 10
2.2.3 Conversion of C stock changes to CO2 emissions.................................................................................... 11
7
8
2.3
Generic methods for CO2 Emissions and Removals ................................................................................. 11
2.3.1
Change in biomass carbon stocks (above-ground biomass and below-ground biomass)................... 11
2.3.1.1 Land remaining in a land-use category ............................................................................................. 12
10
2.3.1.2 Land converted to a new land-use category ...................................................................................... 19
11
2.3.2 Change in carbon stocks in dead organic matter ...................................................................................... 21
12
2.3.2.1 Land remaining in a land-use category ............................................................................................. 21
13
2.3.2.2 Land Conversion to a new land-use category.................................................................................... 26
14
2.3.3 Change in carbon stocks in soils .............................................................................................................. 28
15
16
2.3.3.1 Soil C Estimation Methods (Land Remaining in a Land-Use Category and

Land Conversion to a New Land-Use).............................................................................................. 29
17
2.4 Non-CO2 emissions......................................................................................................................................... 41
18
2.5 Additional Generic Guidance for Tier 3 Methods........................................................................................... 51
19
2.5.1 Measurement-Based Tier 3 Inventories ................................................................................................... 51
20
2.5.2 Model-Based Tier 3 Inventories............................................................................................................... 53
21
22
Equations
23
24
Equation 2.1 Annual carbon stock changes for the entire afolu sector estimated as the sum
of changes in all land-use categories...................................................................................6
25
26
Equation 2.2 Annual carbon stock changes for a land-use category as a sum of changes in
each stratum within the category.........................................................................................7
27
28
Equation 2.3 Annual carbon stock changes for a stratum of a land-use category as a sum of
changes in all pools .............................................................................................................7
29
30
Equation 2.4 Annual carbon stock change in a given pool as a function of gains and losses
(Gain-Loss Method)..........................................................................................................10
31
32
Equation 2.5 Carbon stock change in a given pool as an annual average difference between
estimates at two points in time (Stock-Difference Method)..............................................10
33
Equation 2.6 Non-CO2 emissions to the atmosphere .................................................................................11
34
35
Equation 2.7 Annual change in carbon stocks in biomass in land remaining in a particular
land-use category (Gain-Loss Method).............................................................................12
36
37
Equation 2.8 Annual change in carbon stocks in biomass in land remaining in the same
land-use category (Stock-difference Method)...................................................................13
2.3
1
2
Equation 2.9 Annual increase in biomass carbon stocks due to biomass increment in
land remaining in same category........................................................................................14
Equation 2.10 Average annual increment in biomass .................................................................................16
4
5
Equation 2.11 Annual decrease in carbon stocks due to biomass losses in land remaining in same
category..............................................................................................................................17
Equation 2.12 Annual carbon loss in biomass of wood removals ..............................................................17
Equation 2.13 Annual carbon loss in biomass of fuelwood removal..........................................................18
Equation 2.14 Annual carbon losses in biomass due to disturbances ........................................................18
9
10
Equation 2.15 Annual change in biomass carbon stocks on land converted to other
land-use category (Tier 2) .................................................................................................20
11
Equation 2.16 Initial change in biomass carbon stocks on land converted to another land category .........21
12
Equation 2.17 Annual change in carbon stocks in dead organic matter......................................................22
13
Equation 2.18 Annual change in carbon stocks in dead wood or litter (Gain-Loss Method)......................22
14
Equation 2.19 Annual change in carbon stocks in dead wood or litter (Stock-Difference Method)...........24
15
Equation 2.20 Annual carbon in biomass transferred to dead organic matter.............................................24
16
Equation 2.21 Annual biomass carbon loss due to mortality......................................................................25
17
Equation 2.22 Annual carbon transfer to slash ...........................................................................................26
18
Equation 2.23 Annual change in carbon stocks in dead wood and litter due to land conversion................27
19
Equation 2.24 Annual change in carbon stocks in soils..............................................................................30
20
Equation 2.25 Annual change in organic carbon stocks in mineral soils....................................................31
21
Equation 2.26 Annual Carbon loss from drained organic soils (CO2) .......................................................36
22
Equation 2.27 estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from fire...............................................................43
23
Figures
24
25
26
27
Figure 2.1
Generalized carbon cycle of terrestrial AFOLU ecosystems showing

the flows of carbon into and out of the system as well as between
the five C pools within the system. .....................................................................................8
28
29
Figure 2.2
Generic decision tree for identification of appropriate tier to estimate

changes in carbon stocks in biomass in a land-use category..............................................15
30
31
Figure 2.3

changes in carbon stocks in dead organic matter for a land-use category.........................23
32
33
Figure 2.4

changes in carbon stocks in mineral soils by land-use category .......................................33
34
35
Figure 2.5

changes in carbon stocks in organic soils by land-use category........................................34
36
37
Figure 2.6
Generic decision tree for identification of appropriate tier to estimate greenhouse

gas emissions from fire in a land-use category .................................................................45
38
Figure 2.7
Steps to develop a Tier 3 model-based inventory estimation system.................................53
39
2.4

Tables
Table 2.1 Example of a simple matrix (Tier 2) for the impacts of disturbances on carbon pools...............19
Table 2.2 Tier 1 default values for litter and dead wood carbon stocks (tonnes C ha-1) ............................28
4
5
Table 2.3 Default reference (under native vegetation) soil organic C stocks (SOCREF) for
Mineral Soils (tonnes C ha-1 in 0-30 cm depth) ...............................................................32
6
7
Table 2.4 Fuel (Dead organic matter plus live biomass)Biomass consumption values
(tonnes dry matter ha-1) for fires in a range of vegetation types.......................................46
8
9
10
Table 2.5 Emission factors (g kg-1 dry matter burned) for various types of burning.
Values are means SD and are based on the comprehensive review
by Andreae and Merlet (2001) ..........................................................................................48
11
12
Table 2.6 Combustion factor values (proportion of prefire fuel biomass consumed) for fires
in a range of vegetation types............................................................................................49
13
14
Box
15
16
Box 2.1 Alternative formulations of Equation 2.25 for Approach 1 activity data versus Approach 2 or 3 activity
data with transition matrices ................................................................................................................................. 35
17
18
Box 2.2 Comparison between use of Approach 1 aggregate statistics and Approach 2 or 3 activity data with
transition matrices .................................................................................................................................................37
19
2.5
1
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Methods to estimate greenhouse gas emissions and removals in the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
(AFOLU) sector can be divided into two broad categories: 1) methods that can be applied in a similar way for
any of the types of land use (i.e., generic methods for forest land, cropland, grassland, wetland, settlement and
other land); and 2) methods that only apply to a single land use or that are applied to aggregate data on a
national-level, without specifying land use. Chapter 2 provides mainly descriptions of generic methodologies
under category (1) for estimating ecosystem carbon stock changes as well as for estimating non-CO2 fluxes from
fire. These methods can be applied for any of the six land-use categories. Generic information on methods
includes:
10
general framework for applying the methods within specific land-use categories;
11
12
choice of methods, including equations and default values for Tier 1 methods for estimating C stock
changes and non-CO2 emissions;
13
general guidance on use of higher Tier methods;
14
use of EFDB (Emission Factor Data Base); and
15
uncertainty estimation.
16
17
18
19
Specific details and guidance on implementing the methods for each of the land-use and land-use conversion
categories, including choosing emission factors, compiling activity data and assessing uncertainty, are given in
the chapters on specific land-use categories (see Chapters 4-9). Guidance on inventory calculations for each
specific land use refers back to this chapter for description of methods where they are generic.
20
2.2 INVENTORY FRAMEWORK
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
This section outlines a systematic approach for estimating carbon stock changes (and associated emissions and
removals of CO2) from biomass, dead organic matter and soils, as well as for estimating non-CO2 greenhouse
gas emissions from fire. General equations representing the level of land-use categories and strata are followed
by a short description of processes with more detailed equations for carbon stock changes in specific pools by
land-use category. Principles for estimating non-CO2 emissions and common equations are then given. Specific,
operational equations to estimate emissions and removals by processes within a pool and by category, which
directly correspond to worksheet calculations, are provided in Sections 2.3 and 2.4.
28
2.2.1 Overview of carbon stock change estimation
29
30
31
The emissions and removals of CO2 for the AFOLU sector, based on changes in ecosystem C stocks, are
estimated for each land-use category (including both land remaining in a land-use category as well as land
converted to another land use). Carbon stock changes are summarized by Equation 2.1.
32
33
34
35
EQUATION 2.1
ANNUAL CARBON STOCK CHANGES FOR THE ENTIRE AFOLU SECTOR ESTIMATED AS THE SUM OF
CHANGES IN ALL LAND-USE CATEGORIES
36
C AFOLU = C FL + C CL + C GL + CWL + C SL + C OL
37
Where:
38
C = carbon stock change
39
Indices denote the following land-use categories:
40
AFOLU = Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
41
FL = Forest land
42
CL = Cropland
43
GL = Grassland
44
WL = Wetlands
2.6

SL = Settlements
OL = Other land
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
For each land-use category, carbon stock changes are estimated for all strata or subdivisions of land area (e.g.
climate zone, ecotype, soil type, management regime etc., see Chapter 3) chosen for a land-use category
(Equation 2.2). Carbon stock changes within a stratum are estimated by considering carbon cycle processes
between the five carbon pools, as defined in Table 1.1 in Chapter 1and (see below). The generalized flowchart
of the carbon cycle (Figure 2.1) shows all five pools and associated fluxes including inputs to and outputs from
the system, as well as all possible transfers between the pools. Overall, carbon stock changes within a stratum are
estimated by adding up changes in all pools as in Equation 2.3. Further, carbon stock changes in soil may be
disaggregated as to changes in C stocks in mineral soils and emissions from organic soils. Harvested wood
products (HWP) are also included as an additional pool.
13
14
15
16
EQUATION 2.2
ANNUAL CARBON STOCK CHANGES FOR A LAND-USE CATEGORY AS A SUM OF CHANGES IN EACH
STRATUM WITHIN THE CATEGORY
C LU = C LU I
17
18
Where:
19
CLU = carbon stock changes for a land-use (LU) category as defined in Equation 2.1.
20
21
i denotes a specific stratum or subdivision within the land-use category (by any combination of species,
climatic zone, ecotype, management regime etc., see Chapter 3), i = 1 to n.
22
23
24
25
EQUATION 2.3
ANNUAL CARBON STOCK CHANGES FOR A STRATUM OF A LAND-USE CATEGORY AS A SUM OF
26
C LU i = C AB + C BB + C DW + C LI + C SO + C HWP
CHANGES IN ALL POOLS
27
Where:
28
CLUi = carbon stock changes for a stratum of a land-use category,
29
Subscripts denote the following carbon pools:
30
AB = Above-ground biomass
31
BB = Below-ground biomass
32
DW = Deadwood
33
LI = Litter
34
SO = Soils
35
HWP = Harvested Wood Products
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Estimating changes in carbon pools and fluxes depends on data and model availability, as well as resources and
capacity to collect and analyze additional information (See Chapter 1, Section 1.3.3 on Key Category analysis).
Table 1.1 in Chapter 1 outlines which pools are relevant for each land-use category for Tier 1 methods, including
cross references to reporting tables. Depending on country circumstances and which tiers are chosen, stock
changes may not be estimated for all pools shown in Equation 2.3. Because of limitations to deriving default
data sets to support estimation of some stock changes, Tier 1 methods include several simplifying assumptions:
43
2.7
1
2
3
Figure 2.1 Generalized carbon cycle of terrestrial AFOLU ecosystems showing the flows of
carbon into and out of the system as well as between the five C pools within the
system.
4
5
6
7
Harvested
Wood
Products
8
9
2.8
Aboveground
biomass
Litter
Belowground
biomass
Deadwood
Increase of carbon
stocks due to growth
Transfer of carbon
between pools
Carbon fluxes due to

discrete events, i.e., from
harvest residues and
natural disturbance
Carbon fluxes due to

continuous
processes, i.e.
decomposition
Soil Organic
Matter

1
2
3
4
change in below-ground biomass C stocks are assumed to be zero under Tier 1 (under Tier 2, countryspecific data on ratios of below- to above-ground biomass can be used to estimate below-ground stock
changes)
5
6
under Tier 1, dead wood and litter pools are often lumped together as dead organic matter (see discussion
below)
7
8
9
dead organic matter stocks are assumed to be zero for non-forest land-use categories under Tier 1. For forest
land converted to another land use, default values for estimating dead organic matter carbon stocks are
provided in Tier 1.
10
11
12
13
14
The carbon cycle includes changes in carbon stocks due to both continuous processes (i.e. growth, decay) and
discrete events (i.e. disturbances like harvest, fire, insect outbreaks, land-use change and other events).
Continuous processes can affect carbon stocks in all areas in each year, while discrete events (i.e. disturbances)
cause emissions and redistribute ecosystem carbon in specific areas (i.e., where the disturbance occurs) and in
the year of the event.
15
16
17
18
19
Disturbances may also have long-lasting effects, such as decay of wind-blown or burnt trees. For practicality,
Tier 1 methods assume that all post-disturbance emissions (less removal of harvested wood products) are
estimated as part of the disturbance event, i.e., in the year of the disturbance. For example, rather than estimating
the decay of dead organic matter left after a disturbance over a period of several years, all post-disturbance
emissions are estimated in the year of the event.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Under Tier 1, it is assumed that the average transfer rate into dead organic matter (dead wood and litter) is equal
to the average transfer rate out of dead organic matter, so that the net stock change is zero. This assumption
means that dead organic matter (dead wood and litter) carbon stocks need not be quantified under Tier 1 for land
areas that remain in a land-use category1. The rationale for this approach is that dead organic matter stocks,
particularly dead wood, are highly variable and site-specific, depending on forest type and age, disturbance
history and management. In addition, data on coarse woody debris decomposition rates are scarce and thus it
was deemed that globally applicable default factors and uncertainty estimates can not be developed. Countries
experiencing significant changes in forest types or disturbance or management regimes in their forests are
encouraged to develop domestic data to estimate the impact from these changes using Tier 2 or 3 methodologies
and to report the resulting carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions and removals.
30
31
32
33
34
35
All estimates of changes in carbon stocks, i.e. growth, internal transfers and emissions, are in units of carbon to
make all calculations consistent. Data on biomass stocks, increments, harvests, etc. can initially be in units of dry
matter that need to be converted to tonnes of carbon for all subsequent calculations. There are two fundamentally
different and equally valid approaches to estimating stock changes: 1) the process-based approach, which
estimates the net balance of additions to and removals from a carbon stock; and 2) the stock-based approach,
which estimates the difference in carbon stocks at two points in time.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Annual carbon stock changes in any pool can be estimated using in the process-based approach using Equation
2.4, which sets out the Gain-Loss Method that can be applied to all carbon gains or losses. Gains can be
attributed to growth (increase of biomass) and to transfer of carbon from another pool (e.g. transfer of carbon
from the live biomass carbon pool to the dead organic matter pool due to harvest or natural disturbances). Gains
are always marked with a positive (+) sign. Losses can be attributed to transfers of carbon from one pool to
another (e.g. the carbon in the slash during a harvesting operation is a loss from the above-ground biomass pool),
or emissions due to decay, harvest, burning etc. Losses are always marked with a negative (-) sign.
43
Emissions from litter C stocks are accounted for under Tier 1 for forest conversion to other land-use.
2.9
1
2
3
EQUATION 2.4
ANNUAL CARBON STOCK CHANGE IN A GIVEN POOL AS A FUNCTION OF GAINS AND LOSSES
(GAIN-LOSS METHOD)
C = C G C L
Where:
C = annual carbon stock change in the pool, tonnes C yr-1
CG = annual gain of carbon, tonnes C yr-1
CL = annual loss of carbon, tonnes C yr-1
9
10
11
12
13
14
Note that CO2 removals are transfers from the atmosphere to a pool, whereas CO2 emissions are transfers from a
pool to the atmosphere. Not all transfers involve emissions or removals, since any transfer from one pool to
another is a loss from the donor pool, but is a gain of equal amount to the receiving pool. For example, a transfer
from the above-ground biomass pool to the dead wood pool is a loss from the above-ground biomass pool and a
gain of equal size for the deadwood pool, which does not necessarily result in immediate CO2 emission to the
atmosphere (depending on the Tier used).
15
16
17
18
The method used in Equation 2.4 is called the Gain-Loss Method, because it includes all processes that bring
about changes in a pool. An alternative stock-based approach is termed the Stock-Difference Method, which can
be used where carbon stocks in relevant pools are measured at two points in time to assess carbon stock changes,
as represented in Equation 2.5.
19
EQUATION 2.5
CARBON STOCK CHANGE IN A GIVEN POOL AS AN ANNUAL AVERAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
ESTIMATES AT TWO POINTS IN TIME (STOCK-DIFFERENCE METHOD)
20
21
22
C =
23
(C t2 C t1 )
(t 2 t1 )
24
Where:
25
26
Ct1 = carbon stock in the pool at time t1, tonnes C
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
If the C stock changes are estimated on a per hectare basis, then the value is multiplied by the total area within
each stratum to obtain the total stock change estimate for the pool. In some cases, the activity data may be in the
form of country totals (e.g. harvested wood) in which case the stock change estimates for that pool are estimated
directly from the activity data after applying appropriate factors to convert to units of C mass. When using the
Stock-Difference Method for a specific land-use category, it is important to ensure that the area of land in that
category at times t1 and t2 is identical, to avoid confounding stock change estimates with area changes.
34
35
36
37
38
The process method lends itself to modelling approaches using coefficients derived from empirical research data.
These will smooth out inter-annual variability to a greater extent than the stock change method which relies on
the difference of stock estimates at two points in time. Both methods are valid so long as they are capable of
representing actual disturbances as well as continuously varying trends, and can be verified by comparison with
actual measurements.
39
2.2.2 Overview of non-CO2 emission estimation
40
41
42
43
44
45
Non-CO2 emissions are derived from a variety of sources, including emissions from soils, livestock and manure
and from combustion of biomass, dead wood and litter. In contrast to the way CO2 emissions are estimated from
biomass stock changes, the estimate of non-CO2 greenhouse gases usually involves an emission rate from a
source directly to the atmosphere. The rate (Equation 2.6) is generally determined by an emission factor for a
specific gas (e.g. CH4, N2O) and source category and an area (e.g. for soil or area burned), population (e.g. for
livestock) or mass (e.g. for biomass or manure) that defines the emission source.
46
2.10

1
2
EQUATION 2.6
NON-CO2 EMISSIONS TO THE ATMOSPHERE
Emission = A EF
Where:
Emission = non- CO2 emissions, tonnes of the non-CO2 gas
6
7
A = activity data relating to the emission source (can be area, animal numbers or mass unit, depending on
the source type)
EF = emission factor for a specific gas and source category, tonnes per unit of A
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Many of the emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases are either associated with a specific land use (e.g., CH4
emissions from rice) or are typically estimated from national-level aggregate data (e.g., CH4 emissions from
livestock and N2O emissions from managed soils). Where an emission source is associated with a single land
use, the methodology for that emission is described in the chapter for that specific land-use category (e.g.
methane from rice in Chapter 5 on Cropland). Emissions that are generally based on aggregated data are dealt
with in separate chapters (e.g., Chapter 10 on livestock-related emissions and Chapter 11 on N2O and liming and
urea emissions of CO2 from managed soils). This chapter describes only methods to estimate non-CO2 (and CO2)
emissions from biomass combustion, which can occur in several different land-use categories.
17
2.2.3 Conversion of C stock changes to CO 2 emissions
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
For reporting purposes, changes in C stock categories (that involve transfers to the atmosphere) can be converted
to units of CO2 emissions by multiplying the C stock change by -44/12. In some cases, noted in this guidance, it
may be necessary to also account for significant non-CO2 losses of carbon. It should also be noted that not every
stock change corresponds to an emission. The conversion to CO2 from C, is based on the ratio of molecular
weights (44/12). The change of sign (-) is due to the convention that increases in C stocks, i.e. positive (+) stock
changes, represent a removal (or negative emission) from the atmosphere, while decreases in C stocks, i.e.
negative (-) stock changes, represent a positive emission to the atmosphere.
26
2.3 GENERIC METHODS FOR CO 2 EMISSIONS AND

REMOVALS
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
As outlined in Section 2.2, emissions and removals of CO2 within the AFOLU sector are generally estimated on
the basis of changes in ecosystem carbon stocks. These consist of above- and below-ground biomass, dead
organic matter (i.e. dead wood and litter), and soil organic matter. Net losses in total ecosystem carbon stocks are
used to estimate CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, and net gains in total ecosystem carbon stocks are used to
estimate removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. Inter-pool transfers may be taken into account where appropriate.
Changes in carbon stocks may be estimated by direct inventory methods or by process models. Each of the C
stocks or pools can occur in any of land-use categories, hence general attributes of the methods that apply to any
land- use category are described here. In particular cases, losses in carbon stocks or pools may imply emissions
of non-CO2 gases such as methane, carbon monoxide, non-methane volatile organic carbon and others. The
methods for estimating emissions of these gases are provided in Section 2.4. It is good practice to check for
complete coverage of CO2 and non-CO2 emissions due to losses in carbon stocks or pools to avoid omissions or
double counting. Specific details regarding the application of these methods within a particular land-use category
are provided under the relevant land uses in Chapters 4 to 9.
25
40
42
2.3.1 Change in biomass carbon stocks (above-ground biomass

and below-ground biomass)
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Plant biomass constitutes a significant carbon stock in many ecosystems. Biomass is present in both above- and
below-ground parts of annual and perennial plants. Biomass associated with annual and perennial herbaceous
(i.e. non-woody) plants is relatively ephemeral, i.e., it decays and regenerates annually or every few years. So
emissions from decay are balanced by removals due to re-growth making overall net C stocks in biomass rather
stable in the long term. Thus, the methods focus on stock changes in biomass associated with woody plants and
trees, which can accumulate large amounts of carbon (up to hundreds of tonnes per ha) over their lifespan.
Carbon stock change in biomass on forest land is likely to be an important sub-category because of substantial
41
2.11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
fluxes owing to management and harvest, natural disturbances and forest re-growth. In addition, land-use
conversions from forest land to other land uses often result in substantial loss of carbon from the biomass pool.
Trees and woody plants can occur in any of the six land-use categories although biomass stocks are generally
largest on forest land. For inventory purposes, changes in C stock in biomass are estimated for (i) land
remaining in the same land-use category and (ii) land converted to a new land-use category. The reporting
convention is that all emissions and removals associated with a land-use change are reported in the new land-use
category.
2.3.1.1 L AND
REMAINING IN A LAND - USE CATEGORY
9
10
11
12
13
Equation 2.3 includes the five carbon pools for which stock change estimates are required. This section presents
methods for estimating biomass carbon gains, losses and net changes. Gains include biomass growth in aboveground and below-ground components. Losses are categorized into wood fellings or harvest, fuelwood gathering,
and losses from natural disturbances on managed land such as fire, insect outbreaks and extreme weather events
(e.g. hurricanes, flooding). Two methods are provided for estimating carbon stock changes in biomass.
14
15
16
17
18
The Gain-Loss Method requires the biomass carbon loss to be subtracted from the biomass carbon gain
(Equation 2.7). This underpins the Tier 1 method, for which default values for calculation of increment and
losses are provided in this Volume to estimate stock changes in biomass. Higher tier methods use countryspecific data to estimate gain and loss rates. For all tiers, these estimates require country-specific activity data,
although for Tier 1, these data can be obtained from globally-compiled databases (e.g. FAO statistics).
19
20
21
22
EQUATION 2.7
ANNUAL CHANGE IN CARBON STOCKS IN BIOMASS
IN LAND REMAINING IN A PARTICULAR LAND-USE CATEGORY (GAIN-LOSS METHOD)
23
C B = CG C L
24
Where:
25
26
CB = annual change in carbon stocks in biomass (the sum of above-ground and below-ground biomass
terms in Equation 2.3) for each land sub-category, considering the total area, tonnes C yr-1
27
28
CG = annual increase in carbon stocks due to biomass growth for each land sub-category, considering
the total area, tonnes C yr-1
29
30
CL = annual decrease in carbon stocks due to biomass loss for each land sub-category, considering the
total area, tonnes C yr-1
31
32
33
34
35
36
The changes in C stock in biomass for land remaining in the same land-use category (e.g. forest land remaining
forest land) are based on estimates of annual gain and loss in biomass stocks. Countries using any of the three
tiers can adopt this method. This method can be used by countries that do not have national inventory systems
designed for estimating woody biomass stocks. Default data are provided in land-use category chapters for
inventory compilers who do not have access to country-specific data. Worksheets have also been developed
using the methods and equations (Annex 1).
37
38
39
40
41
The Stock-Difference Method requires biomass carbon stock inventories for a given land area, at two points in
time. Annual biomass change is the difference between the biomass stock at time t2 and time t1, divided by the
number of years between the inventories (Equation 2.8). In some cases, primary data on biomass may be in the
form of wood volume data, for example, from forest surveys, in which case factors are provided to convert wood
volume to carbon mass units, as shown in Equation 2.8.b.
42
2.12

1
2
3
EQUATION 2.8
IN LAND REMAINING IN THE SAME LAND-USE CATEGORY (STOCK-DIFFERENCE METHOD)
C B =
(Ct2 Ct1 )
(t 2 t1 )
(a)
where
C=
{ A
i, j
Vi , j BCEFSi , j (1 + Ri , j ) CFi , j }
(b)
i, j
Where:
8
9
10
terms in Equation 2.3 ) in land remaining in the same category (e.g., forest land remaining forest
land), tonnes C yr-1
11
C t2 = total carbon in biomass for each land sub-category at time t2, tonnes C
12
13
C = total carbon in biomass for time t1 to t2
14
A = area of land remaining in the same land-use category, ha (see note below)
15
V = merchantable growing stock volume, m3 ha-1
16
i = ecological zone i (i = 1 to n)
17
j= climate domain j (j = 1 to m)
18
19
20
CF = carbon fraction of dry matter, tonnes C (tonne d.m.)-1
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BCEFS = biomass conversion and expansion factor for expansion of merchantable growing stock volume
to above-ground biomass, (see Table 4.5 for Forest Land). BCEFS transforms merchantable volume
of growing stock directly into its above-ground biomass. BCEFS values are more convenient because
they can be applied directly to volume-based forest inventory data and operational records, without
the need of having to resort to basic wood densities (D). They provide best results, when they have
been derived locally and based directly on merchantable volume. However, if BCEFS values are not
available and if the biomass expansion factor (BEFS) and D values are separately estimated, the
following conversion can be used:
= ratio of below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass, in tonnes d.m. below-ground biomass

(tonne above-ground d.m. biomass)-1
29
BCEFS = BEFS D
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
In applying the Gain-Loss or Stock-Difference methods, the relevant area is clearly the area of land remaining in
the relevant category at the end of the year for which the inventory is being estimated. Any other land will be in
a conversion category (see Section 2.3.1.2). The length of time that land remains in a conversion category after a
change in land use is by default 20 years (the time period assumed for carbon stocks to come to equilibrium for
the purposes of calculating default coefficients in the IPCC 1996 Guidelines and retained for the 2003 Good
Practice Guidance and used here also, though other periods may be used at higher Tiers according to national
circumstances). Under default assumptions therefore land will be transferred from a conversion category to a
remaining category after it has been in a given land use for 20 years. Some carbon stock changes will take place
in the year of conversion, but nevertheless it is important to be consistent about the period for which land stays in
the conversion category or the approaches to land area estimation described in the next Chapter will not work.
Stock changes that are completed within 1 year after conversion will be related to the area converted annually
and the relevant land areas may need to be treated as a sub-category within the conversion category but
nevertheless should remain in the conversion category until the 20 year default or other conversion time period is
completed.
44
45
46
47
48
49
The stock-difference method will be applicable in countries that have national inventory systems for forests and
other land categories, where the stocks of different biomass pools are measured at periodic intervals. The stockdifference method requires greater resources and many countries may not have national inventory systems for
forests and other land categories. This method is suitable to countries adopting a Tier 3 and in some cases a Tier
2 approach, but may not be suitable for countries using a Tier 1 approach due to limitations of data. It is
important to make sure that inventory system generates data on gains and losses of biomass carbon pools.
2.13
1
2
3
4
Either of the above two methods can be used for estimating biomass carbon stock changes for all land categories
(e.g., forest land remaining forest land, grassland remaining grassland and cropland remaining cropland) where
perennial woody biomass may be present. Figure 2.2 can be used to assist inventory agencies in identifying the
appropriate tier to estimate changes in biomass carbon stocks.
5
6
7
8
Note that some biomass losses can lead to emissions of C other than as CO2, such as biomass consumption and
emission as methane (CH4) by termites and wild mammals.2 Default Tier 1 methods for these sources have not
been developed, and countries wishing to estimate and report these emissions should develop and employ a Tier
3 approach.
9
10
11
A.
METHODS FOR ESTIMATING CHANGE IN CARBON STOCKS IN

BIOMASS (C B )
12
13
A.1
Estimating Annual Increase in Biomass Carbon Stocks (Gain-Loss

Method), C G
14
15
16
This is the Tier 1 method that, when combined with default biomass growth rates, allows for any country to
calculate the annual increase in biomass, using estimates of area and mean annual biomass increment, for each
land-use type and stratum (e.g., climatic zone, ecological zone, vegetation type) (Equation 2.9).
17
18
19
20
EQUATION 2.9
ANNUAL INCREASE IN BIOMASS CARBON STOCKS DUE TO BIOMASS INCREMENT
IN LAND REMAINING IN SAME CATEGORY
CG = ( Ai , j GTOTALi , j CFi , j )
21
i, j
22
Where:
23
24
CG = annual increase in biomass carbon stocks due to biomass growth in land remaining in the same
land category by vegetation type and climatic zone, tonnes C yr-1
25
26
GTOTAL = mean annual biomass growth, tonnes dry matter ha-1 yr-1
27
i = ecological zone (i = 1 to n)
28
j = climate domain (j = 1 to m)
29
= area of land remaining in the same category, ha
30
31
CO2 and non-CO2 losses of carbon associated with biomass burning are estimated such that carbon emissions are not
double-counted.
2.14

1
2
Figure 2.2 Generic decision tree for identification of appropriate tier to estimate changes in
carbon stocks in biomass in a land-use category.
3
4
5
START
6
7
Box 3: Tier 3
8
9
Are detailed
data on biomass available to
estimate changes in C stocks using
dynamic models or allometric
equations?
YES
Use the detailed biomass

data for Tier 3 method
NO
Box 2: Tier 2
Are
country-specific biomass data
and emission/removal factors
available?
YES
biomass data and emission/
removal factors for the Tier 2
method
NO
Are changes
in C stocks in biomass in
this land classification a key
category (Note 1)?
NO
Are
aggregate data on
biomass growth and
loss available?
NO
Gather data on
biomass growth
and biomass loss
YES
YES
Collect data for the Tier

3 or Tier 2 method
Use aggregate data and
default emission/removal
factors for Tier 1 method
Box 1: Tier 1
Note 1: See Volume 1 Chapter 4, "Methodological Choice and Identification of Key Categories" (noting Section
4.1.2 on limited resources), for discussion of key categories and use of decision trees.
2.15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
GTOTAL is the total biomass growth expanded from the above-ground biomass growth (Gw) to include belowground biomass growth. Following a Tier 1 method, this may be achieved directly by using default values of GW
for naturally regenerated trees or broad categories of plantations together with R, the ratio of below-ground
biomass to above-ground biomass differentiated by woody vegetation type. In Tiers 2 and 3, the net annual
increment (IV) can be used with either basic wood density (D) and biomass expansion factors (BEFI) or directly
with biomass conversion and expansion factors (BCEFI) for conversion of annual net increment to above-ground
biomass increment for each vegetation type. Equation 2.10 shows the relationships.
8
EQUATION 2.10
AVERAGE ANNUAL INCREMENT IN BIOMASS
Tier 1
9
10
11
GTOTAL = {GW (1 + R)}
12
13
Biomass increment data (dry matter) are used directly
GTOTAL = {I V BCEFI (1 + R )}
14
15
Tiers 2 and 3
Net annual increment data are used to estimate GW
by applying a biomass conversion and expansion factor
16
Where:
17
GTOTAL = average annual biomass growth above and below-ground, tonnes dry matter ha-1 yr-1
18
19
GW = average annual above-ground biomass growth for a specific woody vegetation type, tonnes dry
matter ha-1 yr-1
20
21
22
23
IV = average net annual increment for specific vegetation type, m3 ha-1 yr-1
24
25
26
27
28
BCEFI = biomass conversion and expansion factor for conversion of net annual increment (including
bark) to above-ground biomass growth for specific vegetation type, tonnes above-ground biomass
growth (m3 net annual increment)-1, (see Table 4.5 for Forest land). If BCEFI values are not available
and if the biomass expansion factor (BEFI) and basic wood density (D) values are separately
estimated, then the following conversion can be used:
29
BCEFI = BEFI D
30
31
Biomass Expansion Factors (BEFI) expands the dry weight of the merchantable volume of net annual
increment, to account for non-merchantable components of the tree, stand and forest.
= ratio of below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass for a specific vegetation type, in tonnes
d.m. below-ground biomass (tonne above-ground d.m. biomass)-1. R can be set to zero if assuming no
changes of below-ground biomass allocation patterns (Tier 1).
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Estimates for BCEFI for woody (perennial) biomass on non-forest lands such as grassland (savanna), cropland
(agro-forestry), orchards, coffee, tea, and rubber may not be readily available. In this case default values of
BCEFI from one of the forest types closest to the non-forest vegetation can be used to convert merchantable
biomass to total biomass. BCEFI is relevant only to perennial woody tree biomass for which merchantable
biomass data are available. For perennial shrubs, grasses and crops, biomass increment data in terms of tonnes of
dry matter per hectare may be directly available and in this case use of Equation 2.10 will not be required.
39
40
A.2
41
42
43
44
45
46
Loss estimates are needed for calculating biomass carbon stock change using the Gain-Loss method. Note that
the loss estimate is also needed when using the StockDifference method to estimate the transfers of biomass to
dead organic matter when higher Tier estimation methods are used (see below). Annual biomass loss is the sum
of losses from wood removal (harvest), fuelwood removal (not counting fuelwood gathered from woody debris),
and other losses resulting from disturbances, such as fire, storms, and insect and diseases. The relationship is
shown in Equation 2.11.
Estimating Annual Decrease in Biomass Carbon Stocks Due to Losses

(Gain-Loss Method), C
L
47
48
2.16

1
2
3
EQUATION 2.11
ANNUAL DECREASE IN CARBON STOCKS DUE TO BIOMASS LOSSES
C L = Lwood removals + L fuelwood + Ldisturbance
Where:
6
7
CL = annual decrease in carbon stocks due to biomass loss in land remaining in the same land category,
tonnes C yr-1
Lwood-removals = annual carbon loss due to wood removals, tonnes C yr-1 (See Equation 2.12)
Lfuelwood = annual biomass carbon loss due to fuelwood removals, tonnes C yr-1 (See Equation 2.13)
10
Ldisturbance = annual biomass carbon losses due to disturbances, tonnes C yr-1 (See Equation 2.14)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Equation 2.11 and the following Equations 2.12 to 2.14 are directly applicable to forest land. These Equations
(2.11 to 2.14) can also be used for estimating losses from cropland and grassland, if quantities of wood removal
(harvesting), fuelwood-removal and loss due to disturbance are available for perennial woody biomass. In
intensively managed as well as highly degraded croplands and grasslands, the perennial woody biomass loss is
likely to be small. Default biomass carbon loss values for woody crop species are provided for the Tier 1
cropland methodology (see Table 5.1). It is important to note that wood-removal used in Equation 2.11 should
be compared with the input to HWP in Chapter 12 for consistency.
18
The three terms on the right hand side of Equation 2.11 are obtained as follows:
19
20
Loss of biomass and carbon from wood removal (harvesting), L w o o d - r e m o v a l s

The method for estimating the annual biomass carbon loss due to wood-removals is provided in Equation 2.12.
21
22
23
EQUATION 2.12
ANNUAL CARBON LOSS IN BIOMASS OF WOOD REMOVALS
24
Lwood removals = {H BCEFR (1 + R) CF }
25
Where:
26
Lwood-removals = annual carbon loss due to biomass removals, tonnes C yr-1
27
= annual wood removals, roundwood, m3 yr-1
28
29

30
CF = carbon fraction of dry matter, tonnes C (tonne dm)-1
31
32
33
34
35
BCEFR = biomass conversion and expansion factor for conversion of removals in merchantable biomass
to total biomass removals (including bark), tonnes biomass removal (m3 of removals)-1, (see Table
4.5 for Forest land). However, if BCEFR values are not available and if the biomass expansion factor
for wood removals (REFV) and basic wood density (D) values are separately estimated, then the
36
BCEFR = REFV D
37
38
39
40
If country-specific data on roundwood removals are not available, the inventory experts should use FAO
statistics on wood harvest. FAO statistical data on wood harvest exclude bark. To convert FAO
statistical wood harvest data without bark into merchantable wood removals including bark, multiply
by default expansion factor of 1.15.
41
42
43
44
45
46
Loss of biomass and carbon from fuelwood removal, L f u e l w o o d

Fuelwood removal will often be comprised of two components. First, removal for fuelwood of living trees and
parts of trees such as tops and branches, where the tree itself remains in the forest, will reduce the carbon in the
biomass of growing stock, and should be treated as biomass carbon loss. The second component is gathering of
dead wood and logging slash. This will reduce the dead organic matter carbon pool. If it is possible it is good
2.17
1
2
practice to estimate the two components separately. The biomass carbon loss due to fuelwood removal of live
trees is estimated using Equation 2.13.
3
4
5
6
EQUATION 2.13
ANNUAL CARBON LOSS IN BIOMASS OF FUELWOOD REMOVAL
L fuelwood = [{FGtrees BCEFR (1 + R)} + FG part ] CF
Where:
Lfuelwood = annual carbon loss due to fuelwood removals, tonnes C yr-1
10
FGtrees = annual volume of fuelwood removal of whole trees, m3 yr-1
11
FGpart = annual volume of fuelwood removal as tree parts, m3 yr-1
12
13
14
15
CF = carbon fraction of dry matter, tonnes C (tonne dry matter)-1
16
17
18
19
20
to biomass removals (including bark), tonnes biomass removal (m3 of removals)-1, (see Table 4.5 for
Forest land). If BCEFR values are not available and if the biomass expansion factor for wood
removals (REFV) and basic wood density (D) values are separately estimated, then the following
conversion can be used:
21
BCEFR = REFV D
22
23
24
25
If country-specific data on roundwood removals are not available, the inventory experts should use FAO
statistics on wood harvest. It should be noted that FAO statistical data on wood harvest exclude bark.
To convert FAO statistical wood harvest data without bark into merchantable wood removals
including bark, multiply by default expansion factor of 1.15.

(tonne above-ground d.m. biomass)-1; R can be set to zero if assuming no changes of below-ground
biomass allocation patterns. (Tier 1)
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Wood harvest can comprise both wood and fuelwood removals (i.e. wood removals in Equation 2.12 can include
both wood and fuelwood removal), or fuelwood removals can be reported separately using, both Equations 2.12
and 2.13. To avoid double counting, it is good practice to check how fuelwood data are represented in the
country and to use the equation that is most appropriate for national conditions. Furthermore, the wood harvest
from forests becomes an input to HWP (Chapter 12). Therefore, it is good practice to check for consistent
representation of wood-harvest data in Equations 2.12 and 2.13 and those in Chapter 12.
33
34
35
36
Loss of biomass and carbon from disturbance, L d i s t u r b a n c e

A generic approach for estimating the amount of carbon lost from disturbances is provided in Equation 2.14. In
the specific case of losses from fire on managed land, including wildfires and controlled fires, this method
should be used to provide input to the methodology to estimate CO2 and non-CO2 emissions from fires.
37
38
39
EQUATION 2.14
ANNUAL CARBON LOSSES IN BIOMASS DUE TO DISTURBANCES
40
Ldisturbance = { Adisturbance BW (1 + R) CF fd }
41
Where:
42
43
44
Ldisturbances = annual other losses of carbon, tonnes C yr-1 (Note that this is the amount of biomass that is
lost from the total biomass. The partitioning of biomass that is transferred to dead organic matter and
biomass that is oxidized and released to the atmosphere is explained in Equations 2.15 and 2.16).
45
Adisturbance = area affected by disturbances, ha yr-1
46
BW = average above-ground biomass of land areas affected by disturbances, tonnes dm ha-1
2.18

1
2
3
CF = carbon fraction of dry matter, tonnes C (tonnes d.m)-1
fd = fraction of biomass lost in disturbance - see note below.
6
7
8
9
10
11

(tonne above-ground d.m. biomass)-1. R can be set to zero if no changes of below-ground biomass are
assumed. (Tier 1)
Note: The parameter fd defines the proportion of biomass that is lost from the biomass pool: a standreplacing disturbance will kill all (fd = 1) biomass while an insect disturbance may only remove a
portion (e.g. fd = 0.3) of the average biomass C density. Equation 2.14 does not specify the fate of
the carbon removed from the biomass carbon stock. The Tier 1 assumption is that all of Ldisturbances is
emitted in the year of disturbance. Higher Tier methods assume that some of this carbon is emitted
immediately and some is added to the dead organic matter pools (deadwood, litter) or HWP.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The amounts of biomass carbon transferred to different fates can be defined using a disturbance matrix that can
be parameterized to define the impacts of different disturbance types (Kurz et al., 1992). It is good practice, if
possible, to develop and use a disturbance matrix (Table 2.1) for each biomass, dead organic matter and soil
carbon pool, the proportion of the carbon remaining in that pool, and the proportions transferred to other pools,
to harvested wood products and to the atmosphere, during the disturbance event. The proportions in each row
always sum to 1 to ensure conservation of carbon. The value entered in cell A is the proportion of above-ground
biomass remaining after a disturbance (or 1 fd, where fd is defined in Equation 2.14). The Tier 1 assumption is
that all of fd is emitted in the year of disturbance: therefore the value entered in cell F is fd. For higher Tiers,
only the proportion emitted in the year is entered in cell F and the remainder is added to cells B and C in the case
of fire, and B, C, and E in the case of harvest. It is good practice to develop disturbance matrix even under Tier 1
to ensure that all carbon pool transfers are considered, though all biomass carbon is assumed to be emitted in the
year of land conversion. It is important to note that some of the transfers could be small or insignificant.
25
TABLE 2.1
EXAMPLE OF A SIMPLE MATRIX (TIER 2) FOR THE IMPACTS OF DISTURBANCES ON CARBON POOLS
To:
Above-ground
biomass
Belowground
biomass
Dead
wood
Litter
Soil
carbon
Harvested
wood
products
Atmosphere
Sum of
row
(must
equal 1)
From:
Above-ground
biomass
Below-ground
biomass
Dead wood
Litter
Soil carbon
Enter the proportion of each pool on the left side of the matrix that is transferred to the pool at the top of each column. All of
the pools on the left side of the matrix must be fully populated and the values in each row must sum to 1.
Impossible transitions are blacked out.
Note: Letters A to F are cell labels that are referenced in the text.
26
27
2.3.1.2 L AND
CONVERTED TO A NEW LAND - USE CATEGORY
28
29
30
The methods for estimation of emissions and removals of carbon resulting from land-use conversion from one
land-use category to another are presented in this section. Possible conversions include conversion from nonforest to forest land, cropland and forest land to grassland, and grassland and forest land to cropland.
2.19
1
2
3
4
5
The CO2 emissions and removals on land converted to a new land-use category include annual changes in carbon
stocks in above-ground and below-ground biomass. Annual carbon stock changes for each of these pools can be
estimated by using Equation 2.4 (CB = CG - CL), where CG is the annual gain in carbon, and CL is the
annual loss of carbon. CB can be estimated separately for each land use (e.g. forest, grassland, cropland) and
management category (e.g. natural forest, plantation), by specific strata (e.g. climate or forest type).
6
7
METHODS FOR ESTIMATING CHANGE IN CARBON STOCKS IN BIOMASS

(C B )
i) Annual increase in carbon stocks in biomass, C G
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Tier 1: Annual increase in carbon stocks in biomass due to land converted to another land-use category can be
estimated using Equation 2.9 described above for lands remaining in a category. Tier 1 employs a default
assumption that there is no change in initial biomass carbon stocks due to conversion. This assumption can be
applied if the data on previous land uses are not available, which may be the case when land area totals are
estimated using Approach 1 or 2 described in Chapter 3 (non-spatially explicit land area data). This approach
implies the use of default parameters in Section 4.5 (Chapter 4). The area of land converted can be categorized
based on management practices e.g. intensively managed plantations and grasslands or extensively managed
(low input) plantations, grasslands or abandoned croplands that revert back to forest and should be kept in
conversion category for 20 years or another time interval. If the previous land use on a converted area is known,
then the Tier 2 method described below can be used.
19
20
21
22
23
24
Tier 1: The annual decrease in C stocks in biomass due to losses on converted land (fellings, fuelwood
collection and disturbances) can be estimated using Equations 2.11 to 2.14. As with increases in carbon stocks,
Tier 1 follows the default assumption there is of no change in initial carbon stocks in biomass, and it can be
applied for the areas that are estimated with the use of Approaches 1 or 2 in Chapter 3, and default parameters in
Section 4.5.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
ii) Annual Decrease in Carbon Stocks in Biomass Due to Losses, C L
iii) Higher Tiers for Estimating Change in Carbon Stocks in Biomass,

(C B )
Tiers 2 and 3: Tier 2 (and 3) methods use nationally-derived data and more disaggregated approaches and
(or) process models, which allow for more precise estimates of changes in carbon stocks in biomass. In Tier 2,
Equation 2.4 is replaced by Equation 2.15, where the changes in carbon stock are calculated as a sum of increase
in carbon stock due to biomass growth, changes due to actual conversion (difference between biomass stocks
before and after conversion), and decrease in carbon stocks due to losses.
32
33
34
35
EQUATION 2.15
ANNUAL CHANGE IN BIOMASS CARBON STOCKS ON LAND CONVERTED TO OTHER LAND-USE
CATEGORY (TIER 2)
36
C B = CG + CCONVERSION C L
37
Where:
38
39
CB = annual change in carbon stocks in biomass on land converted to other land category, in tonnes C
yr-1
40
41
CG = annual increase in carbon stocks in biomass due to growth on land converted to another land
category, in tonnes C yr-1
42
43
CCONVERSION = initial change in carbon stocks in biomass on land converted to other land category, in
tonnes C yr-1
44
45
CL = annual decrease in biomass carbon stocks due to losses from harvesting, fuel wood gathering and
disturbances on land converted to other land category, in tonnes C yr-1
46
47
48
Conversion to another land category may be associated with a change in biomass stocks, e.g. part of the biomass
may be withdrawn through land clearing, restocking or other human-induced activities. These initial changes in
carbon stocks in biomass (CCONVERSION) are calculated with the use of Equation 2.16 as follows:
49
50
2.20

1
2
3
EQUATION 2.16
INITIAL CHANGE IN BIOMASS CARBON STOCKS ON LAND CONVERTED TO ANOTHER LAND
CATEGORY
CCONVERSION = {( BBEFOREi B AFTERi ) ATO _ OTHERSi } CF
Where:
6
7
CCONVERSION = initial change in biomass carbon stocks on land converted to another land category,
tonnes C yr-1
BBEFOREi = biomass stocks on land type i before the conversion, tonnes d.m. ha-1
BAFTERi = biomass stocks on land type i immediately after the conversion, tonnes d.m. ha-1
10
ATO_OTHERSi = area of land use i converted to another land-use category in a certain year, ha yr-1
11
CF = carbon fraction of dry matter, tonnes C (tonnes d.m.)-1
12
= type of land use converted to another land-use category
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
The calculation of CCONVERSION may be applied separately to estimate carbon stocks occurring on specific types
of land (ecosystems, site types etc.) before the conversion. The ATO_OTHERSi refers to a particular inventory year
for which the calculations are made, but the land affected by conversion should remain in the conversion
category for 20 years or other period used in the inventory. Inventories using higher Tier methods can define a
disturbance matrix (Table 2.1) for land-use conversion to quantify the proportion of each carbon pool before
conversion that is transferred to other pools, emitted to the atmosphere (e.g. slash burning), or otherwise
removed during harvest or land clearing.
20
21
22
23
24
Owing to the use of country specific data and more disaggregated approaches, the Equations 2.15 and 2.16
provide for more accurate estimates than Tier 1 methods, where default data are used. Additional improvement
or accuracy would be achieved by using national data on areas of land-use transitions and country-specific
carbon stock values. Therefore, Tier 2 and 3 approaches should be inclusive of estimates that use detailed area
data and country specific carbon stock values.
25
2.3.2 Change in carbon stocks in dead organic matter
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Dead organic matter (DOM) comprises dead wood and litter (See Table 1.1). Estimating the carbon dynamics of
dead organic matter pools allows for increased accuracy in the reporting of where and when carbon emissions
and removals occur. For example, only some of the carbon contained in biomass killed during a biomass
burning is emitted into the atmosphere in the year of the fire. Most of the biomass is added to dead wood, litter
and soil pools (dead fine roots are included in the soil) from where the C will be emitted over years to decades,
as the dead organic matter decomposes. Decay rates differ greatly between regions, ranging from high in warm
and moist environments to low in cold and dry environments. Although the carbon dynamics of dead organic
matter pools are well understood qualitatively, countries may find it difficult to obtain actual data with national
coverage on dead organic matter stocks and their dynamics.
35
36
37
38
39
40
In forest ecosystems, DOM pools tend to be largest following stand-replacing disturbances due to the addition of
residual above-ground and below-ground (roots) biomass. In the years after the disturbance, DOM pools decline
as carbon loss through decay exceeds the rate of carbon addition through litterfall, mortality and biomass
turnover. Later in stand development, DOM pools increase again. Representing these dynamics requires separate
estimation of age-dependent inputs and outputs associated with stand dynamics and disturbance-related inputs
and losses. These more complex estimation procedures require higher Tier methods.
41
2.3.2.1 L AND
42
43
44
45
46
47
The Tier 1 assumption for both dead wood and litter pools for all land-use categories is that their stocks are not
changing over time if the land remains within the same land-use category. Thus, the carbon in biomass killed
during a disturbance or management event (less removal of harvested wood products) is assumed to be released
entirely to the atmosphere in the year of the event. This is equivalent to the assumption that the carbon in nonmerchantable and non-commercial components that are transferred to dead organic matter is equal to the amount
of carbon released from dead organic matter to the atmosphere through decomposition and oxidation. Countries
REMAINING IN A LAND - USE CATEGORY
2.21
1
2
can use higher tier methods to estimate the carbon dynamics of dead organic matter. This section describes
estimation methods if Tier 2 (or 3) methods are used.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Countries that use Tier 1 methods to estimate DOM pools in land remaining in the same land-use category,
report zero changes in carbon stocks or carbon emissions from those pools. Following this rule, CO2 emissions
resulting from the combustion of dead organic matter during fire are not reported, nor are the increases in dead
organic matter carbon stocks in the years following fire. However, emissions of non-CO2 gases from burning of
DOM pools are reported. Tier 2 methods for estimation of carbon stock changes in DOM pools calculate the
changes in dead wood and litter carbon pools (Equation 2.17). Two methods can be used: either track inputs and
outputs (the Gain-Loss Method, Equation 2.18) or estimate the difference in DOM pools at two points in time
(Stock-Difference Method, Equation 2.19). These estimates require either detailed inventories that include
repeated measurements of dead wood and litter pools, or models that simulate dead wood and litter dynamics. It
is good practice to ensure that such models are tested against field measurements and are documented. Figure
2.3 provides the decision tree for identification of the appropriate tier to estimate changes in carbon stocks in
dead organic matter.
15
Equation 2.17 summarizes the calculation to estimate the annual changes in carbon stock in DOM pools:
16
17
18
EQUATION 2.17
ANNUAL CHANGE IN CARBON STOCKS IN DEAD ORGANIC MATTER
19
C DOM = C DW + C LT
20
Where:
21
22
CDOM = annual change in carbon stocks in dead organic matter (includes dead wood and litter), tonnes C
yr-1
23
CDW = change in carbon stocks in dead wood, tonnes C yr-1
24
CLT = change in carbon stocks in litter, tonnes C yr-1
25
26
27
The changes in carbon stocks in the dead wood and litter pools for an area remaining in a land-use category
between inventories can be estimated using two methods, described in Equation 2.18 and Equation 2.19. The
same equation is used for dead wood and litter pools, but their values are calculated separately.
28
29
30
EQUATION 2.18
ANNUAL CHANGE IN CARBON STOCKS IN DEAD WOOD OR LITTER (GAIN-LOSS METHOD)
31
C DOM = A {( DOM in DOM out ) CF }
32
Where:
33
C DOM = annual change in carbon stocks in the dead wood/litter pool, tonnes C yr-1
34
35
36
DOMin = average annual transfer of biomass into the dead wood/litter pool due to annual processes and
disturbances, tonnes d.m. ha-1 yr-1 (see next Section for further details).
37
38
DOMout = average annual decay and disturbance carbon loss out of dead wood or litter pool, tonnes
d.m. ha-1 yr-1
39
2.22
= area of managed land, ha

1
2
carbon stocks in dead organic matter for a land-use category
3
4
START
5
6
7
Box 3: Tier 2
Are data on
managed area and DOM stocks at
two periods of time available to
estimate changes
in C stocks?
YES
Use the data for Tier 2

method (StockDifference Method) or
Tier 3 Method
NO
Box 2: Tier 2
Are data on
managed area and annual transfer
into and out of DOM stocks
available?
YES

method (Gain-Loss
Method) or Tier 3
Method
NO
Box 1: Tier 1
Are
changes in C stocks in
DOM a key category
(Note 1)?
NO
Assume that the dead

organic matter stock is
in equilibrium
YES
Collect data for Tier 2
method (Gain-Loss
Method or StockDifference Method; see
Note 2)
Note 1: See Volume 1 Chapter 4, "Methodological Choice and Identification of Key Categories" (noting
Section 4.1.2 on limited resources), for discussion of key categories and use of decision trees.
Note 2: The two methods are defined in Equation 2.18 and 2.19, respectively.
2.23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The net balance of DOM pools specified in Equation 2.18, requires the estimation of both the inputs and outputs
from annual processes (litterfall and decomposition) and the inputs and losses associated with disturbances. In
practice, therefore, Tier 2 and Tier 3 approaches require estimates of the transfer and decay rates as well as
activity data on harvesting and disturbances and their impacts on DOM pool dynamics. Note that the biomass
inputs into DOM pools used in Equation 2.18 are a subset of the biomass losses estimated in Equation 2.7. The
biomass losses in Equation 2.7 contain additional biomass that is removed from the site through harvest or lost to
the atmosphere, in the case of fire.
8
9
10
11
12
The method chosen depends on available data and will likely be coordinated with the method chosen for biomass
carbon stocks. Transfers into and out of a dead wood or litter pool for Equation 2.18 may be difficult to estimate.
The stock difference method described in Equation 2.19 can be used by countries with forest inventory data that
include DOM pool information, other survey data sampled according to the principles set out in Annex 3A.3
(Sampling) in Chapter 3, and/or models that simulate dead wood and litter dynamics.
13
14
15
16
EQUATION 2.19
ANNUAL CHANGE IN CARBON STOCKS IN DEAD WOOD OR LITTER (STOCK-DIFFERENCE
METHOD)
17
( DOM t2 DOM t1 )
C DOM = A
CF
T
18
Where:
19
CDOM = annual change in carbon stocks in dead wood or litter, tonnes C yr-1
20
A = area of managed land, ha
21
DOMt1 = dead wood/litter stock at time t1 for managed land, tonnes d.m. ha-1
22
23
T = (t2 t1) = time period between time of the second stock estimate and the first stock estimate, yr
24
CF = carbon fraction of dry matter (default = 0.37 for litter), tonnes C (tonne d.m.)-1
25
26
27
28
29
30
Note that whenever the stock change method is used (e.g. in Equation 2.19), the area used in the carbon stock
calculations at times t1 and t2 must be identical. If the area is not identical then changes in area will confound the
estimates of carbon stocks and stock changes. It is good practice to use the area at the end of the inventory
period (t2) to define the area of land remaining in the land-use category. The stock changes on all areas that
change land-use category between t1 and t2 are estimated in the new land-use category, as described in the
sections on land converted to a new land category.
31
INPUT OF BIOMASS TO DEAD ORGANIC MATTER
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Whenever a tree is felled, non-merchantable and non-commercial components (such as tops, branches, leaves,
roots, and noncommercial trees) are left on the ground and transferred to dead organic matter pools. In addition,
annual mortality can add substantial amounts of dead wood to that pool. For Tier 1 methods, the assumption is
that the carbon contained in all biomass components that are transferred to dead organic matter pools will be
released in the year of the transfer, whether from annual processes (litterfall and tree mortality), land
management activities, fuelwood gathering, or disturbances. For estimation procedures based on higher Tiers, it
is necessary to estimate the amount of biomass carbon that is transferred to dead organic matter. The quantity of
biomass transferred to DOM is estimated using Equation 2.20.
40
41
42
EQUATION 2.20
ANNUAL CARBON IN BIOMASS TRANSFERRED TO DEAD ORGANIC MATTER
43
DOM in = {Lmortality + Lslash + ( Ldisturbance f BLol )}
44
Where:
45
DOMin = total carbon in biomass transferred to dead organic matter, tonnes C yr-1
46
Lmortality = annual biomass carbon transfer to DOM due to mortality, tonnes C yr-1 (See Equation 2.21)
47
Lslash = annual biomass carbon transfer to DOM as slash, tonnes C yr-1 (See Equations 2.22)
2.24

Ldisturbances = annual biomass carbon loss resulting from disturbances, tonnes C yr-1 (See Equation 2.14)
2
3
4
5
6
fBLol = fraction of biomass left to decay on the ground (transferred to dead organic matter) from loss due
to disturbance. As shown in Table 2.1, the disturbance losses from the biomass pool are partitioned
into the fractions that are added to deadwood (cell B in Table 2.1) and to litter (cell C), are released
to the atmosphere in the case of fire (cell F) and, if salvage follows the disturbance, transferred to
HWP (cell E).
7
8
Note: that if root biomass increments are counted in Equation 2.10, then root biomass losses must also be
counted in Equations 2.20, and 2.22.
9
10
Examples of the terms on the right hand side of Equation 2.20 are obtained as follows:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Transfers to dead organic matter from mortality, L m o r t a l i t y
22
23
The equation for estimating mortality is provided in Equation 2.21
Mortality is caused by competition during stand development, age, diseases, and other processes that are not
included as disturbances. Mortality cannot be neglected when using higher Tier estimation methods. In
extensively managed stands without periodic partial cuts, mortality from competition during the stem exclusion
phase, may represent 30-50% of total productivity of a stand during its lifetime. In regularly tended stands,
additions to the dead organic matter pool from mortality may be negligible because partial cuts extract forest
biomass that would otherwise be lost to mortality and transferred to dead organic matter pools. Available data
for increment will normally report net annual increment, which is defined as net of losses from mortality. Since
in this text, net annual growth is used as a basis to estimate biomass gains, mortality must not be subtracted again
as a loss from biomass pools. Mortality must, however, be counted as an addition to the dead wood pool for Tier
2 and Tier 3 methods.
EQUATION 2.21
ANNUAL BIOMASS CARBON LOSS DUE TO MORTALITY
24
25
Lmortality = ( A GW CF m)
26
27
Where:
28
Lmortality =Annual biomass carbon loss due to mortality, tonnes C yr-1
29
30
Gw= above-ground biomass growth, tonnes dm ha-1 yr-1 (see Equation 2.10)
31
32
m = mortality rate expressed as a fraction of above-ground biomass growth, y-1
= area of forest land remaining forest land, ha
33
34
35
36
When data on mortality rates are expressed as proportion of growing stock volume, then the term Gw in
Equation 2.21 should be replaced with growing stock volume to estimate annual transfer to DOM pools from
mortality.
37
38
39
40
Mortality rates differ between stages of stand development and are highest during the stem exclusion phase of
stand development. They also differ with stocking level, forest type, management intensity and disturbance
history. Thus, providing default values for an entire climatic zone is not justified because the variation within a
zone will be much larger than the variation between zones.
41
42
43
44
Annual carbon transfer to slash, L s l a s h

This involves estimating the quantity of slash left after wood removal or fuelwood removal and transfer of
biomass from total annual carbon loss due to wood harvest (Equation 2.12). The estimate for logging slash is
given in Equation 2.22 and which is derived from Equation 2.12 as explained below:
45
46
2.25
1
2
EQUATION 2.22
ANNUAL CARBON TRANSFER TO SLASH
Lslash = H [{BCEFR (1 + R)} D] CF
Where:
Lslash = annual carbon transfer from above-ground biomass to slash, including dead roots, tonnes C yr-1
H = annual wood harvest (wood or fuelwood removal), m3 yr-1
7
8
9
10
BCEFR = Biomass conversion and expansion factors applicable to wood removals, which
transforms transform merchantable volume of wood removal into above-ground biomass removals.
If BCEFR values are not available and if BEFR and Density values are separately estimated then the
following conversion can be used.
11
BCEFR= BEFR * D,
12
D is the basic wood density tonnes dm m-3
13
14
15
BEFR is the biomass expansion factor. Biomass Expansion Factors (BEF)

expand the dry weight3 of the merchantable volume of wood removal to account
for non-merchantable components of the tree, stand and forest.
16
17
18

(tonne above-ground d.m. biomass)-1. R can be set to zero if root biomass increment is not included
in Equation 2.10 (Tier 1).
19
20
21
22
Fuelwood gathering that involves the removal of live tree parts does not generate any additional input of biomass
to dead organic matter pools and is not further addressed here.
23
24
25
26
Inventories using higher Tier methods can also estimate the amount of logging slash remaining after harvest by
defining the proportion of above-ground biomass that is left after harvest (enter these proportions in cells B and
C of Table 2.1 for harvest disturbance) and by using the approach defined in Equation 2.14. In this approach,
activity data for the area harvested would also be required.
27
2.3.2.2 L AND C ONVERSION
28
29
30
31
The reporting convention is that all carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions associated with
a land-use change be reported in the new land-use category. For example, in the case of conversion of forest land
to cropland, both the carbon stock changes associated with the clearing of the forest as well as any subsequent
carbon stock changes that result from the conversion are reported under the cropland category.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
The Tier 1 assumption is that DOM pools in non-forest land categories after the conversion are zero, i.e. they
contain no carbon. The Tier 1 assumption for land converted from forest to another land-use category is that all
DOM carbon losses occur in the year of land-use conversion. Conversely, conversion to forest land results in
buildup of litter and dead wood carbon pools starting from zero carbon in those pools. DOM carbon gains on
land converted to forest occur linearly, starting from zero, over a transition period (default assumption is 20
years). This default period may be appropriate for litter carbon stocks, but in temperate and boreal regions it is
probably too short for dead wood carbon stocks. Countries that use higher Tier methods can accommodate
TO A NEW LAND - USE CATEGORY
In some applications, biomass expansion factors expand dry-weight of merchantable components to total biomass, including
roots, or expand merchantable volume to above-ground or total biomass volume (Somogi et.al., 2005). As used in this
document, biomass expansion factors always transform dry-weight of merchantable volume including bark to aboveground biomass, excluding roots.
2.26

1
2
longer transition periods by subdividing the remaining category to accommodate strata that are in the later stages
of transition.
3
4
5
6
7
8
The estimation of carbon stock changes during transition periods following land-use conversion requires that
annual cohorts of the area subject to land-use change be tracked for the duration of the transition period. For
example, DOM stocks are assumed to increase for 20 years after conversion to forest land. After 20 years, the
area converted enters the category forest land remaining forest land, and no further DOM changes are assumed,
if a Tier 1 approach is applied. Under Tier 2 and 3, the period of conversion can be varied depending on
vegetation and other factors that determine the time required for litter and deadwood pools to reach steady state.
9
10
11
12
13
Higher Tier estimation methods can use non-zero estimates of litter and dead wood pools in the appropriate landuse categories or subcategories. For example, settlements and agro-forestry systems can contain some litter and
dead wood pools, but because management, site conditions and many other factors influence the pool sizes, no
global default values can be provided here. Higher Tier methods may also estimate the details of dead organic
matter inputs and outputs associated with the land-use change.
14
15
16
17
The conceptual approach to estimating changes in carbon stocks in dead wood and litter pools is to estimate the
difference in C stocks in the old and new land-use categories and to apply this change in the year of the
conversion (carbon losses), or to distribute it uniformly over the length of the transition period (carbon gains)
Equation 2.23:
18
19
20
EQUATION 2.23
ANNUAL CHANGE IN CARBON STOCKS IN DEAD WOOD AND LITTER DUE TO LAND CONVERSION
C DOM =
21
(C n C o ) Aon
Ton
22
Where:
23
24
Co = dead wood/litter stock, under the old land-use category, tonnes C ha-1
25
Cn = dead wood/litter stock, under the new land-use category, tonnes C ha-1
26
Aon = area undergoing conversion from old to new land-use category, ha
27
28
Ton = time period of the transition from old to new land-use category, yr. The Tier 1 default is 20 years for
carbon stock increases and 1 year for carbon losses.
29
30
31
32
Inventories using a Tier 1 method assume that all carbon contained in biomass killed during a land-use
conversion event (less harvested products that are removed) is emitted directly to the atmosphere and none is
added to dead wood and litter pools. Tier 1 methods also assume that dead wood and litter pool carbon losses
occur entirely in the year of the transition.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Countries using higher Tier methods can modify Co in Equation 2.23 by first accounting for the immediate
effects of the land-use conversion in the year of the event. In this case, they would add to Co the carbon from
biomass killed and transferred to the dead wood and litter pools and remove from Co any carbon released from
dead wood and litter pools, e.g. during slash burning. In that case Co in Equation 2.23 would represent the dead
wood or litter carbon stocks immediately after the land-use conversion. Co will transit to Cn over the transition
period, using linear or more complex dynamics. A disturbance matrix (Table 2.1) can be defined to account for
the pool transitions and releases during the land-use conversion, including the additions and removals to Co.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Countries using a Tier 1 approach can apply the Tier 1 default carbon stock estimates for litter (and if available)
dead wood pools provided in Table 2.2 but should recognize that these are broad-scale estimates with
considerable uncertainty when applied at the country level. Table 2.2 is incomplete because of the paucity of
published data. A review of the literature has identified several problems. The IPCC definitions of dead organic
matter carbon stocks include litter and dead wood. The litter pool contains all litter plus fine woody debris up to
a diameter limit of 10 cm (see Chapter 1, Table 1.1). Published litter data generally do not include the fine
woody debris component, so the litter values in Table 2.2 are incomplete.
47
48
49
50
51
There are numerous published studies of coarse woody debris (Harmon and Hua, 1991; Karjalainen and
Kuuluvainen, 2002) and a few review papers (e.g., Harmon et al., 1986), and but to date only two studies are
found to provide regional dead wood carbon pool estimates that are based on sample plot data. Krankina et al.
(2002) included several regions in Russia and reported coarse woody debris (> 10 cm diameter) estimates of 2 to
7 Mg C ha-1. Cooms et al. (2002) reported regional carbon pools based on a statistical sample design for a small
2.27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
region in New Zealand. Regional compilations for Canada (Shaw et al. 2005) provide estimates of litter carbon
pools based on a compilation of statistically non-representative sample plots, but do not include estimates of
dead wood pools. Review papers such as Harmon et al. (1986) compile a number of estimates from the literature.
For example, their Table 5 lists a range of coarse woody debris values for temperate deciduous forests of 11 38
Mg dry matter ha-1 and for temperate coniferous forests of 10 511 Mg dry matter ha-1. It is, however,
statistically invalid to calculate a mean from these compilations as they are not representative samples of the
dead wood pools in a region.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
While it is the intent of these IPCC Guidelines to provide default values for all variables used in Tier 1
methodologies, it is currently not feasible to provide estimates of regional defaults values for litter (including
fine woody debris < 10 cm diameter) and dead wood (> 10 cm diameter) carbon stocks. Litter pool estimates
(excluding fine woody debris) are provided in Table 2.2. Tier 1 methodology only requires the estimates in Table
2.2 for lands converted from forest to any other land category (carbon losses) and for lands converted to forests
(carbon gains). Tier 1 methods assume that litter and dead wood pools are zero in all non-forest categories and
therefore transitions between non-forest categories involve no carbon stock changes in these two pools.
15
TABLE 2.2
TIER 1 DEFAULT VALUES FOR LITTER AND DEAD WOOD CARBON STOCKS
(TONNES C HA-1)
Forest Type
Climate
Boreal, dry
Broadleaf
Deciduous
Needleleaf
Evergreen
Broadleaf
Deciduous
Litter carbon stocks

of mature forests
(tonnes C ha-1)
25
31
(10-58)
(6-86)
Needleleaf
Evergreen
Dead wood carbon stocks

of mature forests
(tonnes C ha-1)
n.a.b
n.a
Boreal, moist
39
(11-117)
55
(7-123)
n.a
n.a
Cold Temperate,
dry
28
(23-33)a
27
(17-42) a
n.a
n.a
Cold temperate,
moist
16
(5-31) a
26
(10-48) a
n.a
n.a
20.3
(17.3-21.1)a
n.a
n.a
28.2
Warm Temperate,
(23.4-33.0)a
dry
Warm temperate,
moist
13
(2-31) a
22
(6-42)a
n.a
n.a
Subtropical
2.8
(2-3)
4.1
n.a
n.a
Tropical
2.1
(1-3)
5.2
n.a
n.a
Source:
Litter: Note that these values do not include fine woody debris. Siltanen et al., 1997; and Smith and
Heath, 2001; Tremblay et al., 2002; and Vogt et al.,1996, converted from mass to carbon by
multiplying by conversion factor of 0.37 (Smith and Heath, 2001).
Dead Wood: No regional estimates of dead wood pools are currently available see text for further
comments
a
Values in parentheses marked by superscript a are the 5th and 95th percentiles from simulations of
inventory plots, while those without superscript a indicate the entire range.
n.a. denotes not available
16
17
2.3.3 Change in carbon stocks in soils
18
19
20
21
Although both organic and inorganic forms of C are found in soils, land use and management typically has a
larger impact on organic C stocks. Consequently, the methods provided in these guidelines focus mostly on soil
organic C. Overall, the influence of land use and management on soil organic C is dramatically different in a
mineral versus an organic soil type. Organic (e.g., peat and muck) soils have a minimum of 12 to 20 percent
2.28

1
2
3
4
5
organic matter by mass (see Chapter 3 Annex 3A.5, for the specific criteria on organic soil classification), and
develop under poorly drained conditions of wetlands (Brady and Weil, 1999). All other soils are classified as
mineral soil types, and typically have relatively low amounts of organic matter, occurring under moderate to well
drained conditions, and predominate in most ecosystems except wetlands. Discussion about land-use and
management influences on these contrasting soil types is provided in the next two sections.
MINERAL SOILS
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Mineral soils are a carbon pool that is influenced by land-use and management activities. Land use can have a
large effect on the size of this pool through activities such as conversion of native grassland and forest land to
cropland, where 20-40% of the original soil C stocks can be lost (Mann, 1986; Davidson and Ackerman, 1993;
Ogle et al., 2005). Within a land-use type, a variety of management practices can also have a significant impact
on soil organic C storage, particularly in cropland and grassland (e.g., Paustian et al., 1997; Conant et al., 2001;
Ogle et al., 2004 and 2005). In principle, soil organic C stocks can change with management or disturbance if
the net balance between C inputs and C losses from soil is altered. Management activities influence organic C
inputs through changes in plant production (such as fertilization or irrigation to enhance crop growth), direct
additions of C in organic amendments, and the amount of carbon left after biomass removal activities, such as
crop harvest, timber harvest, fire, or grazing. Decomposition largely controls C outputs and can be influenced by
changes in moisture and temperature regimes as well as the level of soil disturbance resulting from the
management activity. Other factors also influence decomposition, such as climate and edaphic characteristics.
Specific effects of different land-use conversions and management regimes are discussed in the land-use specific
chapters (Chapters 4-9).
21
22
23
24
25
Land-use change and management activity can also influence soil organic C storage by changing erosion rates
and subsequent loss of C from a site; some eroded C decomposes in transport and CO2 is returned to the
atmosphere, while the remainder is deposited in another location. The net effect of changing soil erosion
through land management is highly uncertain, however, because an unknown portion of eroded C is stored in
buried sediments of wetlands, lakes, river deltas and coastal zones (Smith et al., 2001).
26
ORGANIC SOILS
27
28
29
30
31
Inputs of organic matter can exceed decomposition losses under anaerobic conditions, which are common in
undrained organic soils, and considerable amounts of organic matter can accumulate over time. The carbon
dynamics of these soils are closely linked to the hydrological conditions, including available moisture, depth of
the water table, and reduction-oxidation conditions (Clymo, 1984; Thormann et al., 1999). Species composition
and litter chemistry can also influence those dynamics (Yavitt et al., 1997).
32
33
34
35
36
37
Carbon stored in organic soils will readily decompose when conditions become aerobic following soil drainage
(Armentano and Menges, 1986; Kasimir-Klemedtsson et al., 1997). Drainage is a practice used in agriculture
and forestry to improve site conditions for plant growth. Loss rates vary by climate, with drainage under warmer
conditions leading to faster decomposition rates. Losses of CO2 are also influenced by drainage depth; liming;
the fertility and consistency of the organic substrate; and temperature (Martikainen et al., 1995). Greenhouse gas
inventories capture this effect of management.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
While drainage of organic soils typically releases CO2 to the atmosphere (Armentano and Menges, 1986), there
can also be a decrease in emissions of CH4 that occur in un-drained organic soils (Nyknen et al., 1995).
However, CH4 emissions from un-drained organic soils are not addressed in the inventory guidelines with the
exception of a few cases in which the wetlands are managed (See Chapter 7 Wetlands). Similarly, national
inventories typically do not estimate the accumulation of C in the soil pool resulting from the accumulation of
plant detritus in un-drained organic soils. Overall, the rates of C gain are relatively slow in wetland environments
with organic soils (Gorham, 1991), and any attempt to estimate C gains, even those created through wetland
restoration, would also need to address the increase in CH4 emissions. See additional guidance in Chapter 7
Wetlands.
47
49
2.3.3.1 S OIL C E STIMATION M ETHODS (L AND R EMAINING IN A

L AND -U SE C ATEGORY AND L AND C ONVERSION TO A N EW
L AND -U SE )
50
51
52
53
54
Soil C inventories include estimates of soil organic C stock changes for mineral soils and CO2 emissions from
organic soils due to enhanced microbial decomposition caused by drainage and associated management activity.
In addition, inventories can address C stock changes for soil inorganic C pools (e.g., calcareous grasslands that
become acidified over time) if sufficient information is available to use a Tier 3 approach. The equation for
estimating the total change in soil C stocks is given in Equation 2.24:
48
2.29
1
2
3
EQUATION 2.24
ANNUAL CHANGE IN CARBON STOCKS IN SOILS
C Soils = C Mineral LOrganic + C Inorganic
Where:
CSoils
= annual change in carbon stocks in soils, tonnes C yr-1
CMineral
= annual change in organic carbon stocks in mineral soils, tonnes C yr-1
LOrganic
CInorganic = annual change in inorganic carbon stocks from soils, tonnes C yr-1 (assumed to be 0 unless
= annual loss of carbon from drained organic soils, tonnes C yr-1
10
using a Tier 3 approach)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
For Tier 1 and 2 methods, soil organic C stocks for mineral soils are computed to a default depth of 30 cm.
Greater depth can be selected and used at Tier 2 if data are available, but Tier 1 factors are based on 30 cm
depth. Residue/litter C stocks are not included because they are addressed by estimating dead organic matter
stocks. Stock changes in organic soils are based on emission factors that represent the annual loss of organic C
throughout the profile due to drainage. No Tier 1 or 2 methods are provided for estimating the change in soil
inorganic C stocks due to limited scientific data for derivation of stock change factors; thus the net flux for
inorganic C stocks is assumed to be zero. Tier 3 methods can be used to refined estimates of the C stock changes
in mineral and organic soils and for soil inorganic C pools.
19
20
21
22
23
It is possible that countries will use different tiers to prepare estimates for mineral soils, organic soils, and soil
inorganic C, given availability of resources. Thus, stock changes for mineral and organic soils and for inorganic
C pools (Tier 3 only) are discussed separately. A generalized decision tree in Figures 2.4 and 2.5 can be used to
assist inventory compilers in determining the appropriate tier for estimating stock changes for mineral and
organic soil C, respectively.
24
Tier 1 Approach: Default Method
25
26
27
28
Mineral Soils
For mineral soils, the default method is based on changes in soil C stocks over a finite period of time. The
change is computed based on C stock after the management change relative to the carbon stock in a reference
condition (i.e., native vegetation that is not degraded or improved). The following assumptions are made:
29
30
(i)
Over time, soil organic C reaches a spatially-averaged, stable value specific to the soil, climate,
land-use and management practices; and
31
32
(ii)
Soil organic C stock changes during the transition to a new equilibrium SOC occurs in a linear
fashion.
33
34
35
36
37
Assumption (i), that under a given set of climate and management conditions, soils tend towards an equilibrium
carbon content, is widely accepted. Although, soil carbon changes in response to management changes may
often be best described by a curvi-linear function, assumption (ii) greatly simplifies the Tier 1 methodology and
provides a good approximation over a multi-year inventory period, where changes in management and land-use
conversions are occurring throughout the inventory period.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Using the default method, changes in soil C stocks are computed over an inventory time period. Inventory time
periods will likely be established based on the years in which activity data are collected, such as 1990, 1995,
2000, 2005 and 2010, which would correspond to inventory time periods of 1990-1995, 1995-2000, 2000-2005,
2005-2010. For each inventory time period, the soil organic C stocks are estimated for the first (SOC0-T) and last
year (SOC0) based on multiplying the reference C stocks by stock change factors. Annual rates of carbon stock
change are estimated as the difference in stocks at two points in time divided by the time dependence of the
stock change factors.
45
2.30

1
2
EQUATION 2.25
ANNUAL CHANGE IN ORGANIC CARBON STOCKS IN MINERAL SOILS
C Mineral =
SOC =
{SOC
c , s ,i
REFc , s ,i
( SOC 0 SOC ( 0T ) )
D
FLU c , s ,i FMGc , s ,i FI c , s ,i Ac ,s ,i }
(Note: T is used in place of D in this equation if T is 20 years, see note below)
Where:
CMineral = annual change in carbon stocks in mineral soils, tonnes C yr-1
SOC0 = soil organic carbon stock in the last year of an inventory time period, tonnes C ha-1
SOC(0-T) = soil organic carbon stock at the beginning of the inventory time period, tonnes C ha-1
10
11
12
SOC0 and SOC(0-T) are calculated using the SOC equation in the box where the reference carbon stocks
and stock change factors are assigned according to the land-use and management activities and
corresponding areas at each of the points in time (time = 0 and time = 0-T)
13
T = number of years over a single inventory time period, yr
14
15
16
17
D = Time dependence of stock change factors which is the default time period for transition between
equilibrium SOC values, yr. Commonly 20 years, but depends on assumptions made in computing
the factors FLU, FMG and FI. If T exceeds D, use the value for T to obtain an annual rate of change
over the inventory time period (0-T years).
18
19
c = represents the climate zones, s the soil types, and i the set of management systems that are present in a
country.
20
SOCREF = the reference carbon stock, tonnes C ha-1 (Table 2.3)
21
FLU = stock change factor for land-use systems or sub-system for a particular land-use, dimensionless
22
23
[Note: FND is substituted for FLU in forest soil C calculation to estimate the influence of natural
disturbance regimes.
24
FMG = stock change factor for management regime, dimensionless
25
FI = stock change factor for input of organic matter, dimensionless
26
27
28
A = land area of the stratum being estimated, ha. All land in the stratum should have common biophysical
conditions (i.e., climate and soil type) and management history over the inventory time period to be
treated together for analytical purposes.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Inventory calculations are based on land areas that are stratified by climate regions (see Chapter 3 Annex 3A.5,
for default classification of climate), and default soils types as shown in Table 2.3 (see Chapter 3, Annex 3A.5,
for default classification of soils). The stock change factors are very broadly defined and include: 1) a land-use
factor (FLU) that reflects C stock changes associated with type of land use, 2) a management factor (FMG)
representing the principal management practice specific to the land-use sector (e.g., different tillage practices in
croplands), and 3) an input factor (FI) representing different levels of C input to soil. As mentioned above, FND is
substituted for FLU in forest land to account for the influence of natural disturbance regimes (see Chapter 4
Section 4.2.3 for more discussion). The stock change factors are provided in the soil C sections of the land-use
chapters. Each of these factors represents the change over a specified number of years (D), which can vary
across sectors, but is typically invariant within sectors (e.g., 20 years for the cropland systems). In some
inventories, the time period for inventory (T years) may exceed D, and under those cases, an annual rate of
change in C stock may be obtained by dividing the product of [(SOC0 SOC(0 T)) A] by T, instead of D. See
the soil C sections in the land-use chapters for detailed step-by-step guidance on the application of this method.
42
2.31
1
TABLE 2.3
DEFAULT REFERENCE (UNDER NATIVE VEGETATION) SOIL ORGANIC C STOCKS (SOCREF) FOR MINERAL SOILS
(TONNES C HA-1 IN 0-30 CM DEPTH)
Climate Region
Boreal
HAC soils1
LAC soils2
Sandy soils3
Spodic soils4
Volcanic
soils5
Wetland
soils6
68
NA
10#
117
20#
146
Cold temperate, dry
50
33
34
NA
20
Cold temperate, moist
95
85
71
115
130
Warm temperate, dry
38
24
19
NA
70#
Warm temperate, moist
88
63
34
NA
80
Tropical, dry
38
35
31
NA
50#
Tropical, moist
65
47
39
NA
70#
Tropical, wet
44
60
66
NA
130#
Tropical montane
88*
63*
34*
NA
80*
87
88
86
Note: Data are derived from soil databases described by Jobbagy and Jackson (2000) and Bernoux et al. (2002). Mean stocks are
shown. A nominal error estimate of 90% (expressed as 2x standard deviations as percent of the mean) are assumed for soil-climate
types. NA denotes not applicable because these soils do not normally occur in some climate zones.
# indicates where no data were available and default values from 1996 IPCC Guidelines were retained.
* Data were not available to directly estimate reference C stocks for these soil types in the tropical montane climate so the stocks were
based on estimates derived for the warm temperate, moist region, which has similar mean annual temperatures and precipitation.
1
Soils with high activity clay (HAC) minerals are lightly to moderately weathered soils, which are dominated by 2:1 silicate clay
minerals (in the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB) classification these include Leptosols, Vertisols, Kastanozems,
Chernozems, Phaeozems, Luvisols, Alisols, Albeluvisols, Solonetz, Calcisols, Gypsisols, Umbrisols, Cambisols, Regosols; in USDA
classification includes Mollisols, Vertisols, high-base status Alfisols, Aridisols, Inceptisols).
2
Soils with low activity clay (LAC) minerals are highly weathered soils, dominated by 1:1 clay minerals and amorphous iron and
aluminium oxides (in WRB classification includes Acrisols, Lixisols, Nitisols, Ferralsols, Durisols; in USDA classification includes
Ultisols, Oxisols, acidic Alfisols).
3
Includes all soils (regardless of taxonomic classification) having > 70% sand and < 8% clay, based on standard textural analyses (in
WRB classification includes Arenosols; in USDA classification includes Psamments).
4
Soils exhibiting strong podzolization (in WRB classification includes Podzols; in USDA classification Spodosols)
Soils derived from volcanic ash with allophanic mineralogy (in WRB classification Andosols; in USDA classification Andisols)
Soils with restricted drainage leading to periodic flooding and anaerobic conditions (in WRB classification Gleysols; in USDA
classification Aquic suborders).
2
3
2.32

1
2
carbon stocks in mineral soils by land-use category
3
START
Box 3: Tier 3
Do you
have the data and resources to
develop a Tier 3?

method (e.g. use of
models and/or
measurement-based
approach)
YES
NO
Box 2: Tier 2
Do you
have country-specific data on
soil C stock changes due to land use and
management for mineral soils or data to
generate country-specific
reference C
stocks?

method
YES
NO
Are changes
in C stocks in mineral
soils a key category
(Note 1)?
NO
Are
aggregate land use
and management data
available (e.g. FAO
statistics?
NO
Gather data on
land use and
management
YES
YES
Collect data for
Tier 3 or Tier 2
method

default emission/
removal factors for Tier
1 method
Box 1: Tier 1
5
6
7
8
9
2.33
1
2
carbon stocks in organic soils by land-use category
3
4
START
5
6
7
Box 3: Tier 3
Do you
have data on activities likely
to alter the hydrological regime,
surface temperature, and
vegetation composition of
organic soils?

method to conduct a full
carbon balance of
organic soils (model or
measurement-based)
YES
NO
Box 2: Tier 2
Do you
have data that can be
used to derive country-specific
emission factors for climate type
and or classification scheme
relevant to organic
soils?

method
YES
NO
Are
changes in C stocks
in organic soils a
key category
(Note 1)?
NO
Are aggregate
data available on
organic soils drained for
management
purposes?
NO
Gather data on
drained organic
soils
YES
YES
Collect data for
Tier 3 or Tier 2
method

default emission factors
for Tier 1 method
Box 1: Tier 1
2.34

1
2
3
4
When applying the Tier 1 or even Tier 2 method using Equation 2.25, the type of land-use and management
activity data has a direct influence on the formulation of the equation (See Box 2.1). Activity data collected with
Approach 1 fit with Formulation A, while activity data collected with Approach 2 or 3 will fit with Formulation
B (See Chapter 3 for additional discussion on the Approaches for activity data collection).
5
6
7
8
BOX 2.1
ALTERNATIVE FORMULATIONS OF EQUATION 2.25 FOR APPROACH 1 ACTIVITY DATA VERSUS APPROACH 2
OR 3 ACTIVITY DATA WITH TRANSITION MATRICES
9
10
Two alternative formulations are possible for Equation depending on the Approach used to
collected activity data, including
11
Formulation A (Approach 1 for Activity Data Collection)
{SOC REFc , s ,i FLU c , s ,i FMGc , s ,i FI c , s ,i Ac ,s ,i }

c ,s ,i
0
C Mineral
12
{SOC REFc , s ,i FLU c , s ,i FMGc , s ,i FI c , s ,i Ac ,s ,i }

c ,s ,i
( 0T )
=
D
13
Formulation B (Approaches 2 and 3 for Activity Data Collection)
14
15
C Mineral
16
{SOC REFc , s ,i FLU c , s ,i FMGc , s ,i FI c , s ,i }

0
c , s ,i
{SOC REFc , s ,i FLU c , s ,i FMGc , s ,i FI c , s ,i }

c
, s ,i
( 0T )
=
D
17
18
19
Where:
20
p = parcel of land
21
See the description of other terms under the Equation 2.25.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Activity data may only be available using Approach 1 for data collection (Chapter 3). These data
provide the total area at two points in time for climate, soil and land-use/management systems,
without quantification of the specific transitions in land use and management over the inventory
time period (i.e., only the aggregate or net change is known, not the gross changes in activity).
With Approach 1 activity data, mineral C stock changes are computed using formulation A of
Equation 2.25. In contrast, activity data may be collected based on surveys, remote sensing
imagery or other data providing not only the total areas for each land management system, but also
the specific transitions in land use and management over time on individual parcels of land. These
are considered Approach 2 and 3 activity data in Chapter 3, and soil C stock changes are computed
using formulation B of Equation 2.25. Formulation B contains a summation by land parcel that
allows the inventory compiler to compute the changes in C stocks on a land parcel by land parcel
basis.
34
35
36
37
Special consideration is needed if using Approach 1 activity data (see Chapter 3) as the basis for estimating landuse and management effects on soil C stocks, using Equation 2.25. Approach 1 data do not track individual land
2.35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
transitions, and so SOC stock changes are computed for inventory time periods equivalent to D years, or as close
as possible to D, which is 20 years in the Tier 1 method. For example, cropland may be converted from full
tillage to no-till management between 1990 and 1995, and Equation 1 would estimate a gain in soil C for that
inventory time period. However, assuming that the same parcel of land remains in no-till between 1995 and
2000, no additional gain in C would be computed (i.e., the stock for 1995 would be based on no-till management
and it would not differ from the stock in 2000 (SOC0), which is also based on no-till management). If using the
default approach, there would be an error in this estimation because the change in soil C stocks occurs over 20
years (i.e., D = 20 years). Therefore, SOC(0 T) is estimated for the most distant time that is used in the inventory
calculations up to D years before the last year in the inventory time periods (SOC0). For example, assuming D is
20 and the inventory is based on activity data from 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010, SOC(0 T) will be computed
for 1990 to estimate the change in soil organic C for each of the other years, (i.e., 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010).
The year for estimating SOC(0 T) in this example will not change until activity data are gathered at 2011 or later
(e.g., computing the C stock change for 2011 would be based on the most distant year up to, but not exceeding
D, which in this example would be 1995).
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
If transition matrices are available (i.e., Approach 2 or 3 activity data), the changes can be estimated between
each successive year. From the example above, some no-till land may be returned to full tillage management
between 1995 and 2000. In this case, the gain in C storage between 1990 and 1995 for the land base returned to
full tillage would need to be discounted between 1995 and 2000. Further, no additional change in the C stocks
would be necessary for land returned to full tillage after 2000 (assuming tillage management remained the same).
Only land remaining in no-till would continue to gain C up to 2010 (i.e., assuming D is 20 years). Hence,
inventories using transition matrices from Approach 2 and 3 activity data will need to be more careful in dealing
with the time periods over which gains or losses of SOC are computed. See Box 2.2 for additional details. The
application of the soil C estimation approach is much simpler if only using aggregated statistics with Approach 1
activity data. However, it is good practice for countries to use transition matrices from Approach 2 and 3
activity data if that information is available because the more detailed statistics will provide an improved
estimate of annual changes in soil organic C stocks.
27
28
29
30
There may be some cases in which activity data are collected over time spans longer than the time dependence of
the stock change factors (D), such as every 30 years with a D of 20. For those cases, the annual stock changes
can be estimated directly between each successive year of activity data collection (e.g., 1990, 2020 and 2050)
without over- or under-estimating the annual change rate, as long as T is substituted for D in Equation 2.25.
31
32
33
34
35
36
Organic Soils
The basic methodology for estimating C emissions from organic (e.g. peat-derived) soils is to assign an annual
emission factor that estimates the losses of C following drainage. Drainage stimulates oxidation of organic
matter previously built up under a largely anoxic environment. Specifically, the area of drained and managed
organic soils under each climate type is multiplied by the associated emission factor to derive an estimate of
annual CO2 emissions (source), as presented in Equation 2.26:
37
EQUATION 2.26
ANNUAL CARBON LOSS FROM DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS (CO2)
38
39
LOrganic = ( A EF ) c
40
41
Where:
42
LOrganic = annual carbon loss from drained organic soils, tonnes C yr-1
43
A = land area of drained organic soils in climate type c, ha

Note: A is the same area (Fos) used to estimate N2O emissions in Chapter 11, Equations 11.1 and 11.2
44
EF = emission factor for climate type c, tonnes C ha-1 yr-1
45
46
47
See the soil C sections in the land-use chapters for a detailed step-by-step guidance on the application of this
method.
48
2.36

BOX 2.2
COMPARISON BETWEEN USE OF APPROACH 1 AGGREGATE STATISTICS AND APPROACH 2 OR 3 ACTIVITY
DATA WITH TRANSITION MATRICES
Assume a country where a fraction of the land is subjected to land-use changes, as shown in the following table, where
each line represents one land unit with an area of 1 Mha (F=forest land; G=grassland; C=cropland):
Land Unit ID
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
For simplicity, it is assumed that the country has a single soil type, with a SOCRef (0-30 cm) value of 77 tonnes C ha-1,
corresponding to forest vegetation. Values for FLU are 1.00, 1.05 and 0.92 for F, G and C, respectively. FMG and FI are
assumed to be equal to 1. Time dependence of stock change factors (D) is 20 years. Finally, land-use is assumed to be in
equilibrium in 1990 (i.e., no changes in land-use occurred during the 20 years prior to 1990). When using Approach 1
activity data (i.e., aggregate statistical data), annual changes in carbon stocks are computed for every inventory year
following Equation 2.25 above. The following table shows the results of calculations
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
F (Mha)
G (Mha)
C (Mha)
458
436
442
442
462
462
462
458
458
458
458
458
436
442
-1.1
-0.8
-0.8
0.2
1.3
1.0
SOC0 (Mt C)
SOC(0-T) (Mt C)
-1
CMineral (Mt C yr )
If Approach 2 or 3 data are used in which land-use changes are explicitly known, carbon stocks can be computed taking
into account historical changes for every individual land unit. The total carbon stocks for the sum of all units is
compared with the most immediate previous inventory year, rather than with the inventory of 20 years before- to
estimate annual changes in carbon stocks:
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
SOC0 (Mt C) for unit 1
77.0
75.5
74.0
72.5
71.0
71.0
71.0
77.0
75.5
74.0
72.5
75.0
77.5
80.0
81.0
78.5
76.0
73.5
71.0
73.5
76.0
81.0
81.0
80.0
79.0
78.0
77.0
77.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
73.5
76.0
78.5
71.0
71.0
73.5
76.0
78.5
76.0
73.5
SOC0 (Mt C)
458
453
449
445
447
451
456
458
458
453
449
445
447
451
-1.1
-0.8
-0.8
0.5
0.8
1.0
SOC(0-T) (Mt C)
-1
CCCMineral (Mt C yr )
Both methods yield different estimates of carbon stocks, and use of Approach 2 or 3 data with transition matrices would
be more accurate than use of Approach 1 aggregate statistics. However, estimates of annual changes of carbon stocks
would generally not be very different, as shown in this example. The effect of underlying data approaches on the
estimates differ more when there are multiple changes in land-use on the same piece of land (as in land units 2, 3 and 6
in the example above). It is noteworthy that Approach 1, 2 and 3 activity data produce the same changes in C stocks if
the systems reach a new equilibrium, which occurs with no change in land-use and management for a 20 year time
period using the Tier 1 method. Consequently, no carbon stock increases or losses are inadvertently lost when applying
the methods for Approach 1, 2 or 3 activity data, but the temporal dynamics do vary somewhat as demonstrated above.
2.37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
The effects of land-use and management activities on soil inorganic C stocks and fluxes are linked to site
hydrology and depend on specific mineralogy of the soil. Further, accurate estimation of the effects requires
following the fate of discharged dissolved inorganic C and base cations from the managed land, at least until
they are fully captured in the oceanic inorganic C cycle. Thus, a comprehensive hydrogeochemical analysis that
tracks the fate of dissolved CO2, carbonate and bicarbonate species and base cations (e.g. Ca and Mg) applied to,
within, and discharged from, managed land over the long term is needed to accurately estimate net stock
changes. Such an analysis requires a Tier 3 approach.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
A Tier 2 approach is a natural extension of the Tier 1 method that allows an inventory to incorporate countryspecific data, while using the default equations given for mineral and organic soils. It is good practice for
countries to use a Tier 2 approach if possible, even if they are only able to better specify certain components of
the Tier 1 default approach. For example, a country may only have data to derive country-specific reference C
stocks, which would then be used with default stock change factors to estimate changes in soil organic C stocks
for mineral soils.
Soil Inorganic C
Tier 2 Approach: Incorporating Country-Specific Data
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Mineral Soils
24
25
26
27
28
29
1) Defining Management Systems. Although the same management systems may be used in a Tier 2 inventory
as found in the Tier 1 method, the default systems can be disaggregated into a finer categorization that better
represents management impacts on soil organic C stocks in a particular country based on empirical data (i.e.,
stock change factors vary significantly for the proposed management systems). Such an undertaking, however,
is only possible if there is sufficient detail in the underlying data to classify the land area into the finer, more
detailed set of management systems.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
2) Climate Regions and Soil Types. Countries that have detailed soil classifications and climatic data have the
option of developing country-specific classifications. Moreover, it is considered good practice to specify better
climate regions and soil types during the development of a Tier 2 inventory if the new classification improves
the specification of reference C stocks and/or stock change factors. In practice, reference C stocks and/or stock
change factors should differ significantly among the proposed climate regions and soil types based on an
empirical analysis. Note that specifying new climate regions and/or soil types requires the derivation of countryspecific reference C stocks and stock change factors. The default reference C stocks and stock change factors
are only appropriate for inventories using the default climate and soil types.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
3) Reference C stocks. Deriving country-specific reference C stocks (SOCRef) is another possibility for
improving an inventory using a Tier 2 approach (Bernoux et al., 2002). Using country-specific data for
estimating reference stocks will likely produce more accurate and representative values. The derivation of
country-specific reference soil C stocks can be done from measurements of soils, for example, as part of a
countrys soil survey. It is important that reliable taxonomic descriptions be used to group soils into categories.
There are three additional considerations in deriving the country-specific values, including possible specification
of country-specific soil categories and climate regions (i.e., instead of using the IPCC default classification),
choice of reference condition, and depth increment over which the stocks are estimated. Stocks are computed by
multiplying the proportion of organic carbon (i.e., %C divided by 100) by the depth increment (default is 30 cm),
bulk density, and the proportion of coarse-fragment free soil (i.e., < 2mm fragments) in the depth increment
(Ogle et al., 2003). The coarse fragment-free proportion is on a mass basis (i.e., mass of coarse fragment-free
soil/total mass of the soil).
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
The reference condition is the land-use/cover category that is used for evaluating the relative effect of land-use
change on the amount of soil C storage (e.g., relative difference in C storage between a reference condition, such
as native lands, and another land use, such as croplands, forming the basis for FLU in Equation 2.25). In the Tier
1 method, the reference condition is native lands (i.e., non-degraded, unimproved lands under native vegetation),
and it is likely that many countries will use this same reference in a Tier 2 approach. However, another land use
can be selected for the reference, and this would be considered good practice if it allows for a more robust
assessment of country-specific reference stock values. Reference stocks should be consistent across the land
uses (i.e., cropland, grassland, forest land, settlements, and other land), requiring coordination among the various
teams conducting soil C inventories for the AFOLU sector.
Country-specific data can be used to improve four components of the Tier 1 inventory approach for estimating
stock changes in mineral soils, including derivation of region or country-specific stock change factors and/or
reference C stocks, in addition to improving the specification of management systems, climate, or soil categories
(e.g., Ogle et al., 2003; Vanden Bygaart et al., 2004; Tate et al., 2005). Inventory compilers can choose to derive
specific values for all of these components, or any subset, which would be combined with default values
provided in the Tier 1 method to complete the inventory calculations using Equation 2.25. Also, Tier 2 uses the
same procedural steps for calculations as provided for Tier 1.
2.38

1
2
3
4
5
6
Another consideration in deriving country-specific reference C stocks is the possibility of estimating C storage to
a greater depth in the soil (i.e., lower in the profile). Default stocks given in Table 2.3 account for soil organic C
in the top 30 cm of a soil profile. It is good practice to derive reference C stocks to a greater depth if there is
sufficient data, and if it is clear that land-use change and management have a significant impact over the
proposed depth increment. Any change in the depth for reference C stocks will require derivation of new stock
change factors, given that the defaults are also based on impacts to a 30 cm depth.
7
8
9
10
11
4) Stock Change Factors. An important advancement for a Tier 2 approach is the estimation of country-specific
stock change factors (FLU, FMG and FI). The derivation of country-specific factors can be accomplished using
experimental/measurement data and computer model simulation. In practice, deriving stock change factors
involves estimating a response ratio for each study or observation (i.e., the C stocks in different input or
management classes are divided by the value for the nominal practice, respectively).
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Optimally, stock change factors are based on experimental/measurement data in the country or surrounding
region, by estimating the response ratios from each study and then analyzing those values using an appropriate
statistical technique (e.g., Ogle et al., 2003 and 2004; VandenBygaart et al., 2004). Studies may be found in
published literature, reports and other sources, or inventory compilers may choose to conduct new experiments.
Regardless of the data source, it is good practice that the plots being compared have similar histories and
management as well as similar topographic position, soil physical properties and be located in close proximity.
Studies should provide C stocks (i.e., mass per unit area to a specified depth) or the information needed to
estimate SOC stocks (i.e., percent organic matter together with bulk density; proportion of rock in soil, which is
often measured as the greater than 2mm fraction and by definition contains no soil organic C). If percent organic
matter is available instead of percent organic carbon, a conversion factor of 0.58 can be used to estimate the C
content. Moreover, it is good practice that the measurements of soil C stocks are taken on an equivalent mass
basis (e.g., Ellert et al. 2001, Gifford and Roderick 2003). In order to use this method, the inventory compiler
will need to determine a depth to measure the C stock for the nominal land use or practice, such as native lands
or conventional tillage. This depth will need to be consistent with the depth for the reference C stocks. The soil
C stock for the land-use or management change is then measured to a depth with the equivalent mass of soil.
27
28
29
30
31
32
Another option for deriving country-specific values is to simulate stock change factors from advanced models
(Bhatti et al., 2001). To demonstrate the use of advanced models, simulated stock change factors can be
compared to with measured changes in C stocks from experiments. It is good practice to provide the results of
model evaluation, citing published papers in the literature and/or placing the results in the inventory report. This
method is considered a Tier 2 approach because it relies on the stock change factor concept and the C estimation
method elaborated in the Tier 1 approach.
33
34
35
36
Derivation of country-specific management factors (FMG) and input factors (FI), either with empirical data or
advanced models, will need to be consistent with the management system classification. If more systems are
specified for the inventory, unique factors will need to be derived representing the finer categories for a
particular land use.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Another consideration in deriving country-specific stock change factors is their associated time dependence (D
in Equation 2.25), which determines the number of years over which the majority of a soil organic C stock
change occurs, following a management change. It is possible to use the default time dependence (D) for the
land-use sector (e.g., 20 years for cropland), but the dependence can be changed if sufficient data are available to
justify a different time period. In addition, the method is designed to use the same time dependence (D) for all
stock change factors as presented in Equation 2.25. If different periods are selected for FLU, FMG and FI, it will
be necessary to compute the influence of land use, management and inputs separately and divide the associated
stock change dependence. This can be accomplished by modifying Equation 2.25 so that SOC at time T and 0-T
is computed individually for each of the stock change factors (i.e., SOC is computed with FLU only, then
computed with FMG, and finally computed with FI). The differences are computed for the stocks associated with
land use, management, and input, dividing by their respective D values, and then the changes are summed.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Changes in C stocks normally occur in a non-linear fashion, and it is possible to further develop the time
dependence of stock change factors to reflect this pattern. For changes in land use or management that cause a
decrease in soil C content, the rate of change is highest during the first few years, and progressively declines
with time. In contrast, when soil C is increasing due to land-use or management change, the rate of accumulation
tends to follow a sigmoidal curve, with rates of change being slow at the beginning, then increasing and finally
decreasing with time. If historical changes in land-use or management practices are explicitly tracked by resurveying the same locations (i.e., Approach 2 or 3 activity data, see Chapter 3), it may be possible to implement
a Tier 2 method that incorporates the non-linearity of changes in soil C stock.
56
57
58
Similar to time dependence, the depth over which impacts are measured may vary from the default approach.
However, it is important that the reference C stocks (SOCRef) and stock change factors (FLU, FMG, FI) be
determined to a common depth, and that they are consistent across each land-use sector in order to deal with
2.39
1
2
conversions among uses without artificially inflating or deflating the soil C stock change estimates. It is good
practice to document the source of information and underlying basis for the new factors in the reporting process.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
A Tier 2 approach for CO2 emissions associated with drainage of organic soils incorporates country-specific
information into the inventory to estimate the emissions using Equation 2.26 (see the previous Tier 1 section for
additional discussion on the general equations and application of this method). Also, Tier 2 uses the same
procedural steps for calculations as provided for Tier 1. Potential improvements to the Tier 1 approach may
include: 1) a derivation of country-specific emission factors, 2) specification of climate regions considered more
suitable for the country, or 3) a finer, more detailed classification of management systems attributed to a land-use
category.
11
12
13
14
15
16
Derivation of country-specific emission factors is good practice if experimental data are available. Moreover, it
is good practice to use a finer classification for climate and management systems if there are significant
differences in measured C loss rates among the proposed classes. Note that any derivation must be accompanied
with sufficient land-use/management activity and environmental data to represent the proposed climate regions
and management systems at the national scale. Developing the Tier 2 inventory for organic soils has similar
considerations as mineral soils discussed in previous section.
17
18
19
20
21
Country-specific emission factors for organic soils can be based on measurements of annual declines in C stocks
for the whole soil profile. Another alternative is to use land subsidence as a surrogate measure for C loss
following drainage (e.g., Armentano and Menges, 1986). C loss is computed as a the fraction of the annual
subsidence attributed to oxidation of organic matter, C content of the mineralized organic matter, and bulk
density of the soil (Ogle et al., 2003).
22
23
Soil Inorganic C
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Tier 3: Advanced Estimation Systems
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mineral Soils
47
48
49
50
51
52
Tier 3 modelling approaches are capable of addressing the influence of land use and management with a
dynamic representation of environmental conditions that affect the processes controlling soil C stocks, such as
weather, edaphic characteristics, and other variables. The impact of land use and management on soil C stocks
can vary as environmental conditions change, and such changes are not captured in lower Tiers, which may
create biases in those results. Consequently, Tier 3 approaches are capable of providing a more accurate
estimation of C stock changes associated with land-use and management activity.
53
54
55
56
For Tier 3 approaches, a set of benchmark sites will be needed to evaluate model results. Ideally, a series of
permanent, benchmark monitoring sites would be established with statistically replicated design, capturing the
major climatic regions, soil types, and management systems as well as system changes, and would allow for
repeated measurements of soil organic C stocks over time (Smith, 2004a). Monitoring is based on re-sampling
Organic Soils
See discussion for this sub-category under Tier 1.

Tier 3 approaches for soil C involve the development of an advanced estimation system that will typically better
capture annual variability in fluxes, unlike Tier 1 and 2 approaches that mostly assume a constant annual change
in C stocks over an inventory time period based on a stock change factor. Essentially, Tier 1 and 2 represent
land-use and management impacts on soil C stocks as a linear shift from one equilibrium state to another. To
understand the implications better, it is important to note that soil C stocks typically do not exist in an absolute
equilibrium state or change in a linear manner through a transition period, given that many of the driving
variables affecting the stocks are dynamic, periodically changing at shorter time scales before a new near
equilibrium is reached. Tier 3 approaches can address this non-linearity using more advanced models than Tier
1 and 2 methods, and/or by developing a measurement-based inventory with a monitoring network. In addition,
Tier 3 inventories are capable of capturing longer-term legacy effects of land use and management. In contrast,
Tier 1 and 2 approaches typically only address the most recent influence of land use and management, such as
the last 20 years for mineral C stocks. See Section 2.5 (Generic Guidance for Tier 3 methods) for additional
discussion on Tier 3 methods beyond the text given below.
Model-based approaches can use mechanistic simulation models that capture the underlying processes driving
carbon gains and losses from soils in a quantitative framework, such as the influence of land use and
management on processes controlling carbon input resulting from plant production and litter fall as well as
microbial decomposition (e.g., McGill, 1996; Smith et al., 1997b; Smith et al., 2000; Falloon and Smith, 2002;
and Tate et al., 2005). Note that Tier 3 methods provide the only current opportunity to explicitly estimate the
impact of soil erosion on C fluxes. In addition, Tier 3 model-based approaches may represent C transfers
between biomass, dead biomass and soils, which are advantageous for ensuring conservation of mass in
predictions of C stock changes in these pools relative to CO2 removals and emissions to the atmosphere.
2.40

1
2
3
plots every 3 to 5 years or each decade; shorter sampling frequencies are not likely to produce significant
differences due to small annual changes in C stocks relative to the large total amount of C in a soil (IPCC, 2000;
Smith, 2004b).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
In addition to model-based approaches, Tier 3 methods afford the opportunity to develop a measurement-based
inventory using a similar monitoring network as needed for model evaluation. However, measurement networks,
which serve as the basis for a complete inventory, will have a considerably larger sampling density to minimize
uncertainty, and to represent all management systems and associated land-use changes, across all climatic
regions and major soil types (Sleutel et al., 2003; Lettens et al., 2004). Measurement networks can be based on
soil sampling at benchmark sites or flux tower networks. Flux towers, such as those using eddy covariance
systems (Baldocchi et al., 2001), constitute a unique case in that they measure the net exchange of CO2 between
the atmosphere and land surface. Thus, with respect to changes in C stocks for the soil pool, flux tower
measurement networks are subject to the following caveats: 1) towers need to occur at a sufficient density to
represent fluxes for the entire country; 2) flux estimates need to be attributed to individual land-use sectors and
specific land-use and management activities; and 3) CO2 fluxes need to be further attributed to individual pools
including stock changes in soils (also biomass and dead organic matter). Additional considerations about soil
measurements are given in the previous section on Tier 2 methods for mineral soils (See stock change factor
discussion).
18
19
It is important to note that measurement based inventories represent full C estimation approaches, addressing all
influences on soil C stocks. Partial estimation of only land-use and management effects may be difficult.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Organic Soils
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Soil Inorganic C
A Tier 3 approach may be further developed to estimate fluxes associated with management impacts on soil
inorganic C pools. For example, irrigation can have an impact on soil inorganic C stocks and fluxes, but the
direction and magnitude depends on the source and nature of irrigation water and the source, amount, and fate of
discharged dissolved inorganic C. In arid and semi-arid regions, gypsum (CaSO4 . 2H2O) amendments can lead
to an increase in soil inorganic C stocks depending on the amount of Ca2+ that replaces Na+ on soil colloids,
relative to reaction with bicarbonate and precipitation of calcite (CaCO3). Other land-use and management
activities, such as deforestation/afforestation and soil acidifying management practices can also affect soil
inorganic C stocks. However, these changes can cause gains or losses of C in this pool depending on sitespecific conditions and the amount attributable to the activity can be small.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Few models currently exist for estimating changes in soil inorganic C due to land use and management, and so a
Tier 3 approach may require considerable time and resources to implement. Where data and knowledge are
sufficient and activities that significantly change soil inorganic C stocks are prevalent, it is good practice for
countries to do a comprehensive hydro-geochemical analysis that includes all important land-use and
management activities to estimate their effect on soil inorganic C stocks. A modelling approach would need to
isolate the land-use and management activities from non-anthropogenic effects. Alternatively, a measurementbased approach can be used by periodically sampling benchmark sites in managed lands for determining
inorganic C stocks in situ, or possibly CO2 fluxes, in combination with a monitoring network for soil organic C
as discussed above for mineral soils. However, the amount and fate of dissolved inorganic C would require
further measurements, modelling, or simplifying assumptions, such as all leaching losses of inorganic C are
assumed to be emitted as CO2 to the atmosphere.
48
2.4 NON-CO 2 EMISSIONS
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
There are significant emissions of non-greenhouse gases from biomass burning, livestock and manure
management, or soils. N2O emissions from soils are covered in Chapter 11, where guidance is given on methods
that can applied nationally (i.e., irrespective of land-use types) if a country chooses to use national scale activity
data. The guidance on CH4 and N2O emissions from livestock and manure are addressed only in Chapter 10
because emissions do not depend on land characteristics. A generic approach to estimating greenhouse gas
emissions from fire (both CO2 and non-CO2 gases) is described below, with land-use specific enhancements
given in the Forest land, Grassland and Cropland chapters.
Similar to mineral soils, CO2 emissions attributed to land use and management of organic soils can be estimated
with a model or measurement based approach. Dynamic, mechanistic-based models will typically be used to
simulate underlying processes, while capturing the influence of land use and management, particularly the effect
of variable levels of drainage on decomposition. The same considerations that were mentioned for mineral soils
are also important for model- and measurement-based approaches addressing soil C stock changes attributed to
management of organic soils.
2.41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Emissions from fire include not only CO2, but also other greenhouse gases, or precursors of greenhouse gases,
that originate from incomplete combustion of the fuel. These include carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH4),
non-methane volatile organic carbon (NMVOC) and nitrogen (e.g. N2O, NOx) species (Levine, 1994). In the
1996 Guidelines and GPG2000, non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from fire in savannas and burning of crop
residues were addressed along with emissions from forest land and grassland conversion. The methodology
differed somewhat by vegetation type, and fires in forest land were not included. In the GPG-LULUCF,
emissions (CO2 and non-CO2) from fires were addressed, particularly in the chapter covering forest land (losses
of carbon resulting from disturbances). In the Cropland and Grassland chapters, only non-CO2 emissions were
considered, with the assumption that the CO2 emissions would be counterbalanced by CO2 removals from the
subsequent re-growth of the vegetation within one year. This assumption implies maintenance of soil fertility
an assumption which countries may ignore if they have evidence of fertility decline due to fire. In Forest land,
there is generally a lack of synchrony (non-equivalence of CO2 emissions and removals in the year of reporting).
13
14
15
16
17
18
These Guidelines provide a more generic approach for estimating emissions from fire. Fire is treated as a
disturbance that affects not only the biomass (in particular, above-ground), but also the dead organic matter
(litter and dead wood). The term `biomass burning` is widely used and is retained in these Guidelines, but
acknowledging that fuel components other than live biomass are often very significant, especially in forest
systems. For cropland and grassland having little woody vegetation, reference is usually made to biomass
burning, since biomass is the main pool affected by the fire.
19
20
Countries should apply the following principles when estimating greenhouse gas emissions resulting from fires
in Forest land, Cropland and Grassland:
21
22
23
24
25
26
Coverage of reporting: Emissions (CO2 and non-CO2) need to be reported for all fires (prescribed fires
and wildfires) on managed lands (the exception is CO2 from Grassland, as discussed below). Where
there is a land-use change, any greenhouse gas emission from fire should be reported under the new
land-use category (transitional category). Emissions from wildfires (and escaped prescribed fires) that
occur on unmanaged lands do not need to be reported, unless those lands are followed by a land-use
change (i.e., become managed land).
27
28
29
Fire as a management tool (prescribed burning): greenhouse gas emissions from the area burnt are
reported, and if the fire affects unmanaged land, greenhouse gas emissions should also be reported if the
fire is followed by a land-use change.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Equivalence (synchrony) of CO2 emissions and removals: CO2 net emissions should be reported where
the CO2 emissions and removals for the biomass pool are not equivalent in the inventory year. For
grassland biomass burning and burning of agriculture residues, the assumption of equivalence is
generally reasonable. However, woody vegetation may also burn in these land categories, and
greenhouse gas emissions from those sources should be reported using a higher Tier method. Further, in
many parts of the world, grazing is the predominant land use in forest land that are regularly burnt (e.g.,
grazed woodlands and savannas), and care must be taken before assuming synchrony in such systems.
For Forest land, synchrony is unlikely if significant woody biomass is killed (i.e. losses represent
several years of growth and C accumulation), and the net emissions should be reported. Examples
include: clearing of native forest and conversion to agriculture and/or plantations and wildfires in forest
land.
41
42
43
44
Fuels available for combustion: Factors that reduce the amount of fuels available for combustion (e.g.,
from grazing, decay, removal of biofuels, livestock feed, etc.) should be accounted for. A mass balance
approach should be adopted to account for residues, to avoid underestimation or double counting (refer
to Section 2.3.2).
45
46
47
Annual reporting: despite the large inherent spatial and temporal variability of fire (in particular that
from wildfires), countries should estimate and report greenhouse gas emissions from fire on an annual
basis.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
These Guidelines provide a comprehensive approach for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2
emissions resulting from fire in the Forest land (including those resulting from forest conversion), and non-CO2
emissions in the Cropland and Grassland. Non-CO2 emissions are addressed for the following five types of
burning: (1) grassland burning (which includes perennial woody shrubland and savanna burning); (2) agricultural
residues burning; (3) burning of litter, understory and harvest residues in forest land, (4) burning following forest
clearing and conversion to agriculture; and (5) other types of burning (including those resulting from wildfires).
Direct emissions of CO2 are also addressed for items (3) and (4) and (5). Since estimating emissions in these
different categories have many elements in common, this section provides a generic approach to estimate CO2
and non-CO2 emissions from fire, to avoid repetition in specific land-use sections that address emissions from
fire in these Guidelines.
2.42

1
2
3
4
5
Prescribed burning of savannas is included under the grassland biomass burning section (Chapter 6 Grassland,
Section 6.3.4). It is important to avoid double counting when estimating greenhouse gas emissions from
savannas that have a vegetation physiognomy characteristic of forest land. An example of this is the cerrado
(dense woodland) formation in Brazil which, although being a type of savanna, is included under forest land, due
to its biophysical characteristics.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
In addition to the greenhouse gas emissions from combustion, fires may lead to the creation of an inert carbon
stock (charcoal or char). Post-fire residues comprise unburned and partially burned components, as well as a
small amount of char that due to its chemical nature is highly resistant to decomposition. The knowledge of the
rates of char formation under contrasting burning conditions and subsequent turnover rates is currently too
limited (Forbes et al., 2006; Preston and Schmidt, 2006) to allow development of a reliable methodology for
inventory purposes, and hence is not included in these Guidelines. A technical basis for further methodological
development is included in Appendix 1.
13
14
15
Additionally, although emissions of NMVOC also occur as a result of fire, they are not addressed in the present
Guidelines due to the paucity of the data and size of uncertainties in many of the key parameters needed for the
estimation, which prevent the development of reliable emission estimates.
16
METHOD DESCRIPTION
17
18
19
20
21
22
Each relevant section in these Guidelines includes a three-tiered approach to address CO2 (where applicable) and
non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from fire. The choice of Tier can be made following the steps in the decision
tree presented in Figure 2.6. Under the Tier 1 approach, the formulation presented in Equation 2.27 can be
applied to estimate CO2 and non-CO2 emissions from fire, using the default data provided in this chapter and in
the relevant land-use sections of these Guidelines. Higher Tiers involve a more refined application of Equation
2.27.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Since Tier 1 methodology adopts a simplified approach to estimating the dead organic matter pool (see Section
2.3.2), certain assumptions must be made when estimating net greenhouse gas emissions from fire in those
systems (e.g. forest land, and forest land converted to another land use), where dead organic matter can be a
major component of the fuel burnt. Emissions of CO2 from dead organic matter are assumed to be zero in forests
that are burnt, but not killed by fire. If the fire is of sufficient intensity to kill a portion of the forest stand, under
Tier 1 methodology, the C contained in the killed biomass is assumed to be immediately released to the
atmosphere. This Tier 1 simplification may result in an overestimation of actual emissions in the year of the fire,
if the amount of biomass carbon killed by the fire is greater than the amount of dead wood and litter carbon
consumed by the fire.
32
33
34
35
36
37
Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions are estimated for all fire situations. Under Tier 1, non-CO2 emissions are
best estimated using the actual fuel consumption provided in Table 2.4, and appropriate emission factors (Table
2.5) (i.e., not including newly killed biomass as a component of the fuel consumed). Clearly, if fire in forests
contributes significantly to net greenhouse gas emissions, countries are encouraged to develop a more complete
methodology (higher tiers) which includes the dynamics of dead organic matter and improves the estimates of
direct and post-fire emissions.
38
39
40
41
42
43
For Forest land converted to another land uses, organic matter burned is derived from both newly felled
vegetation and existing dead organic matter, and CO2 emissions should be reported. In this situation, estimates
of total fuel consumed (Table 2.4) can be used to estimate emissions of CO2 and non- greenhouse gases using
Equation 2.27. Care must be taken, however, to ensure that dead organic matter carbon losses during the landuse conversion are not double counted in Equations 2.27 (as losses from burning) and Equation 2.23 (as losses
from decay).
44
45
A generic methodology to estimate the emissions of individual greenhouse gases for any type of fire is
summarized in Equation 2.27.
46
47
48
EQUATION 2.27
ESTIMATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM FIRE
49
L fire = A M B C f Gef 10 6
50
Where:
51
Lfire = amount of greenhouse gas emissions from fire, tonnes of each GHG e.g., CH4, N2O, etc.
52
A = area burned, ha)
2.43
1
2
3
MB = mass of fuel available for combustion, tonnes ha-1. This includes biomass, ground litter and dead
wood. When Tier 1 methods are used then litter and dead wood pools are assumed zero, except
where there is a land-use change (see Section 2.3.2.2).
Cf = combustion factor, dimensionless (default values in Table 2.6)
Gef = emission factor, g kg-1 dry matter burnt (default values in Table 2.5)
6
7
Note: Where data for MB and Cf are not available, a default value for the amount of fuel actually burnt
(the product of MB and Cf ) can be used (Table 2.4) under Tier 1 methodology.
8
9
For CO2 emissions, Equation 2.27 relates to Equation 2.14, which estimates the annual amount of live biomass
loss from any type of disturbance.
10
11
12
13
14
15
The amount of fuel that can be burned is given by the area burned and the density of fuel present on that area.
The fuel density can include biomass, dead wood and litter, which vary as a function of the type, age and
condition of the vegetation. The type of fire also affects the amount of fuel available for combustion. For
example, fuel available for low-intensity ground fires in forests will be largely restricted to litter and dead
organic matter on the surface, while a higher-intensity crown fire can also consume substantial amounts of tree
biomass.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The combustion factor is a measure of the proportion of the fuel that is actually combusted, which varies as a
function of the size and architecture of the fuel load (i.e. a smaller proportion of large, coarse fuel such as tree
stems will be burned compared to fine fuels, such as grass leaves), the moisture content of the fuel and the type
of fire (i.e. intensity and rate of spread which is markedly affected by climatic variability and regional
differences as reflected in Table 2.6). Finally, the emission factor gives the amount of a particular greenhouse
gas emitted per unit of dry matter combusted, which can vary as a function of the carbon content of the biomass
and the completeness of combustion. For species with high N concentrations, NOx and N2O emissions from fire
can vary as a function of the N content of the fuel. A comprehensive review of emission factors was conducted
by Andreae and Merlet (2001) and is summarized in Table 2.5.
25
26
27
28
Tier 2 methods employ the same general approach as Tier 1 but make use of more refined country-derived
emission factors and/or more refined estimates of fuel densities and combustion factors than those provided in
the default tables. Tier 3 methods are more comprehensive and include considerations of the dynamics of fuels
(biomass and dead organic matter).
29
2.44

1
2
Figure 2.6 Generic decision tree for identification of appropriate tier to estimate greenhouse
gas emissions from fire in a land-use category
3
4
START
5
6
Box 3: Tier 3
Are
detailed data on
biomass burning available to
estimate GHG emissions
using advanced models
or methods?
Use the detailed

biomass burning data
for Tier 3 method
Box 2: Tier 2
Are
country-specific activity
data emission factors
available?
Is
prescribed or
wildfire a key
category
(Note 1)?
Collect data for the

Tier 3 or Tier 2
method
activity data and
emission factors for the
Tier 2 method
Are
aggregate data on
biomass burning
available?
Gather data on
burning

for Tier 1 method
Box 1: Tier 1
2.45
1
2
TABLE 2.4
FUEL (DEAD ORGANIC MATTER PLUS LIVE BIOMASS)BIOMASS CONSUMPTION VALUES (TONNES
-1
MATTER HA ) FOR FIRES IN A RANGE OF VEGETATION TYPES
DRY
( To be used in Equation 2.27 , to estimate the product of quantities MB Cf , i.e., an

absolute amount)
Vegetation Type
Primary Tropical
Forest (slash and
burn)
Sub-category
Mean
SE
References
Primary tropical forest
83.9
25.8
7, 15, 66, 3, 16, 17, 45
Primary open tropical forest
163.6
52.1
21,
Primary tropical moist forest
160.4
11.8
37, 73
Primary tropical dry forest
119.6
50.7
8.1
41.1
27.4
61, 35
46.4
8.0
61, 73
42.2
23.6
66, 30
54.1
66, 30
Wildfire (general)
52.8
48.4
2, 33, 66
Crown fire
25.1
7.9
11, 43, 66, 41, 63, 64
Surface fire
21.6
25.1
43, 69, 66, 63, 64, 1
All primary tropical forests
Secondary tropical
forest (slash and
burn)
Young secondary
forest (3-5 yrs)
tropical
Intermediate
secondary
tropical forest (6-10 yrs)
Advanced secondary tropical

forest (14-17 yrs)
All secondary tropical forests
All Tertiary tropical forest
Boreal Forest
Post logging slash burn
69.6
44.8
49, 40, 66, 18
87.5
35.0
10, 67
41.0
36.5
43, 45, 69, 47
53.0
53.6
66, 32, 9
Wildfire
All Eucalypt Forests
2.46
61
Land clearing fire

All Boreal Forest
Eucalypt forests
66
Prescribed fire (surface)
16.0
13.7
66, 72, 54, 60, 9
168.4
168.8
25, 58, 46
Felled, wood removed, and

burned (land-clearing fire)
132.6
69.4
100.8
62, 9

1
2
3
4

FUEL (DEAD ORGANIC MATTER PLUS LIVE BIOMASS)BIOMASS CONSUMPTION VALUES (TONNES
-1
DRY MATTER HA ) FOR FIRES IN A RANGE OF VEGETATION TYPES
( To be used in Equation 2.27 , to estimate the product of quantities MB Cf , i.e., an

absolute amount)
Vegetation Type
Other temperate
forests
Mean
SE
References
Wildfire
Sub-category
19.8
6.3
32, 66
77.5
65.0
55, 19, 14, 27, 66
Felled and burned (landclearing fire)
48.4
62.7
53, 24, 71
50.4
53.7
43, 56
All other temperate forests
Shrublands
Shrubland (general)
26.7
4.2
Calluna heath
11.5
4.3
26, 39
Sagebrush
5.7
3.8
66
70, 66
Fynbos
12.9
0.1
14.3
9.0
Savanna woodland
2.5
Savanna parkland
2.7
2.6
0.1
All Shrublands
Savanna Woodlands
(early dry season
burns)*
All savanna woodlands (early dry season burns)

Savanna Woodlands
(mid/late dry season
burns)*
3.3
4.0
1.1
57, 6, 51
Tropical savanna
Tropical/sub-tropical
grassland
Grassland
grassland
Agricultural residues
(Post harvest field
burning)
57
1.8
52, 73
5.3
1.7
59, 57, 31
4.6
1.5
2.1
2.1
5.2
1.7
28
48
9, 73, 12, 57
Grassland
4.1
3.1
43, 9
Tropical pasture~
23.7
11.8
4, 23, 38, 66
Savanna
7.0
2.7
42, 50, 6, 45, 13, 65
10.0
10.1
41
1.4
Tundra
10
Wheat residues
4.0
see Note b
Maize residues
10.0
see Note b
Rice residues
5.5
see Note b
Sugarcane a
6.5
see Note b
All savanna grasslands (mid/late dry season

burns)*
Other Vegetation
Types
57
Savanna parkland
All savanna grasslands (early dry season burns)*
Savanna Grasslands /
Pastures (mid/late
dry season burns)*
28
Savanna woodland
Other savanna woodlands

All savanna woodlands (mid/late dry season burns)*
Pastures (early dry
season burns)*
43
Peatland
68, 33
33
* Surface layer combustion only

~
derived from slashed tropical forest (includes unburned woody material)
For sugarcane, data refer to burning before harvest of the crop.
Expert assessment by authors.
2.47
1
TABLE 2.5
EMISSION FACTORS (g kg-1 DRY MATTER BURNED) FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF BURNING. VALUES ARE MEANS SD AND ARE
BASED ON THE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW BY ANDREAE AND MERLET (2001)
(To be used as quantity Gef in Equation 2.27)
CO2
CO
CH4
N2O
NOX
Savanna and
grassland
1613
95
65
20
2.3
0.9
0.21
0.10
3.9
2.4
Agricultural
residues
1515
177
92
84
2.7
0.07
2.5
1.0
Tropical
forest
1580
90
104
20
6.8
2.0
0.20
1.6
0.7
Extra tropical
forest
1569
131
107
37
4.7
1.9
0.26
0.07
3.0
1.4
Biofuel
burning
1550
95
78
31
6.1
2.2
0.06
1.1
0.6
Note: The extra tropical forest category includes all other forest types.
Note: For combustion of non-woody biomass in Grassland and Cropland, CO2 emissions do not need to be estimated and reported, because it
is assumed that annual CO2 removals (through growth) and emissions (whether by decay or fire) by biomass are in balance (see earlier
discussion on synchrony in Section 2.4.
2
3
4
5
2.48

1
2
3
TABLE 2.6
COMBUSTION FACTOR VALUES (PROPORTION OF PREFIRE FUEL BIOMASS CONSUMED) FOR
FIRES IN A RANGE OF VEGETATION TYPES
(Values in column mean are to be used for quantity Cf in Equation 2.27 )

Vegetation Type
Primary Tropical
Forest (slash and
burn)
Sub-category
SD
References
Primary tropical forest
0.32
0.12
7, 8, 15, 56, 66, 3,

16, 53, 17, 45,
Primary open tropical forest
0.45
0.09
21
Primary tropical moist forest
0.50
0.03
37, 73
Primary tropical dry forest
66
0.36
0.13
Young secondary tropical

forest (3-5 yrs)
0.46
61
Intermediate secondary
tropical forest (6-10 yrs)
0.67
0.21
61, 35
Advanced secondary tropical

forest (14-17 yrs)
0.50
0.10
61, 73
All primary tropical forests
Secondary tropical
forest (slash and
burn)
Mean
All secondary tropical forests
0.55
0.06
56, 66, 34, 30
All Tertiary tropical forest
0.59
66, 30
Wildfire (general)
0.40
0.06
33
Crown fire
0.43
0..21
66, 41, 64, 63
surface fire
0.15
0.08
64, 63
0.33
0.13
49, 40, 18
Land clearing fire
0.59
67
45, 47
Boreal Forest
All Boreal Forest
Eucalyptus forests
0.34
0.17
Wildfire
Prescribed fire (surface)
0.61
0.11
72, 54, 60, 9
0.68
0.14
25, 58, 46
0.49
62
All Eucalyptus Forests

Other temperate
forests
0.63
0.13
0.62
0.12
55, 19, 27, 14
0.51
53, 24, 71
0.45
0.16
53, 56
0.95
44
All other temperate forests

Shrubland (general)
Shrublands
Calluna heath
0.71
0.30
26, 56, 39
Fynbos
0.61
0.16
70, 44
0.72
0.25
Savanna woodland
0.22
28
Savanna parkland
0.73
57
22, 29
All Shrublands
Savanna Woodlands
(early dry season
burns)*
0.37
0.19
All savanna woodlands (early dry season burns)
0.40
0.22
Savanna woodland
0.72
66, 57
Savanna parkland
0.82
0.07
57, 6, 51
Savanna Woodlands
(mid/late dry season
burns)*
Tropical savanna
0.73
0.04
52, 73, 66, 12
0.68
0.19
22, 29, 44, 31, 57
All savanna woodlands (mid/late dry season burns)* 0.74
0.14
2.49
1
2

COMBUSTION FACTOR VALUES (PROPORTION OF PREFIRE FUEL BIOMASS CONSUMED)
(Values in column mean are to be used for quantity Cf in Equation 2.27 )
FOR FIRES IN A RANGE OF VEGETATION TYPES
Vegetation Type
Sub-category
Mean
SD
References
grassland$
0.74
28
Pastures (early dry
season burns)*
Grassland
48
All savanna grasslands (early dry season burns)*
8
Pastures (mid/late
dry season burns)*
9
10
0.74
grassland
0.92
0.11
Tropical pasture~
0.35
0.21
4, 23, 38, 66
0.86
0.12
53, 5, 56, 42, 50,

6, 45, 13, 44, 65,
66
0.77
0.26
Peatland
0.50
20, 44
Tropical Wetlands
0.70
44
Savanna
11
12
All savanna grasslands (mid/late dry season

burns)*
13
Other Vegetation
Types
14
Agricultural residues
(Post harvest field
burning)
15
16
17
44, 73, 66, 12, 57
Wheat residues
0.90
see Note b
Maize residues
0.80
see Note b
Rice residues
0.80
see Note b
Sugarcane a
0.80
see Note b
* Surface layer combustion only

~
18
19
derived from slashed tropical forest (includes unburned woody material)
For sugarcane, data refer to burning before harvest of the crop.
Expert assessment by authors.
20
21
2.50

1
2
2.5 ADDITIONAL GENERIC GUIDANCE FOR TIER 3

METHODS
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
The guidelines in this volume focus mainly on Tier 1 methods, along with general guidance to assist with the
development of a Tier 2 inventory. Less attention is given to Tier 3 methods, but some general guidance is
provided in this section. Tier 3 inventories are advanced systems using measurements and/or modelling, with
the goal of improving the estimation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals, beyond what is possible
with Tier 1 or 2 approaches. In this section, guidelines are elaborated that provide a sound scientific basis for the
development of Tier 3 Inventories. These guidelines do not limit the selection of Tier 3 sampling schemes or
modelling approaches, but provide general guidance to assist the inventory developer in the implementation.
Specific issues surrounding Tier 3 approaches for individual source categories may be provided later in the
volume, and supplement the general guidance found in this section.
12
2.5.1 Measurement-Based Tier 3 Inventories
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Inventories can be based on direct measurements of C stock changes from which emissions and removals of
carbon are estimated. Measurement of some non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions is possible, but because of the
high spatial and temporal variability of non-CO2 emissions, Tier 3 methods will likely combine process models
with measurements to estimate non-CO2 emissions. Purely measurement-based inventories, e.g., based on
repeated measurements using a national forest inventory can derive carbon stock change estimates without
relying on process models, but they do require appropriate statistical models for the spatial and temporal scaling
of plot measurements to a national inventory. Approaches based on dynamic models (e.g., process-based
models) to estimate national emissions will be discussed in Section 2.5.2. In general, six steps are involved with
implementation of a Tier 3 measurement-based inventory.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Step 1. Develop Sampling Scheme. Sampling schemes can be developed using a variety of approaches, but
typically involve some level of randomization of sampling sites within strata. (Even inventories based on a
regular grid typically select the starting point of the grid at random). Inventory compilers will determine an
appropriate approach given the size of their country, key environmental variables (e.g., climate) and
management systems in their region. The latter two may serve as stratification variables, assuming the sampling
scheme is not completely random. In addition, it is good practice for sampling to provide wide spatial coverage
of emissions and/or removals for a particular key source category.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
The inventory compiler should establish an appropriate time period over which sites will be re-sampled if using a
repeated measures design. The timing of re-measurement will depend on the rate of stock changes or non-CO2
greenhouse gas emissions. For example, re-measurement periods in boreal and some temperate regions, where
trees grow slowly and DOM pools change little in single years, can be longer than in environments where carbon
dynamics are more rapid. Where fluxes are measured directly, greater temporal and spatial variability will
require more frequent or more intensive sampling to capture fluxes which might otherwise be missing from the
measurement record.
36
37
38
Some approaches do not include re-sampling of the same sites. Such designs are acceptable, but may limit the
statistical power of the analysis, and therefore lead to greater uncertainty. It is likely that a repeated measures
design will provide a better basis for estimating carbon stock changes or emissions in most countries.
39
40
41
It is good practice to develop a methodology handbook explaining the sampling scheme as part of Step 1. This
handbook can be useful for those involved with the measurements, laboratory analyses and other aspects of the
process, as well as possibly providing supporting material for documentation purposes.
42
43
44
Step 2. Select Sampling Sites. Specific sampling sites will be located based on sampling design. It is good
practice to have alternative sites for sampling in case it is not possible to sample some original locations. In a
repeated measures design, the sites will become a monitoring network that is periodically re-sampled.
45
46
47
48
49
Determining sampling locations will likely involve the use of a geographic information system. A geographic
database may include a variety of environmental and management data, such as climate, soils, land use, and
livestock operations, depending on the source category and stratification. If key data are not available at the
national scale, the inventory developer should re-evaluate the design and stratification (if used) in Step 1 and
possibly modify the sampling design.
50
51
52
53
Sampling may require coordination among different national ministries, provincial or state governments,
corporate and private land owners. Establishing relationships among these stakeholders can be undertaken before
collecting initial samples. Informing stakeholders about ongoing monitoring may also be helpful and lead to
greater success in implementing monitoring programs.
2.51
1
2
3
4
5
6
Step 3. Collect Initial Samples. Once the final set of sites are determined, a sampling team can visit those
locations, establish plots and collect initial samples. The initial samples will provide initial carbon stocks, or
serve as the first measure of emissions. It is good practice to establish field measurement and laboratory
protocols before the samples are collected. In addition, it may be helpful to take geographic coordinates of plot
locations or sample points with a global positioning system, and, if repeated measures are planned, to
permanently mark the location for ease of finding and re-sampling the site in the future.
7
8
9
10
11
12
It is good practice to take relevant measurements and notes of the environmental conditions and management at
the site. This will confirm that the conditions were consistent with the design of the sampling scheme, and also
may be used in data analysis (Step 5). If a stratified sampling approach is used, and it becomes apparent that
many or most sites are not consistent with the expected environmental conditions and management systems, it is
good practice to repeat Step 1, re-evaluating and possibly modifying the sampling scheme based on the new
information.
13
14
15
16
17
Step 4. Re-sample the Monitoring Network on a Periodic Basis. For repeated measures designs, sampling sites
will be periodically re-sampled in order to evaluate trends in carbon stocks or non-CO2 emissions over an
inventory time period. The time between re-measurement will depend on the rate of stock changes or the
variability in emissions, the resources available for the monitoring program, and the design of the sampling
scheme.
18
19
20
21
If destructive sampling is involved, such as removing a soil core or biomass sample, it is good practice to resample at the same site but not at the exact location in which the sample was removed during the past.
Destructive sampling the exact location is likely to create bias in the measurements. Such biases would
compromise the monitoring and produce results that are not representative of national trends.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Step 5. Analyze Data and Determine Carbon Stock Changes/Non-CO2 emissions, and infer National Emissions
and Removal Estimates and Measures of Uncertainty. It is good practice to select an appropriate statistical
method for data analysis based on the sampling design. The overall result of the statistical analysis will be
estimates of carbon stock changes or measurements of emissions from which the national emission and removal
estimates can be derived. It is good practice to also include estimates of uncertainty, which will include
measurement errors in the sample collection and laboratory processing (i.e., the latter may be addressed using
standards and through cross-checking results with independent labs), sampling variance associated with
monitoring design and other relevant sources of uncertainty (see discussion for each source category later in this
volume in addition to the uncertainty chapter in Volume I). The analysis may include scaling of measurements
to a larger spatial or temporal domain, which again will depend on the design of the sampling scheme. Scaling
may range from simple averaging or weighted averaging to more detailed interpolation/extrapolation techniques.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
To obtain national estimates of stock changes or emission of non-CO2 greenhouse gases, it is often necessary to
extrapolate measurements using models that take into consideration environmental conditions, management and
other activity data. While the net changes of carbon-based greenhouse gasses can (at least in theory) be estimated
purely by repeated measurements of carbon stocks, statistical and other models are often employed to assist in
the scaling of plot measures to national estimates. National emission estimates of non-CO2 greenhouse gases are
unlikely to be derived from measurements alone because of the expense and difficulty in obtaining the
measurement. For example, N2O emissions from forest fires cannot be measured empirically but are typically
inferred from samples, activity data on the area burned, and fuel consumption estimates. In contrast, soil N2O
emissions can be readily estimated using chambers, but it would be very expensive to establish a network with
the sampling intensity needed to provide national emission estimates based solely on measurements without use
of models for extrapolation.
44
45
46
It is good practice to analyze emissions relative to environmental conditions in addition to the contribution of
various management practices to those trends. Interpretation of the patterns will be useful in evaluating
possibilities for future mitigation.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Step 6. Reporting and Documentation. It is good practice to assemble inventory results in a systematic and
transparent manner for reporting purposes. Documentation may include a description of the sampling scheme
and statistical methods, sampling schedule (including re-sampling), stock change and emissions estimates and
the interpretation of emission trends (e.g., contributions of management activities). In addition, QA/QC should
be completed and documented in the report, including quality assurance procedures in which peer-reviewers not
involved with the analysis evaluate the methodology. For details on QA/QC, reporting and documentation, see
the section dealing with the specific source category later in this volume, as well as information provided in
Volume I Chapter 6.
55
2.52

2.5.2 Model-Based Tier 3 Inventories
2
3
4
5
Model-based inventories are developed using empirical, process-based or other types of advanced models. It is
good practice to have independent measurements to confirm that the model is capable of estimating emissions
and removals in the source categories of interest (Prisley and Mortimer, 2004). In general, seven steps are used
to implement a Tier 3 model-based inventory (Figure 2.7).
6
7
8
9
Step 1. Select/develop a model for calculating the stock changes and/or greenhouse gas emissions. A model
should be selected or developed that more accurately represents stock changes or non-CO2 greenhouse gas
emissions than is possible with Tier 1 and 2 approaches. As part of this decision, it is good practice to consider
the availability of input data (Steps 3) and the computing resources needed to implement the model (Step 5).
10
Figure 2.7 Steps to develop a Tier 3 model-based inventory estimation system.
11
Model Selection/Development
Evaluation using calibration data
Unable
to locate necessary
input data
Does
not capture general
trends from
experiments
Identify Model Inputs
Assess Uncertainties
Implement Model
Evaluation with independent data

(Good Practice)
Model results
unacceptable
Reporting/Documentation
12
13
2.53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Step 2. Evaluation with Calibration Data. This is a critical step for inventory development in which model
results are compared directly with measurements that were used for model calibration/parameterization (e.g.,
Falloon and Smith, 2002). Comparisons can be made using statistical tests and/or graphically, with the goal of
demonstrating that the model effectively simulates measured trends for a variety of conditions in the source
category of interest. It is good practice to ensure that the model responds appropriately to variations in activity
data and that the model is able to report results by land-use category as per the conventions laid out in Chapter 3.
Re-calibration of the model or modifications to the structure (i.e., algorithms) may be necessary if the model
does not capture general trends or there are large systematic biases. In some cases, a new model may be selected
or developed based on this evaluation. Evaluation results are an important component of the reporting
documentation, justifying the use of a particular model for quantifying emissions in a source category.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Step 3. Gather spatio-temporal data on activities and relevant environmental conditions that are needed as
inputs to a model. Models, even those used in Tier 1 and 2 approaches, require specific input information in
order to estimate greenhouse gas emissions and removals associated with a source category. These inputs may
range from weather and soils data to livestock number, forest types, natural disturbances or cropping
management practices. It is good practice for the input data to be consistent with spatio-temporal scale of the
model (i.e., algorithms). For example, if a model operates on a daily time step then the input data should provide
information about daily variation in the environmental characteristic or activity data. In some cases, input data
may be a limiting factor in model selection, requiring some models to be discarded as inappropriate given the
available activity and/or environmental data.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Step 4. Quantify uncertainties. Uncertainties are due to imperfect knowledge about the activities or processes
leading to greenhouse gas fluxes, and are typically manifested in the model structure and inputs. Consequently,
uncertainty analyses are intended to provide a rigorous measure of the confidence attributed to a model estimate
based on uncertainties in the model structure and inputs, generating a measure of variability in the carbon stock
changes or non-CO2 greenhouse gas fluxes. Volume I Chapter 3 provides specific guidance on appropriate
methods for conducting these analyses. Additional information may also be provided for specific source
categories later in this volume.
27
28
29
30
31
32
Step 5. Implement the model. The major consideration for this step is that there are enough computing resources
and personnel time to prepare the input data, conduct the model simulations, and analyze the results. This will
depend on the efficiency of the programming script, complexity of the model, as well as the spatial and temporal
extent and resolution of the simulations. In some cases, limitations in computing resources may constrain the
complexity and range of spatial or temporal resolution that can be used in implementing at the national scale
(i.e., simulating at finer spatial and temporal scales will require greater computing resources).
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Step 6. Evaluation with independent data. It is important to realise the difference between Steps 2 and 6. Step 2
involves testing model output with field data that were used as a basis for calibration (i.e., parameterization). In
contrast, evaluation with independent data is done with a completely independent set of data from model
calibration, providing a more rigorous assessment of model components and results. Optimally, independent
evaluation should be based on measurements from a monitoring network or from research sites that were not
used to calibrate model parameters. The network would be similar in principle to a series of sites that are used
for a measurement-based inventory. However, the sampling does not need to be as dense because the network is
not forming the basis for estimating carbon stock changes or non-CO2 greenhouse gas fluxes, as in a purely
measurement-based inventory, but is used to check model results.
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
In some cases, independent evaluation may demonstrate that the model-based estimation system is inappropriate
due to large and unpredictable differences between model results and the measured trends from the monitoring
network. Problems may stem from one of three possibilities: errors in the implementation step, poor input data,
or an inappropriate model. Implementation problems typically arise from computer programming errors, while
model inputs may generate erroneous results if these data are not representative of management activity or
environmental conditions. In these two cases, it is good practice for the inventory developer to return to either
Steps 3 or 6 depending on the issue. It seems less likely that the model would be inappropriate if Step 2 was
deemed reasonable. However, if this is the case, it is good practice to return to the model selection/development
phase (Step 1).
51
52
53
During Step 2 that follows the selection/development step, it is good practice to avoid using the independent
evaluation data to re-calibrate or refine algorithms. If this occurs, these data would no longer be suitable for
independent evaluation, and therefore not serve the purpose for Step 6 in this inventory approach.
54
55
56
57
58
Step 7. Reporting and Documentation. It is good practice to assemble inventory results in a systematic and
transparent manner for reporting purposes. Documentation may include a description of the model, summary of
model input data sources, model evaluation results including sources of experiments and/or measurements data
from monitoring network, stock change and emissions estimates and the interpretation of emission trends (i.e.,
contributions of management activities). QA/QC should be completed and documented in the report. For details
2.54

1
2
on QA/QC, reporting and documentation, see the section dealing with the specific source category later in this
volume, as well as information provided in Volume I Chapter 6.
3
4
5
References
6
7
Andrea M.O and P. Merlet (2001). Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass burning. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles 15:955-966.
8
9
Armentano T.V. and Menges E.S. (1986). Patterns of change in the carbon balance of organic soil-wetlands of
the temperate zone. Journal of Ecology 74: 755-774.
10
11
12
13
14
Baldocchi D., Falge E., Gu L.H., Olson R., Hollinger D., Running S., Anthoni P., Bernhofer C., Davis K., Evans
R., Fuentes J., Goldstein A., Katul G., Law B., Lee X.H., Malhi Y., Meyers T., Munger W., Oechel W.,
Pilegaard K., Schmid H.P., Valentini R., Verma S., Vesala T., Wilson K., and Wofsy S. (2001). FLUXNET:
A new tool to study the temporal and spatial variability of ecosystem-scale carbon dioxide, water vapor, and
energy flux densities. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82: pp. 2415-2434.
15
16
Bernoux M., Carvalho M.D.S., Volkoff B., and Cerri C.C. (2002). Brazils soil carbon stocks. Soil Science
Society of America Journal 66:888-896.
17
18
19
Bhatti J.S., Apps M.J., and Jiang H. (2001). Examining the carbon stocks of boreal forest ecosystems at stand
and regional scales. In: Lal R. et al. (eds.) Assessment Methods for Soil Carbon, Lewis Publishers, Boca
Raton FL, pp. 513-532.
20
21
Brady, N.C. and Weil, R.R. (1999) The Nature and Properties of Soils. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey, 881 pp.
22
Clymo RS (1984) The limits to peat bog growth. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 303:605-654.
23
24
Conant R.T., Paustian K., and Elliott E.T. (2001). Grassland management and conversion into grassland: Effects
on soil carbon. Ecological Application 11:343-355.
25
26
Coomes, D.A.; Allen, R.B.; Scott, N.A.; Goulding, C.; Beets, P. (2002). Designing systems to monitor carbon
stocks in forests and shrublands. Forest Ecology and Management, 164, pp. 89 - 108.
27
28
Davidson E. A. and Ackerman I.L. (1993). Changes in soil carbon inventories following cultivation of
previously untilled soils. Biogeochemistry 20:161164.
29
30
31
Ellert B.H., Janzen H.H., and McConkey B.G. (2001). Measuring and comparing soil carbon storage. In: R.
Lal, J.M. Kimble, R.F. Follett and B.A. Stewart (eds.). Soil Management for Enhancing Carbon
Sequestration. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.: pp. 593-610.
32
33
Falloon and Smith (2002) Simulating SOC changes in long-term experiments with the RothC and Century;
model evaluation for a regional application. Soil Use and Management 18:101-111.
34
35
36
Falloon, P., and P. Smith (2003) Accounting for changes in soil carbon under the Kyoto Protocol: need for
improved long-term data sets to reduce uncertainty in model projections. Soil Use and Management 19:265269.
37
38
Forbes,M.S., Raison,R.J. and J.O. Skjemstad (2006). The formation and persistence of Black Carbon(Charcoal)
in Terrestrial ecosystems. Journal of the Science of the Total Environment(in review).
39
40
Gifford, R.M., and ML Roderick (2003) Soil carbon stocks and bulk density: spatial and cumulative mass
coordinates as a basis for expression? Global Change Biology 9:1507-1513.
41
42
Gorham, E. (1991) Northern peatlands: role in the carbon cycle and probably responses to climatic warming.
Ecological Applications 1:182-195.
43
44
Harmon, M.E. and C. Hua, (1991). Coarse woody debris dynamics in two old-growth ecosystems. BioScience
41: 604-610.
45
46
47
Harmon, M.E., Franklin, J.F., Swanson, F.J., Sollins, P., Gregory, S.V., Lattin, J.D., Anderson, N.H., Cline, S.P.,
Aumen, N.G., Sedell, J.R., Lienkaemper, G.W., Cromack, J.R. & Cummins, K.W. 1986. Ecology of coarse
woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Advances in Ecological Research 15: 133302.
48
49
50
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2000). Watson R., Noble I.R., Bolin B., Ravindranath,
N.H., Verardo D.J. and Dokken D.J. (Eds) Land use, Land-use Change, and Forestry: A Special Report.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.
2.55
1
2
Jobbagy E.G., and Jackson R.B. (2000). The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate
and vegetation. Ecological Applications 19(2): 423-436.
3
4
5
Karjalainen, L. & Kuuluvainen, T. (2002). Amount and diversity of coarse woody debris within a boreal forest
landscape dominated by Pinus sylvestris in Vienansalo wilderness, eastern Fennoscandia. Silva Fennica
36(1): 147167.
6
7
Kasimir-Klemedtsson A, L. Klemedtsson, K. Berglund, P. Martikainen, J. Silvola, and O. Oenema (1997)

Greenhouse gas emissions from farmed organic soils: a review. Soil Use and Management 13:245-250.
8
9
10
Krankina, O.N., M.E. Harmon, Y.A. Kukuev, R.E. Treyfeld, N.N. Kashpor, V.G. Kresnov, V.M. Skudin, N.A.
Protasov, M. Yatskov, G. Spycher, and E.D. Povarov (2002). Coarse woody debris in forest regions of
Russia, Can.J. For. Res. 32: 768-778.
11
12
Kurz, W.A., M.J. Apps, T.M. Webb, and P.J. McNamee (1992). The carbon budget of the Canadian forest
sector: phase I. Forestry Canada, Northwest Region. Information Report NOR-X-326, 93 pp.
13
14
Lettens, S., J. Van Orshoven, B. van Wesemael, and B. Muys (2004) Soil organic and inorganic carbon contents
of landscape units in Belgium derived using data from 1950 to 1970. Soil Use and Management 20: 40-47.
15
Mann LK (1986) Changes in soil carbon storage after cultivation. Soil Science 142:279-288.
16
17
Martikainen P.J., Nykanen H., Alm J., and Silvola J. (1995). Change in fluxes of carbon dioxide, methane and
nitrous oxide due to forest drainage of mire sites of different trophy. Plant & Soil 169: 571-577.
18
19
20
McGill W. B. (1996). Review and classification of ten soil organic matter models. In: Powlson D.S., Smith P.,
and Smith J.U. (eds.). Evaluation of Soil Organic Matter Models Using Existing Long-Term Datasets.
Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg: pp. 111-132.
21
22
Nyknen, H., J. Alm, K. Lang, J. Silvola, and P.J. Martikainen (1995). Emissions of CH4, N2O, and CO2 from a
virgin fen and a fen drained for grassland in Finland. Journal of Biogeography 22:351-357.
23
24
25
Ogle S.M., Breidt F.J., Eve M.D., and Paustian K. (2003). Uncertainty in estimating land-use and management
impacts on soil organic carbon storage for U.S. agricultural lands between 1982 and 1997. Global Change
Biology 9:1521-1542.
26
27
28
Ogle, S.M., Breidt FJ and Paustian K (2005). Agricultural Management Impacts on Soil Organic Carbon
Storage under Moist and Dry Climatic Conditions of Temperate and Tropical Regions. Biogeochemistry
72:87-121.
29
30
31
Ogle, S.M., R.T. Conant, and K. Paustian. (2004) Deriving grassland management factors for a carbon
accounting approach developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Environmental
Management 33:474-484.
32
33
34
Paustian K, O. Andren, H.H. Janzen, R. Lal, P. Smith, G. Tian, H. Tiessen, M. Van Noordwijk, and P.L.
Woomer (1997) Agricultural soils as a sink to mitigate CO2 emissions. Soil Use and Management 13:230244.
35
36
Preston,C.M. and M.W.I. Schmidt (2006). Black(pyrogenic) carbon in the boreal forests:a synthesis of current
knowledge and uncertainties. Biogeosciences Discussions 3,211-271.
37
38
Prisley, S.P., and M.J. Mortimer (2004). A synthesis of literature on evaluation of models for policy
applications, with implications for forest carbon accounting. Forest Ecology and Management 198:89-103.
39
40
Prisley, S.P., and M.J. Mortimer (2004). A synthesis of literature on evaluation of models for policy
applications, with implications for forest carbon accounting. Forest Ecology and Management 198:89-103.
41
42
43
Shaw, C.H.; Bhatti, J.S.; Sabourin, K.J. 2005. An ecosystem carbon database for Canadian forests. Natural
Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, Alberta, Information
Report NOR-X-403.
44
45
Siltanen et al. (1997). A soil profile and organic carbon data base for Canadian forest and tundra mineral soils.
Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, Alberta.
46
47
48
49
Sleutel S, S. De Neve, G. Hofman, P. Boeckx, D. Beheydt, O. Van Cleemput, I. Mestdagh, P. Lootens, L.

Carlier, N. Van Camp, H. Verbeeck, I. Vand Walle, R. Sampson, N. Lust, and R. Lemeur (2003) Carbon
stock changes and carbon sequestration potential of Flemish cropland soils. Global Change Biology 9:11931203.
50
51
Smith JE, and L.S. Heath (2001) Identifying influences on model uncertainty: an application using a forest
carbon budget model. Environmental Management 27:253-267.
2.56

1
2
Smith P., Powlson D.S., Smith J.U., and Elliott E.T. (eds) (1997b). Evaluation and comparison of soil organic
matter models. Special Issue, Geoderma 81:1-225.
3
4
Smith, P. (2004a). Monitoring and verification of soil carbon changes under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol.
Soil Use and Management 20: 264-270.
5
6
Smith, P. (2004b) How long before a change in soil organic carbon can be detected? Global Change Biology 10:
1878-1883.
7
8
9
Smith, S.V., W.H. Renwick, R.W. Buddemeier, and C.J. Crossland (2001) Budgets of soil erosion and
deposition for sediments and sedimentary organic carbon across the conterminous United States. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles 15:697-707.
10
11
Smith, W.N., R.L. Desjardins, and E. Pattey (2000) The net flux of carbon from agricultural soils in Canada
1970-2010. Global Change Biology 6:557-568.
12
13
14
Tate, K.R., R.H.Wilde, D.J.Giltrap, W.T.Baisden, S. Saggar, N.A.Trustrum, N.A. Scott, J.P. Barton (2005) Soil
organic carbon stocks and flows in New Zealand: measurement and modelling. Canadian Journal of Soil
Science, in press.
15
16
Thormann M.N., Szumigalski A.R., Bayley S.E. (1999). Above-ground peat and carbon accumulation potentials
along a bog-fen-marsh wetland gradient in southern boreal Alberta, Canada. Wetlands 19 (2): 305-317.
17
18
Tremblay S., Ouimet R. and Houle D. (2002). Prediction of organic carbon content in upland forest soils of
Quebec, Canada. Can. J. For. Res. 32: pp. 903-914.
19
20
VandenBygaart AJ, Gregorich EG, Angers DA, et al. (2004) Uncertainty analysis of soil organic carbon stock
change in Canadian cropland from 1991 to 2001. Global Change Biology 10:983-994.
21
22
Vogt K.A., Vogt D.J., Pamiotto P.A., Boon P., OHara J., and Asbjornsen H. (1996). Review of root dynamics in
forest ecosystems grouped by climate, climatic forest type, and species. Plant and Soil 187: pp. 159-219.
23
24
Yavitt J. B., Fahey T.J., and Simmons J.A. (1997). Methane and carbon dioxide dynamics in a northern
hardwood ecosystem. Soil Science Society of America Journal 59: 796-804.
25
26
REFERENCES TO TABLES 2.4 AND 2.6
27
1.
Alexander, M., Calculating and interpreting forest fire intensities. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY, 1978. 60: p. 349-357.
28
29
2.
Amiro, B., J. Todd, and B. Wotton, Direct carbon emissions from Canadian forest fires, 1959-1999. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF
FOREST RESEARCH, 2001. 31: p. 512-525.
30
31
3.
Arajo, T., J. Carvalho, N. Higuchi, A. Brasil, and A. Mesquita, A tropical rainforest clearing experiment by biomass burning in the
state of Par, Brazil. ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 1999. 33: p. 1991-1998.
32
33
4.
Barbosa, R. and P. Fearnside, Pasture burning in Amazonia: Dynamics of residual biomass and the storage and release of aboveground carbon. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, 1996. 101(D20): p. 25847-25857.
34
35
36
5.
Bilbao, B. and E. Medina, Types of grassland fires and nitrogen volatilization in tropical savannas of calabozo, in Biomass Burning
and Global Change: Volume 2. Biomass burning in South America, Southeast Asia, and temperate and boreal ecosystems, and the oil
fires of Kuwait, J. Levine, Editor. 1996, MIT Press: Cambridge. p. 569-574.
37
38
39
6.
Cachier, H., C. Liousse, M. Pertusiot, A. Gaudichet, F. Echalar, and J. Lacaux, African fire Particulate emissions and atmospheric
influence, in Biomass Burning and Global Change: Volume 1. Remote Sensing, Modeling and Inventory Development, and Biomass
Burning in Africa, J. Levine, Editor. 1996, MIT Press: Cambridge. p. 428-440.
40
41
7.
Carvalho, J., N. Higuchi, T. Araujo, and J. Santos, Combustion completeness in a rainforest clearing experiment in Manaus, Brazil.
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, 1998. 103(D11): p. 13195.
42
43
44
8.
Carvalho, J., F. Costa, C. Veras, et al., Biomass fire consumption and carbon release rates of rainforest-clearing experiments
conducted in northern Mato Grosso, Brazil. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 2001. 106(D16): p.
17877-17887.
45
46
9.
Cheyney, N., R. Raison, and P. Khana, Release of carbon to the atmosphere in Australian vegetation fires, in Carbon Dioxide and
Climate: Australian Research, G. Pearman, Editor. 1980, Australian Academy of Science: Canberra. p. 153-158.
47
48
10. Cofer, W., J. Levine, E. Winstead, and B. Stocks, Gaseous emissions from Canadian boreal forest fires. ATMOSPHERIC
ENVIRONMENT, 1990. 24A(7): p. 1653-1659.
49
50
11. Cofer, W., E. Winstead, B. Stocks, J. Goldammer, and D. Cahoon, Crown fire emissions of CO2, CO, H2, CH4, and TNMHC from a
dense jack pine boreal forest fire. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 1998. 25(21): p. 3919-3922.
51
52
12. De Castro, E.A. and J.B. Kauffman, Ecosystem structure in the Brazilian Cerrado: a vegetation gradient of above-ground biomass,
root mass and consumption by fire. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 1998. 14(3): p. 263-283.
53
54
13. Delmas, R., On the emission of carbon, nitrogen and sulfur in the atmosphere during bushfires in intertropical savannah zones.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 1982. 9(7): p. 761-764.
2.57
1
2
14. Einfeld, W., D. Ward, and C. Hardy, Effects of fire behaviour on prescribed fire smoke characteristics: A case study, in Global
Biomass Burning: Atmospheric, Climatic, and Biospheric Implications, J. Levine, Editor. 1991, MIT Press: Massechusetts. p. 412-419.
3
4
5
15. Fearnside, P., N. Filho, and F. Fernandes, Rainforest burning and the global carbon budget: biomass, combustion efficiency and
charcoal formation in the Brazilian Amazon. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 1993. 98(D9): p.
16733-16743.
6
7
8
16. Fearnside, P., P. Graca, N. Filho, J. Rodrigues, and J. Robinson, Tropical forest burning in Brazilian Amazonia: measurement of
biomass loading, burning efficiency and charcoal formation at Altamira, Para. FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, 1999.
123: p. 65-79.
9
10
17. Fearnside, P., P. Graca, and J. Rodrigues, Burning of Amazonian rainforests: burning efficiency and charcoal formation in forest
cleared for cattle pasture near Manaus, Brazil. FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, 2001. 146: p. 115-128.
11
12
18. Feller, M. The influence of fire severity, not fire intensity, on understory vegetation biomass in British Columbia. in 13th Fire and
Forest Meteorology Conference. 1998. Lorne, Australia: IAWF.
13
14
19. Flinn, D., P. Hopmans, P. Farell, and J. James, Nutrient loss from the burning of Pinus radiata logging residue. AUSTRALIAN
FOREST RESEARCH, 1979. 9: p. 17-23.
15
16
20. Garnett, M., P. Ineson, and A. Stevenson, Effects of burning and grazing on carbon sequestration in a Pennine blanket bog, UK.
HOLOCENE, 2000. 10(6): p. 729-736.
17
18
21. Graca, P., P. Fearnside, and C. Cerri, Burning of Amazonian forest in Ariquemes, Rondonia, Brazil: biomass, charcoal formation and
burning efficiency. FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, 1999. 120: p. 179-191.
19
20
22. Griffin, G. and M. Friedel, Effects of fire on central Australian rangelands. I Fire and fuel characteristics and changes in herbage and
nutrients. AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY, 1984. 9: p. 381-393.
21
22
23
23. Guild, L., J. Kauffman, L. Ellingson, and D. Cummings, Dynamics associated with total above-ground biomass, C, nutrient pools, and
biomass burning of primary forest and pasture in Rondonia, Brazil during SCAR-B. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCHATMOSPHERES, 1998. 103(D24): p. 32091-32100.
24
25
26
24. Gupta, P., V. Prasad, C. Sharma, A. Sarkar, Y. Kant, K. Badarinath, and A. Mitra, CH4 emissions from biomass burning of shifting
cultivation areas of tropical deciduous forests - experimental results from ground - based measurements. CHEMOSPHERE GLOBAL CHANGE SCIENCE, 2001. 3: p. 133-143.
27
28
25. Harwood, C. and W. Jackson, Atmospheric losses of four plant nutrients during a forest fire. AUSTRALIAN FORESTRY, 1975.
38(2): p. 92-99.
29
26. Hobbs, P. and C. Gimingham, Studies on fire in Scottish heathland communities. JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY, 1984. 72: p. 223-240.
30
31
32
27. Hobbs, P., J. Reid, J. Herring, et al., Particle and trace-gas measurements from prescribed burns of forest products in the Pacific
Northwest, in Biomass Burning and Global Change: Volume 2. Biomass burning in South America, Southeast Asia, and temperate and
boreal ecosystems, and the oil fires of Kuwait, J. Levine, Editor. 1996, MIT Press: Cambridge. p. 697-715.
33
34
28. Hoffa, E., D. Ward, W. Hao, R. Susott, and R. Wakimoto, Seasonality of carbon emissions from biomass burning in a Zambian
savanna. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 1999. 104(D11): p. 13841-13853.
35
36
29. Hopkins, B., Observations on savanna burning in the Olokemeji forest reserve, Nigeria. JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, 1965.
2(2): p. 367-381.
37
38
30. Hughes, R., J. Kauffman, and D. Cummings, Fire in the Brazilian Amazon 3. Dynamics of biomass, C, and nutrient pools in
regenerating forests. OECOLOGIA, 2000. 124(4): p. 574-588.
39
40
31. Hurst, D., W. Griffith, and G. Cook, Trace gas emissions from biomass burning in tropical Australian savannas. JOURNAL OF
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, 1994. 99(D8): p. 16441-16456.
41
42
32. Jackson, W., Nutrient stocks in Tasmanian vegetation and approximate losses due to fire. Papers and proceedings of the Royal Society
of Tasmania, 2000. 134: p. 1-18.
43
44
33. Kasischke, E., N. French, L. Bourgeau-Chavez, and N. Christensen, Estimating release of carbon from 1990 and 1991 forest fires in
Alaska. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 1995. 100(D2): p. 2941-2951.
45
46
34. Kauffman, J. and C. Uhl, 8 interactions of anthropogenic activities, fire, and rain forests in the Amazon Basin, in Fire in the Tropical
Biota: Ecosystem Processes and Global Changes, J. Goldammer, Editor. 1990, Springer-Verlag: Berlin. p. 117-134.
47
48
35. Kauffman, J., R. Sanford, D. Cummings, I. Salcedo, and E. Sampaio, Biomass and nutrient dynamics associated with slash fires in
neotropical dry forests. ECOLOGY, 1993. 74(1): p. 140-151.
49
50
36. Kauffman, J., D. Cummings, and D. Ward, Relationships of fire, biomass and nutrient dynamics along a vegetation gradient in the
Brazilian cerrado. JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY, 1994. 82: p. 519-531.
51
52
37. Kauffman, J., D. Cummings, D. Ward, and R. Babbitt, Fire in the Brazilian Amazon: 1. Biomass, nutrient pools, and losses in slashed
primary forests. OECOLOGIA, 1995. 104: p. 397-408.
53
54
38. Kauffman, J., D. Cummings, and D. Ward, Fire in the Brazilian Amazon: 2. Biomass, nutrient pools and losses in cattle pastures.
OECOLOGIA, 1998. 113: p. 415-427.
55
39. Kayll, A., Some characteristics of heath fires in north-east Scotland. JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, 1966. 3(1): p. 29-40.
56
57
40. Kiil, A., Fuel consumption by a prescribed burn in spruce-fir logging slash in Alberta. THE FORESTRY CHRONICLE, 1969: p. 100102.
58
59
41. Kiil, A., Fire spread in a black spruce stand. CANADIAN FORESTRY SERVICE BI-MONTHLY RESEARCH NOTES, 1975. 31(1):
p. 2-3.
2.58

1
2
3
42. Lacaux, J., H. Cachier, and R. Delmas, Biomass burning in Africa: an overview of its impact on atmospheric chemistry, in Fire in the
Environment: The Ecological, Atmospheric, and Climatic Importance of Vegetation Fires, P. Crutzen and J. Goldammer, Editors. 1993,
John Wiley & Sons: Chichester. p. 159-191.
4
5
6
43. Lavoue, D., C. Liousse, H. Cachier, B. Stocks, and J. Goldammer, Modeling of carbonaceous particles emitted by boreal and
temperate wildfires at northern latitudes. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 2000. 105(D22): p. 2687126890.
7
8
9
44. Levine, J., Global biomass burning: a case study of the gaseous and particulate emissions released to the atmosphere during the 1997
fires in Kalimantan and Sumatra, Indonesia, in Biomass Burning and its Inter-relationships with the Climate System, J. Innes, M.
Beniston, and M. Verstraete, Editors. 2000, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht. p. 15-31.
10
11
45. Levine, J. and W. Cofer, Boreal forest fire emissions and the chemistry of the atmosphere, in Fire, Climate Change and Carbon
Cycling in the Boreal Forest, E. Kasischke and B. Stocks, Editors. 2000, Springer-Verlag: New York. p. 31-48.
12
13
46. Marsdon-Smedley, J. and A. Slijepcevic, Fuel characteristics and low intensity burning inEucalyptus obliqua wet forest at the Warra
LTER site. TASFORESTS, 2001. 13(2): p. 261-279.
14
15
47. Mazurek, M., W. Cofer, and J. Levine, Carbonaceous aerosols from prescribed burning of a boreal forest ecosystem, in Global
Biomass Burning: Atmospheric, Climatic, and Biospheric Implications, J. Levine, Editor. 1991, MIT Press: Massechusetts. p. 258-263.
16
17
48. McNaughton, S., N. Stronach, and N. Georgiadis, Combustion in natural fires and global emissions budgets. ECOLOGICAL
APPLICATIONS, 1998. 8(2): p. 464-468.
18
19
49. McRae, D. and B. Stocks. Large-scale convection burning in Ontario. in Ninth Conference on Fire and Forest Metearology. 1987. San
Diego, California: American Meterological Society.
20
21
22
50. Moula, M., J. Brustet, H. Eva, J. Lacaux, J. Gregoire, and J. Fontan, Contribution of the Spread-Fire Model in the study of savanna
fires, in Biomass Burning and Global Change: Volume 1. Remote Sensing, Modeling and Inventory Development, and Biomass
Burning in Africa, J. Levine, Editor. 1996, MIT Press: Cambridge. p. 270-277.
23
24
51. Neil, R., N. Stronach, and S. McNaughton, Grassland fire dynamics in the Serengeti ecosystem, and a potential method of
retrospectively estimating fire energy. JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, 1989. 26: p. 1025-1033.
25
26
52. Pivello, V. and L. Coutinho, Transfer of macro-nutrients to the atmosphere during experimental burnings in an open cerrado
(Brazilian savanna). JOURNAL OF TROPICAL ECOLOGY, 1992. 8: p. 487-497.
27
28
53. Prasad, V., Y. Kant, P. Gupta, C. Sharma, A. Mitra, and K. Badarinath, Biomass and combustion characteristics of secondary mixed
deciduous forests in Eastern Ghats of India. ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 2001. 35(18): p. 3085-3095.
29
30
54. Raison, R., P. Khana, and P. Woods, Transfer of elements to the atmosphere during low intensity prescribed fires in three Australian
subalpine eucalypt forests. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH, 1985. 15: p. 657-664.
31
32
55. Robertson, K., Loss of organic matter and carbon during slash burns in New Zealand exotic forests. NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF
FORESTRY SCIENCE, 1998. 28(2): p. 221-241.
33
34
56. Robinson, J., On uncertainty in the computation of global emissions from biomass burning. CLIMATIC CHANGE, 1989. 14: p. 243262.
35
36
57. Shea, R., B. Shea, J. Kauffman, D. Ward, C. Haskins, and M. Scholes, Fuel biomass and combustion factors associated with fires in
savanna ecosystems of South Africa and Zambia. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, 1996. 101(D19): p. 23551-23568.
37
38
58. Slijepcevic, A., Loss of carbon during controlled regeneration burns in Eucalyptus obliqua forest. TASFORESTS, 2001. 13(2): p. 281289.
39
40
59. Smith, D. and T. James, Characteristics of prescribed burns andresultant short-term environmental changes in Populus tremuloides
woodland in southern Ontario. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY, 1978. 56: p. 1782-1791.
41
42
60. Soares, R. and G. Ribeiro. Fire behaviour and tree stumps sprouting in Eucalyptus prescribed burnings in southern Brazil. in III
International Conference on Forest Fire Research / 14th Conference on Fire and Forest Meteorology. 1998. Luso.
43
44
61. Sorrensen, C., Linking smallholder land use and fire activity: examining biomass burning in the Brazilian Lower Amazon. FOREST
ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, 2000. 128(1-2): p. 11-25.
45
46
62. Stewart, H. and D. Flinn, Nutrient losses from broadcast burning of Eucalyptus debris in north-east Victoria. AUSTRALIAN FOREST
RESEARCH, 1985. 15: p. 321-332.
47
63. Stocks, B., Fire behaviour in immature jack pine. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH, 1987. 17: p. 80-86.
48
64. Stocks, B., Fire behaviour in mature jack pine. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH, 1989. 19: p. 783-790.
49
50
51
65. Stocks, B., B. van Wilgen, W. Trollope, D. McRae, J. Mason, F. Weirich, and A. Potgieter, Fuels and fire behaviour dynamics on
large-scale savanna fires in Kruger National Park, South Africa. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, 1996. 101(D19): p.
23541-23550.
52
53
54
66. Stocks, B. and J. Kauffman, Biomass consumption and behaviour of wildland fires in boreal, temperate, and tropical ecosystems:
parameters necessary to interpret historic fire regimes and future fire scenarios, in Sediment Records of Biomass Burning and Global
Change, J. Clark, et al., Editors. 1997, Springer-Verlag: Berlin. p. 169-188.
55
56
57
67. Susott, R., D. Ward, R. Babbitt, and D. Latham, The measurement of trace emissions and combustion characteristics for a mass fire, in
Global Biomass Burning: Atmospheric, Climatic, and Biospheric Implications, J. Levine, Editor. 1991, MIT Press: Massechusetts. p.
245-257.
58
59
68. Turetsky, M. and R. Wieder, A direct approach to quantifying organic matter lost as a result of peatland wildfire. CANADIAN
JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH, 2001. 31(2): p. 363-366.
2.59
1
2
69. Van Wagner, C., Duff consumption by fire in eastern pine stands. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH, 1972. 2: p. 3439.
3
4
70. van Wilgen, B., D. Le Maitre, and F. Kruger, Fire behaviour in South African fynbos (macchia) vegetation and predictions from
Rothermel's fire model. JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, 1985. 22: p. 207-216.
5
6
71. Vose, J. and W. Swank, Site preparation burning to improve southern Appalachian pine-hardwood stands: above-ground biomass,
forest floor mass, and nitrogen and carbon pools. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH, 1993. 23: p. 2255-2262.
7
8
72. Walker, J., Fuel dynamics in Australian vegetation, in Fire and the Australian Biota, A. Gill, R. Groves, and I. Noble, Editors. 1981,
Australian Academy of Science: Canberra. p. 101-127.
9
10
73. Ward, D., R. Susott, J. Kauffman, et al., Smoke and fire characteristics for Cerrado and deforestation burns in Brazil: BASE-B
Experiment. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, 1992. 97(D13): p. 14601-14619.
11
2.60
Chapter 3: Consistent Representation of Lands

2
3
4
CHAPTER 3
CONSISTENT REPRESENTATION OF
LANDS
3.1
1
Authors
Kathryn Bickel (USA) and Gary Richards (Australia)
Michael Khl (Germany), and Ricardo Leonardo Vianna Rodrigues (Brazil)
4
5
Contributing Author
6
7
Goran Stahl (Sweden)
3.2

Contents
3.1
Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2
Land-use categories ....................................................................................................................... 5
3.3
Representing Land-use Areas ........................................................................................................ 8
3.3.1
Three Approaches ......................................................................................................................... 10
Approach 1: Total Land-use Area, no data on conversions between land uses
10
Approach 2: Total Land-use Area, including changes between categories
12
Approach 3: Spatially-explicit Land-use Conversion Data
13
10
3.3.2
Using the Data............................................................................................................................... 13
11
3.3.2.1
Stratification of Land-use Data
16
12
3.3.2.2
Preparing Area Data for Emissions and Removals Estimation
18
13
3.4
Matching Land Areas with Factors for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals .. 18
14
3.5
Uncertainties Associated with the APPROACHES ..................................................................... 19
15
ANNEX 3A.1 Examples of International Land Cover Dataset .......................................................................... 21
16
ANNEX 3A.2 Development of Land-use Databases........................................................................................... 23
17
3A.2.1
Use of Data Prepared for Other Purposes...................................................................................... 23
18
3A.2.2
Collection of New Data by Sampling Methods............................................................................. 24
19
3A.2.3
Collection of New Data in Complete Inventories ......................................................................... 24
20
3A.2.4
Tools for Data Collection.............................................................................................................. 24
21
ANNEX 3A.3 Sampling ...................................................................................................................................... 28
22
3A.3.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 28
23
3A.3.2
Overview on Sampling Principles................................................................................................. 28
24
3A.3.3
Sampling Design ........................................................................................................................... 29
25
3A.3.4
Sampling Methods for Area Estimation ........................................................................................ 31
26
3A.3.5
Estimation of areas via proportions............................................................................................... 32
27
3A.3.6
Direct estimation of area ............................................................................................................... 32
28
ANNEX 3A.4 Overview of Potential Methods for Developing Approach 3 Datasets ........................................ 33
29
Annex 3A.5
30
Default Climate and Soil Classifications ..................................................................................... 36
References............................................................................................................................................. 41
31
3.3
1
Figures
3
4
Figure 3.1
Decision tree for preparation of land-use area data............................................................17
Figure 3A.3.1 Principle of sampling .........................................................................................................28
Figure 3A.3.2 Simple random layout of plots (left) and systematic layout (right)....................................30
7
8
Figure 3A.3.3 Use of different configurations of permanent and temporary sampling

units for estimating changes...............................................................................................31
9
10
Figure 3A.4.1 Overview of Approach 3: Direct and repeated assessments of land use
from full spatial coverage...................................................................................................33
11
Figure 3A.5.1 Delineation of major climate zones, updated from the 1996 IPCC Guidelines. ..................37
12
13
14
15
Figure 3A.5.2 Classification scheme for default climate regions. The classification is
based on elevation, mean annual temperature (MAT), mean annual
precipitation (MAP), mean annual precipitation:potential evapotransporation ratio
(PET:MAP),and frost occurrence.......................................................................................38
16
Figure 3A.5.3 Classification scheme for mineral soil types based on USDA taxonomy............................39
17
18
Figure 3A.5.4 Classification scheme for mineral soil types based on World Reference
Base for Soil Resources (WRB) classification...................................................................40
19
Tables
20
21
Table 3.1 Example stratifications with Supporting Data for Tier 1 Emissions Estimation Methods............8
22
Table 3.2 Example of approach 1: Available land use data with complete national coverage ................11
23
Table 3.3 Illustrative example of stratification of data for Approach 1 .....................................................12
24
25
Table 3.4 Illustrative example of tabulating all land-use conversion for Approach 2
including nationally defined Strata ....................................................................................14
26
27
Table 3.5 Illustrative example of approach 2 data in a land-use conversion matrix with category
stratification .......................................................................................................................15
28
Table 3.6 Simplified land-use conversion matrix for example approach 2................................................15
29
Table 3.7 Summary of uncertainties under Approaches 1 to 3 ...................................................................20
30
Table 3A.3.1 Example of area estimation via proportions..........................................................................32
31
32
33
3.4

3.1 INTRODUCTION
2
3
4
5
6
Information, in terms of classification, area data, and sampling that represents various land-use categories, is
needed to estimate the carbon stocks, and the emission and removal of greenhouse gases associated with
Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) activities. This chapter provides guidance on using different
types of data to represent land-use categories, and conversions between land-use categories, so that they are
applied as appropriately and consistently as possible in inventory calculations.
7
8
9
10
Countries use various methods to obtain data, including annual census, periodic surveys and remote sensing.
Each of these methods of data collection will yield different types of information (e.g., maps or tabulations), at
different reporting frequencies, and with different attributes. Guidance is provided on the use of three generic
approaches.
11
12
13
14
15
Approach 1 identifies the total area for each individual land-use category within a country, but does not provide
detailed information on the nature of conversions between land uses. Approach 2 introduces tracking of
conversions between land-use categories. Approach 3 extends the information available in Approach 2 by
allowing land-use conversions to be tracked on a spatially explicit basis. Countries may use a mix of Approaches
for different regions over time.
16
17
18
19
The guidance presented here is intended to assist countries in making the best use of available data and reducing,
as far as practicable, possible overlaps and omissions in reporting. The guidance allows informed decisions on
the appropriate use of data of different types by those preparing greenhouse gas inventories, but is not intended
to be prescriptive on how data may be collected. Generally, all data should be:
20
21
adequate, i.e., capable of representing land-use categories, and conversions between land-use categories, as
needed to estimate carbon stock changes and greenhouse gas emissions and removals;
22
23
consistent, i.e., capable of representing land-use categories consistently over time, without being unduly
affected by artificial discontinuities in time-series data;
24
25
26
complete, which means that all land within a country should be included, with increases in some areas
balanced by decreases in others, recognizing the bio-physical stratification of land if needed (and as can be
supported by data) for estimating and reporting emissions and removals of greenhouse gases; and
27
transparent, i.e., data sources, definitions, methodologies and assumptions should be clearly described.
28
The descriptions of land use follow the framework of:
29
30
31
land-use category - is the broad land use (one of the six land-use categories described below) reported as
either land remaining in a land-use category (i.e., remaining in the same use throughout the inventory timeseries) or land converted to a new land-use category (representing a change in land use).
32
33
sub-category - refers to special circumstances (e.g., areas of grazing within forest land) that are estimated
and reported separately but do not duplicate land in the broad land-use category.
34
35
36
Land-use categories and sub-categories may be further stratified on the basis of land-use practices and biophysical characteristics in order to create more homogeneous spatial units as may be used for emissions
estimation (see Table 3.1 for examples).
37
3.2 LAND-USE CATEGORIES
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
The six broad land-use categories described below form the basis of estimating and reporting greenhouse gas
emissions and removals from land use and land-use conversions. The land uses may be considered as top-level
categories for representing all land-use areas, with sub-categories describing special circumstances significant to
emissions estimation, and where data are available. The categories are broad enough to classify all land areas in
most countries and to accommodate differences in national land-use classification systems, and may be readily
stratified (e.g., by climate or ecological zones). The categories (and sub-categories) are intended to be identified
through use of Approaches for representing land-use area data described in subsequent sections.
45
46
47
48
49
50
The definitions of land-use categories may incorporate land cover type, land use based, or a combination of the
two. Care needs to be taken in inferring land use from the land cover characteristics and vice versa. For example,
in some countries, significant areas of the Forest land category may be grazed, and firewood may be collected
from scattered trees in the Grassland category. These areas with different use may be significant enough for
countries to consider them separately as additional sub-categories. Countries should ensure that land is not
accounted for in more than one category or sub-category, in order to avoid double-counting of land areas.
3.5
1
2
For convenience, the categories are referred to as land-use categories. These particular categories have been
selected because they are:
robust as a basis for emissions and removals estimation;
implementable; and
complete, in that all land areas in a country may be classified by these categories without duplication
6
7
8
9
Countries will use their own definitions of these categories, which may or may not refer to internationally
accepted definitions, such as those by FAO, Ramsar 1 , etc. Only broad and non-prescriptive definitions are
provided for the land-use categories and of managed and unmanaged lands. Countries should describe and apply
definitions consistently for the national land area over time.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Countries should describe the methods and definitions used to determine areas of managed and unmanaged lands.
Managed land is land where human interventions and practices have been applied to perform production,
ecological or social functions. All land definitions and classifications should be specified at the national level,
described in a transparent manner, and be applied consistently over time. Emissions/removals of greenhouse
gases do not need to be reported for unmanaged land. However, it is good practice for countries to quantify, and
track over time, the area of unmanaged land so that consistency in area accounting is maintained as land-use
change occurs.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
As the resolution of the national land use, mapping may be more coarse than the definitions used to describe the
land-use categories (e.g., if the forest definition applied by a country includes a minimum area, of say one
hectare for example, yet the available land-use mapping minimum unit size is five hectares) it is possible that
there will be small (unidentified) areas of one land-use category reported under another. These small areas may
be reported under the mapped land use when they remain in the same category. If they are converted to another
land-use category (e.g., a small area of Forest land converted to another use is identified within an area
previously mapped as Cropland) and this is identified (e.g., by a permit application for the activity) then they
should be reported under the appropriate land-use conversion (i.e., Forest land converted to another specified
land use) and subtracted from the original (previously misclassified) land-use (remaining) area.
26
The land-use categories for greenhouse gas inventory reporting are:
27
(i) Forest land
28
29
30
31
This category includes all land with woody vegetation consistent with thresholds used to define Forest land in
the national greenhouse gas inventory. It also includes systems with a vegetation structure that currently fall
below, but in situ could potentially, reach the threshold values used by a country to define the Forest land
category.
32
(ii) Cropland
33
34
This category includes cropped land, including rice fields, and agro-forestry systems where the vegetation
structure falls below the thresholds used for the Forest land category.
35
(iii) Grassland
36
37
38
39
This category includes rangelands and pasture land that are not considered Cropland. It also includes systems
with woody vegetation and other non-grass vegetation such as herbs and brushes that fall below the threshold
values used in the Forest land category. The category also includes all grassland from wild lands to recreational
areas as well as agricultural and silvi-pastural systems, consistent with national definitions.
40
(iv) Wetlands
41
42
43
This category includes areas of peat extraction and land that is covered or saturated by water for all or part of the
year (e.g., peatland) and that does not fall into the Forest land, Cropland, Grassland or Settlements categories. It
includes reservoirs as a managed sub-division and natural rivers and lakes as unmanaged sub-divisions.
44
(v) Settlements
45
46
This category includes all developed land, including transportation infrastructure and human settlements of any
size, unless they are already included under other categories. This should be consistent with national definitions.
47
(vi) Other land
Refers to Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. The Convention on Wetlands, signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, is an
intergovernmental treaty which provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the
conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources.
3.6

1
2
3
4
5
6
This category includes bare soil, rock, ice, and all land areas that do not fall into any of the other five categories.
It allows the total of identified land areas to match the national area, where data are available. If data are
available, countries are encouraged to classify unmanaged lands by the above land-use categories (e.g., into
Unmanaged Forests, Unmanaged Grasslands, and Unmanaged Wetlands). This will improve transparency and
enhance the ability to track land-use conversions from specific types of unmanaged lands into the categories
above.
LAND-USE CONVERSIONS
8
9
10
11
Full application of the guidance requires estimation of land-use conversions that take place between data
collection intervals, particularly when different carbon stock estimates and different emission and removal
factors are associated with lands before and after a transition. Applicable land uses and land-use conversions are
shown below:
12
FF
Forest land remaining Forest land LF
lands converted to Forest land
13
GG
Grassland remaining Grassland
LG
lands converted to Grassland
14
CC
Cropland remaining Cropland
LC
lands converted to Cropland
15
WW
Wetlands remaining Wetlands
LW
lands converted to Wetlands
16
SS
Settlements remaining Settlements LS
lands converted to Settlements
17
OO
Other land remaining Other land
lands converted to Other land
LO
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Where detailed data about the origin of land converted to a category are available (which will depend on the
Approach available to a country to represent land-use areas), countries can specify the land-use conversion. For
example, LC can be sub-divided into Forest land converted to Cropland (FC) and Grassland converted to
Cropland (GC). While both land areas end up in the Cropland category, the differences in their emissions and
removals of greenhouse gases due to their origin should be represented and reported wherever possible. When
applying these land-use category conversions, countries should classify land under only one (end land use)
category to prevent double counting. The reporting category is therefore the end-use category, not the category
of origin prior to the land-use conversion.
26
27
28
29
30
31
If a country's national land-use classification system does not match categories (i) to (vi) as described above, the
land-use classifications should be combined or disaggregated in order to represent the categories presented here.
Countries should report on the procedure adopted for the reallocation. The national definitions for all categories
used in the inventory and any threshold or parameter values used in the definitions should be specified. Where
national land classification systems are being changed or developed for the first time, compatibility with landuse classes (i) to (vi) above should be sought.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
The broad land-use categories listed above may be further stratified (as described in Section 3.3.2) by climate or
ecological zone, soil and vegetation type etc. as necessary to match land areas with the methods for assessing
carbon stock changes and greenhouse gas emissions and removals described in Chapters 2 and 4-9 of this
Volume. Default climate and soil classification schemes are provided in Annex 3A.5. Examples of stratifications
that are used for Tier 1 emissions and removals estimation are summarized in Table 3.1. Specific stratification
systems vary by land use and carbon pools and are used in the estimation methods later in this Volume.
Guidance on stratifying land-use areas to match data needs for estimating emissions and removals is provided in
Section 3.3.2 of this chapter.
3.7
1
TABLE 3.1
EXAMPLE STRATIFICATIONS WITH SUPPORTING DATA FOR TIER 1 EMISSIONS ESTIMATION
METHODS
FACTOR
CLIMATE
(see Annex 3A.5)
SOIL
(see Annex 3A.5)
BIOMASS (ECOLOGICAL
ZONE)
(see Figure 4.1, in Chapter 4
Forest land)
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES (more than one
may be applied to any land
area)
STRATA
Boreal
Cold temperate dry
Cold temperate wet
Warm temperate dry
Warm temperate moist
Tropical dry
Tropical moist
Tropical wet
High activity clay
Low activity clay
Sandy
Spodic
Volcanic
Wetland
Organic
Tropical rainforest
Tropical moist deciduous forest
Tropical dry forest
Tropical shrubland
Tropical desert
Tropical mountain systems
Subtropical humid forest
Subtropical dry forest
Subtropical steppe
Subtropical desert
Subtropical mountain systems
Temperate oceanic forest
Temperate continental forest
Temperate steppe
Temperate desert
Temperate mountain systems
Boreal coniferous forest
Boreal tundra woodland
Boreal mountain systems
Polar
Intensive tillage/Reduced till/No-till
Long term cultivated
Perennial tree crop
Liming
High/Low/Medium Input Cropping Systems
Improved Grassland
Unimproved Grassland
2
3
3.3 REPRESENTING LAND-USE AREAS
4
5
6
7
8
9
This section describes three Approaches that may be used to represent areas of land use using the categories
defined in the previous section. They are presented below in order of increasing information content. Approach 1
identifies the total change in area for each individual land-use category within a country, but does not provide
information on the nature and area of conversions between land uses. Approach 2 introduces tracking of land-use
conversions between categories (but is not spatially explicit). Approach 3 extends Approach 2 by allowing landuse conversions to be tracked on a spatially explicit basis.
10
11
12
13
The Approaches are not presented as hierarchical tiers and do not imply any increase or decrease in accuracy but
reflect collection methods and attributes and, therefore, appropriate ways to use the data. Accuracy is affected as
much or more by the quality of application of the Approach as by the Approach itself. The Approaches are not
mutually exclusive, and the mix of Approaches selected by a country should reflect emissions estimation needs
3.8

1
2
3
4
and national circumstances. One Approach may be applied uniformly to all areas and land-use categories within
a country, or different Approaches may be applied to different regions or categories or in different time intervals.
In all cases, countries should characterize and account for all relevant land areas in a country consistently and as
transparently as possible.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
All data should reflect the historical trends in land-use area, as needed for the inventory methods described in
Chapters 2 and 4-9 of this Volume. The commencement time for the historical data required is based on the
amount of time needed for dead organic matter and soil carbon stocks to reach equilibrium following land-use
conversion (20 years is recommended as a default, but can be longer, e.g., for temperate and boreal systems).
After the period to reach equilibrium has passed, land that was added to a land-use conversion category needs to
be transferred to land remaining in a land-use category. The time-series data on land-use conversion is
therefore also used to determine the annual transfer of area from the category land converted to category to
land remaining in a land-use category.
13
TIME-SERIES
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
It is fundamental to the preparation of an annual inventory that data on land-use area are known at least two
points in time relevant to the inventory year. If these data are of Approach 1 (identifying only the net national
change in area of each land-use category, but not the transfers between them) the historical (not immediately
prior) land use may still not be known. In such circumstances countries should wherever possible infer the
previous land use (see Section 3.3.2.2 below). The alternative assumption that the land has remained in the landuse category for all time prior to the land-use conversion is likely to underestimate removals where conversions
to land uses with higher carbon contents predominate, or underestimate emissions in the opposite case.
21
22
23
24
25
It is important that there is a consistent time-series in the preparation of land-use category and conversion data so
that artifact from method change is not included as an actual land-use conversion. Care should also be taken to
ensure that the areas of managed and unmanaged land are both defined and estimated consistently. The following
section details how to deal with changes in managed land areas (and consequent changes in carbon stock) when
using stock change methods for emissions estimation.
26
CONSISTENT USE OF LAND AREA IN CARBON STOCK ESTIMATES
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Over the time-series of a national inventory, it is likely that the total area of managed lands will increase as
unmanaged lands are converted to managed land. In this case, where the land area is used to estimate the carbon
stock (when using a stock-difference method of emissions estimation), it is possible that the entry of additional
land into the inventory (by changing from an unmanaged to managed status) will incorrectly appear as a carbon
stock increase. This could wrongly be inferred as a removal from the atmosphere, whereas in reality it is only an
increase due to the expanded land-use area over the inventory time-series. To separate carbon stock increases
arising from changes in area from true carbon stock changes, carbon stock estimates should be recalculated for
the complete inventory time-series area whenever the total area of managed land changes in an annual inventory.
35
36
37
38
39
40
The maximum area of land (and associated carbon stock) at any point in the time-series should be used as the
basis for emissions and removals estimation throughout the inventory time-series. Carbon stocks on unmanaged
lands can be assumed to remain constant (thus, carbon stock changes would be zero) until the year in which land
is classified as a managed use. The recalculation will therefore change the initial carbon stock estimate in the
year the land entered the inventory, but will not affect the estimation of carbon stock change over the inventory
time-series until the relevant land becomes managed.
41
DATA AVAILABILITY
42
43
44
45
46
47
For many countries, implementing these inventory guidelines may require new data collection. Annex 3A.3
provides general guidance on sampling techniques and Annex 3A.4 on spatially explicit (Approach 3) datasets.
Where the data needed to apply these inventory guidelines on land use are not available nationally, data on land
categories may be derived from global datasets (examples are provided in Annex 3A.1, but generally report on
the basis of land cover only, and not land use). It is preferable that data used should be capable of producing
input to uncertainty calculations.
48
When using land-use data, inventory compilers should:
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Harmonize definitions between the existing independent databases and also with the land-use categories to
minimize gaps and overlaps. For example, overlaps might occur if woodland on farms were included both in
forestry and agricultural datasets. In order to harmonize data, the woodland should be counted only once for
greenhouse gas inventory purposes, taking into account the forest definition adopted nationally. Information
on possible overlaps for the purposes of harmonization should be available from agencies responsible for
surveys. Harmonization of definitions does not mean that agencies should abandon definitions that are of
use to them but should establish the relationship between definitions in use with the aim of eliminating
3.9
1
2
double counting and omissions. This should be done throughout the dataset to maintain time-series
consistency.
3
4
5
Ensure that the land-use categories used can identify all relevant activities. For example, if a country needs
to track a managed land-use category such as Forest land, then the classification system must distinguish
managed from unmanaged Forest lands.
6
7
Ensure that data acquisition methods are reliable, well documented methodologically, timely, at an
appropriate scale, and from reliable sources.
8
9
10
11
Ensure the consistent application of category definitions between time periods. For example, countries
should check whether the definition of forest has changed over time in terms of tree crown cover and other
parameters. If changes are identified, use the corrected data for recalculation consistently throughout the
time-series, and report on actions taken. Guidance on recalculation can be found in Volume 1 Chapter 5.
12
13
Prepare uncertainty estimates for those land-use areas and conversions in area that will be used in the
estimation of carbon stock changes, greenhouse gas emissions and removals.
14
15
16
Ensure that the national land area is consistent across the inventory time-series; otherwise stock changes will
reflect false C increases or decreases due to a change in total land area accounted for when using a stock
change emissions estimation method.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Assess whether the sum of the areas in the land classification databases is consistent with the total national
area, given the level of data uncertainty. If coverage is complete, then the net sum of all the changes in land
area between two time periods should be zero to within the uncertainties involved. In cases where coverage
is incomplete, the difference between the area covered and the national area should, in general, be stable or
vary slowly with time, again to within the uncertainties expected in the data. If the balancing term varies
rapidly, or (in the case of complete coverage) sums are not equal, inventory compilers should investigate,
explain, and make any corrections necessary. These checks on the total area should take into account the
uncertainties in the annual or periodic surveys or censuses involved. Information on uncertainties should be
obtained from the agencies responsible for the surveys. Remaining differences between the sum of areas
accounted for by the available data and the national area should be within the expected uncertainty for area
estimation.
28
29
30
For some activities reported, such as the application of nitrogen fertilizer, liming and harvested wood products,
only national aggregate data may be available. Where emissions and removals estimation methods are applied at
a national level, it is appropriate to use such data without categorization by land use.
31
3.3.1 Three Approaches
32
A PPROACH 1: T OTAL L AND - USE A REA ,
33
BETWEEN LAND USES
NO DATA ON CONVERSIONS
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Approach 1 represents land-use area totals within a defined spatial unit, which is often defined by political
boundaries, such as a country, province or municipality. Another characteristic of Approach 1 data is that only
the net changes in land-use area can be tracked through time. Consequently, the exact location or pattern of the
land uses is not known within the spatial unit, and moreover the exact changes in land-use categories cannot be
ascertained. Datasets are likely to have been prepared for other purposes, such as forestry or agricultural
statistics. Frequently, several datasets will be combined to cover all national land classifications and regions of a
country. In this case the absence of a unified data system can potentially lead to double counting or omission,
since the agencies involved may use different definitions of specific land use for assembling their databases.
Ways to deal with this are suggested below.
43
44
45
46
Tables 3.2 and 3.3 show summary land-use area data for a hypothetical country (with a national land area of 140
million ha) using locally relevant land classifications. Table 3.2 is prepared at the level of the broad land-use
categories. Table 3.3 depicts the same information with example stratifications to estimate the effect of various
activities using the emissions estimation methods described elsewhere in this Volume.
47
48
49
50
Determination of the area of land-use conversion in each category is based on the difference in area at two points
in time, either with partial or full land area coverage. No specification of inter-category conversions (i.e., land
remaining in a land-use category and land converted to a new land-use category) is possible under Approach
1 unless supplementary data are available (which would then introduce a mix with Approach 2).
3.10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
The land-use area data may come originally from periodic sample survey data, maps or censuses (such as
landowner surveys), but will probably not be spatially explicit. The sum of all land-use category areas may or
may not equal the total area of the country or region under consideration, and the net result of land-use
conversions may or may not equal zero, depending on the consistency in data collection and application in the
inventories for each land-use category. The final result of this Approach is a table of land use at given points in
time. Because the total land base that is reported each year for all land-use categories should remain constant, a
table similar to Table 3.3 should be generated as a QA/QC measure. If inconsistencies are found, it is good
practice to identify and correct the problem(s) for future inventories. This may require closer coordination
among inventory teams for separate land-use categories (if analyzed separately) or possibly new surveys or other
types of data collection.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Other parts of this Volume require information on land area in each land-use category presented in Table 3.3 to
be broken down into the categories land remaining in the same land-use category and land converted to a new
land-use category. This is dependent on methodological requirements in other chapters of this Volume. If landuse data are not sufficient to support Approach 2 (see below), where the total (gross) land conversion areas can
be quantified, the emissions and removals may be reported in the land remaining in the same land-use category
(as specified in Table 3.2). This is because the data may only be sufficient to identify the net change in area of
each land-use category, and not the total effect of all land conversions. However, in general the methods for both
soils and biomass related emissions estimation require land area data categorized by lands remaining and
converted to categories and thus it is desirable to do this if possible, even if this is done using expert judgment.
20
21
22
23
24
Note that by reporting only in the land remaining category, emissions and removals will include, but not
explicitly reflect a changing land base within a land-use category (different areas, e.g., by the net transition in
areas to and from the Forest land category) over time. This may overestimate or underestimate emissions for that
particular land remaining category. However, a complete inventory will tend to counter-balance this with
emissions and removals from another land remaining category in the inventory.
25
26
27
It is acceptable to report non-CO2 emission by source category without attribution to land uses if emissions are
estimated based on national statistics, without reference to individual land uses (e.g., N2O emissions from soils).
Methods outlined in this Volume frequently estimate emissions using national statistics in this manner.
28
EXAMPLE OF APPROACH 1: AVAILABLE
Time 1
F
TABLE 3.2
LAND USE DATA WITH COMPLETE NATIONAL COVERAGE
Net Land-use Conversion
between Time 1 and Time 2
Time 2
=
18
19
Forest land
+1
84
82
Grassland
-2
31
29
Cropland
-2
Wetlands
Settlements
+3
Other land
Sum
140
Sum
140
Sum
Note: F = Forest land, G = Grassland, C = Cropland, W = Wetlands, S = Settlements, O = Other land. Numbers represent area units (Mha in
this example).
29
30
3.11
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE OF
Land-use
category/strata
Forest land total
Forest land
(Unmanaged)
Forest land
(temperate
continental
forest)
(converted to
another land-use
category)
TABLE 3.3
STRATIFICATION OF DATA FOR APPROACH 1
Initial land area

(million ha)
Final land area

(million ha)
Net Change in area

(million ha)
18
19
Not included in the

inventory estimates
(Estimates should be
prepared on the 8
million ha)
No land-use
conversion. Could
require stratification
for different
management regimes
etc.
Forest land
(boreal
coniferous)
Grassland total
84
82
-2
Grassland
(Unimproved)
65
63
-2
Grassland
(Improved)
19
19
Cropland total
31
29
-2
Wetlands total
Settlements total
0
5
0
8
0
3
Other land total
140
140
TOTAL
Status
Fall in area indicates

land-use conversion.
Could require
stratification for
different management
regimes etc.
No land-use
conversion. Could
require stratification
for different
management regimes
etc.
Fall in area indicates
land-use conversion.
Could require
stratification for
different management
regimes etc.
Unmanaged - not in
inventory estimates
Note: areas should
reconcile
Note: Initial is the category at a time previous to the date for which the assessment is made and Final is the category at the date of
assessment. Activities for which location data are not available should be identified by further sub-categorisation of an appropriate land
category.
1
2
A PPROACH 2: T OTAL L AND - USE A REA ,
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
INCLUDING CHANGES
BETWEEN CATEGORIES
The essential feature of Approach 2 is that it provides an assessment of both the net losses or gains in the area of
specific land-use categories and what these conversions represent (i.e., changes both from and to a category).
Thus, Approach 2 differs from Approach 1 in that it includes information on conversions between categories, but
is still only tracking those changes without spatially-explicit location data, often based on political boundaries
(i.e., locations of specific land use and land-use conversions are not known). Tracking land-use conversions in
this manner will normally require estimation of initial and final land-use categories for all conversion types, as
well as of total area of unchanged land by category. The final result of this Approach can be presented as a nonspatially-explicit land-use conversion matrix. The matrix form is a compact format for representing the areas that
have come under different conversions between all possible land-use categories. Existing land-use databases
3.12

1
2
3
may have sufficient detail for this Approach, or it may be necessary to obtain data through sampling or other
methods. The input data may or may not have originally been spatially-explicit (i.e., mapped or otherwise
geographically referenced).
4
5
6
7
For Approach 2, emission and removal factors can be chosen to reflect differences in the rate of changes in
carbon according to the conversions between any two categories, and differences in initial carbon stocks
associated with different land uses can be taken into account. For example, the rate of soil organic carbon loss
will commonly be much higher from cropping than from pasture.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Approach 2 is illustrated in Table 3.4 using the data from the Approach 1 example (Table 3.3) by adding
information on all the conversions taking place. Such data can be written in the more compact form of a matrix
and this is presented in Table 3.5. To illustrate the added value of Approach 2 and this land-use conversion
matrix format, the data of Table 3.5 is given in Table 3.6 without the stratification of the land-use categories.
This can be compared with the more limited information from Approach 1 in Table 3.2. In Table 3.6, the
conversions into and out of land categories can be tracked, whereas in Table 3.2 only the net changes in a broad
land-use category are detectable.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
In Tables 3.5 and 3.6, the area in the diagonal cells represents the area in each land-use category that was not
affected by land-use conversion in this inventory year. In preparation for the greenhouse gas emission and
removal estimations described elsewhere in this Volume, this area should be further sub-divided into the area
that has remained in the land-use category and area that has been affected by a land-use conversion (i.e., the land
converted to a different land-use category) in the previous Y years (where Y is the time period during which C
pools are expected to reach equilibrium (the IPCC default is 20 years, based on soil C pools typical time to
equilibrium after land-use conversion).
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Therefore, under the default assumption in every inventory year, the area converted to a land-use category
should be added to the category land converted to and the same area removed from the land remaining in the
land-use category. The area of land that entered that land converted to category, 21 years ago (if using the
default 20 year period), should be removed and added to the category land remaining land. For example, in
Table 3.5, if data indicated that four of the 56 Mha in the Grassland category had been converted from Forest
land 21 years ago, then four Mha of land should be moved from the category land converted to Grassland to
the category land remaining Grassland in this annual inventory.
29
A PPROACH 3: S PATIALLY - EXPLICIT L AND - USE C ONVERSION D ATA
30
31
32
33
34
Approach 3 is characterized by spatially-explicit observations of land-use categories and land-use conversions,

often tracking patterns at specific point locations and/or using gridded map products, such as derived from
remote sensing imagery. The data may be obtained by various sampling, wall-to-wall mapping techniques, or
combination of the two methods. An overview of potential methods for developing Approach 3 datasets is
provided in Annex 3A.4.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Approach 3 data can be summarized in tables similar to Tables 3.5 and 3.6. The main advantage of spatiallyexplicit data is that analysis tools such as Geographic Information Systems can be used to link multiple spatiallyexplicit data sets (such as those used for stratification) and describe in detail the conditions on a particular piece
of land prior to and after a land-use conversion. This analytical capacity can improve emissions estimates by
better aligning land-use categories (and conversions) with strata mapped for classification of carbon stocks and
emission factors by soil type, vegetation type. This may be particularly applicable for Tier 3 emission estimation
methodologies. However, issues of compatible and comparable spatial resolutions need to be taken into account.
42
3.3.2 Using the Data
43
44
45
46
47
48
Figure 3.1 is a decision tree to assist in describing and/or obtaining the data on land-use areas. All three
Approaches can, if implemented appropriately and consistently, be used to produce robust greenhouse gas
emission and removal estimates. However, it should be noted that Approach 1 will probably not detect changes
in biomass, such as those due to the full extent of deforestation and reforestation on separate areas of land, but
only those due to the net conversion of land-use area from a forest to a non-forest use. In general, only Approach
3 will allow for the spatial representation required as an input to spatially-based carbon models.
49
50
51
Different Approaches may be more effective over different time periods, or may be required for different
reporting purposes. Methods to carry out matching of the time-series between the different periods or uses
should be applied.
52
3.13
TABLE 3.4
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE OF TABULATING ALL LAND-USE CONVERSION FOR APPROACH 2
INCLUDING NATIONALLY DEFINED STRATA
Initial Land Use
Final Land Use
Land Area, Mha
Inclusions/Exclusions
Forest land (Unmanaged)
Forest land (Unmanaged)
Excluded from GHG inventory
Forest land (Managed,

temperate continental)

Included in GHG inventory

Grassland (Unimproved)

Settlements
Forest land (Managed, boreal

coniferous)
Forest land (Managed, boreal

coniferous)
61
Grassland (Improved)
Settlements
17

29
Cropland
Cropland
Settlements
Wetlands
Wetlands
Settlements
Settlements
Other land
Other land
Excluded from GHG inventory
Cropland
Cropland
TOTAL
140
Note: Data are a stratified version of those in Table 3.3. Sub-categories are nationally defined and are illustrative only. Initial indicates
the category at a time previous to the date for which the assessment is made and Final the category at the date of assessment.
3.14

1
TABLE 3.5
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE OF APPROACH 2 DATA IN A LAND-USE CONVERSION MATRIX WITH CATEGORY STRATIFICATION
Final
Forest land Forest land

Initial Forest land (Managed, (Managed,
Grassland
Grassland
Other
Cropland Wetlands Settlements
(Unmanaged) temperate
boreal
(Unimproved) (Improved)
land
continental) coniferous)
Forest land
(Unmanaged)
Forest land
(Managed,
temperate
continental)
Forest Land
(Managed,
boreal
coniferous)
Grassland
(Unimproved)
61
Grassland
(Improved)
63
17
19
29
Cropland
29
0
Wetlands
1
Settlements
0
5
Other land
Initial area
NET change
Final
area
7
1
6
0
8
2
65
19
31
140
-2
-2
+3
Note: Column and row totals show net conversion of land use as presented in Table 3.3. Initial indicates the category at a time previous to the date for which the
assessment is made and Final the category at the date of assessment. Net changes (bottom row) are the final area minus the initial area for each of the
(conversion) categories shown at the head of the corresponding column. Blank entry indicates no land-use conversion for this transition.
2
TABLE 3.6
SIMPLIFIED LAND-USE CONVERSION MATRIX FOR EXAMPLE APPROACH 2
NET Land-use Conversion Matrix
Initial
F
G
C
W
S
O
Final sum
Final
3
1
F
15
19
G
80
82
29
29
0
W
1
0
5
O
Initial sum
18
84
31
Note:
F = Forest land, G = Grassland,
C = Cropland,
S = Settlements, O = Other land
Numbers represent area units (Mha in this example).
8
2
140
W = Wetlands,
3.15
1
3.3.2.1 S TRATIFICATION
OF
L AND - USE D ATA
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Once land use and land-use conversion areas have been established, it is necessary to consider the capacity and
need for further stratification. This may be needed to locate relevant data from subsequent chapters for emissions
factors, carbon stocks etc. Table 3.1 shows the typical stratifications for which data are available for the
application of Tier 1 emissions and removals estimation. Throughout the default tables used to populate
equations to calculate a Tier 1 inventory, specific data cells are highlighted that represented the pre-defined
stratifications applied to Tier 1 inventories. That is, Tier 1 default data (tables) conform to a consistent
stratification so that there is no further calculation or ambiguity in the appropriate selection of default data to
populate equations. Where countries are preparing Tier 2 and 3 inventories, it is likely that stratification schemes
may differ based on country-specific information and selection, manipulation or supplementation of default data
may be required.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Unless all land-use area and stratification data are spatially-explicit (Approach 3), the development of rules for
allocations to strata may be required. For example, Approach 1 land-use data are stratified by climate and soil
type to estimate soil C stock changes. Optimally, the land-use data can be down-scaled to capture the proportion
of land uses in each climate or soil type, with ancillary information and expert knowledge. If re-scaling is not
possible, inventory estimation can still proceed, but the emissions and removals estimates should reflect
uncertainties in the assignment of emission/stock change factors (and associated parameters) that vary by climate
and/or soil.
19
20
21
22
23
24
Management data may only be available in an Approach 1 format (e.g., expert knowledge or periodic surveys of
different sets of land owners) even if Approach 2 or 3 data are available for land-use categories. In this case,
management can be summarized as a proportion of the management practice (e.g., % no till, intensive tillage and
reduced tillage) in each lands remaining and lands converted land-use category. This will be a limiting
assumption if the management classes are not evenly distributed as the impact of management on the emission or
removal depends on land-use category.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Tier 2 and 3 methods may also evaluate interactions between management practices that affect emission/stock
change factors. Determining the appropriate combinations of management is another issue that needs careful
consideration. Tier 1 methods typically do not address the temporal trends in emissions/stock change factors
(assuming a linear change) or capture interactions among management practices on a specific land use, but rather
represent an average effect. Consequently, assignment of emission/stock change factors may become more
complicated with higher Tier methods and require careful explanation of the scaling processes that were used to
delineate the appropriate combinations of the climate, soil, ecological zones, and/or management systems.
32
3.16

Figure 3.1
Decision tree for preparation of land-use area data
2
3
4
Identify a primary existing

land use dataset for the
country (e.g., FAO data)
5
6
7
Are
spatially explicit
data available, if
needed?
Are
spatially
explicit data
needed for some
or any land
areas?
No
Yes
Are
spatial data for
a geographically
mixed Approach (1,
2, & 3)
available?
Does
the dataset have
any underlying
spatial
information?
No
9
10
Yes
Yes
Yes
Primary dataset
acceptable for use
Modify primary
dataset to use
mixed Approaches
(1, 2, & 3), if
needed
Obtain and use the

additional spatial
information
Does
the (modified)
primary dataset
cover the whole
country?
No
Can
the gaps in the
area coverage be
filled using other
existing data
sets?
No
Yes
(Modified) Primary
dataset acceptable
for coverage
Does
the (modified)
primary dataset provide a
complete time-series for
the country?
Yes
Document the choice
of methods
(Approaches)
No
Can
new data be
collected to fill the
gaps in area
coverage?
No
Yes
Yes
Combine primary
and secondary
datasets
Collect new data

for the gaps in
area coverage
Can data
for missing years
be supplemented with
existing secondary
data sets?
No
Can
new data be collected
to complete the timeseries?
Yes
Yes
Use a mix of
Approaches to
build a complete
time-series
Collect new data

for the gaps in the
time-series using
guidance in this
chapter
No
Collect spatial
information where
required
No
Use international
datasets to
minimize gaps in
coverage and
document results
No
Use techniques for

interpolation and
extrapolation to
estimate fluxes for
missing years
3.17
3.3.2.2 P REPARING A REA D ATA

E STIMATION
3
4
5
6
7
8
Preparing a greenhouse gas inventory for AFOLU requires the integration of land-use area with data of land
management and biomass, dead organic matter and soil carbon stock pools, in order to estimate carbon stock
changes and CO2 and non-CO2 emissions and removals associated with land use. Depending on the type of data
available (Approach 1, 2 or 3), there are implications for the subsequent use of the data in the preparation of
estimates of emissions and removals according to the land-use conversion framework represented in the
reporting tables.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Countries that only have access to Approach 1 data have two options for reporting land-use category conversions.
Total areas for categories of land remaining in a land use may include some portion of land that was converted
to that land use since the last inventory. Countries should wherever possible apportion change in land-use areas
over time to inferred land-use conversion categories for the purposes of determining appropriate carbon stock
and emission factor estimates. For example, a country with 1 Mha of forest, 1,000 ha deforestation and 1,000 ha
afforestation has a zero net change in Forest land area (presuming these changes occurred on managed land), but
will have a reduction in forest biomass C stocks, at least until sufficient regrowth occurs. Subsequent decisions
will be needed to relate these inferred area conversions between land-use categories to appropriate land
management, biomass and soil C stocks and emission factors. Where this is done, countries should report the
basis for these decisions, and any methods of verification or cross-checking of estimates that have been applied,
and the effects on inventory uncertainty. If this apportioning is not done, then countries should state this, and
report the effect on uncertainties associated with doing so.
21
22
23
24
25
26
For countries with Approach 2 data, where information on the areas of each land-use conversion is known, but is
not spatially-explicit, these area estimates still need to be linked to appropriate initial carbon stocks, emissions
factors, etc. In some cases, this may require the assignment of the land-use conversion data to climate, and/or
vegetation type, soil and management strata. Again, this can be done by some form of sampling, scaling or
expert judgement. Countries should report the basis for these decisions, and any methods of verification or crosschecking of estimates that have been applied.
27
28
29
30
31
For countries using Approach 3 data, it is possible to apportion areas of land-use conversion by spatially
intersecting the data with other spatial datasets, such as those on climate, and/or vegetation type, soil and
management strata. However, it is likely that inference, for example, based on survey data and expert judgement,
will be needed to apportion the land-use conversion and biophysical data by management practices as data on
management practices are rarely available in spatially explicit formats.
32
34
3.4 MATCHING LAND AREAS WITH FACTORS FOR

ESTIMATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
AND REMOVALS
35
36
37
38
39
This section provides brief guidance on matching the land-use area data with carbon stocks, emissions factors
and other relevant data (e.g., forest biomass stocks, average annual net increment) to estimate greenhouse gas
emissions and removals. An initial step in preparing national inventory estimates is to assemble the required
activity data (i.e., land-use areas) and match them with appropriate carbon stock, emissions and removal factors
and other relevant data.
40
41
42
43
44
This Volume provides default data (specifically marked) needed to make Tier 1 estimates for all AFOLU
categories according to specified climate and ecological zone stratifications. In addition, countries may develop
country-specific carbon stock, emission and removal factors and other relevant data (Tiers 2 and 3 inventory
methods). The following summarizes the principles to be followed when matching activity data with carbon
stock, emission and removal factors and other relevant data:
45
match national land-use area classifications to as many land-use categories as possible;
46
47
when national land-use classifications do not conform to the land-use categories of these guidelines,
document the relationship between classification systems;
48
49
use classifications consistently through time and, when necessary, document any modifications made to
classification system;
50
51
document definitions of land categories, land-use area estimates, and how they correspond to emission and
removal factors; and,
33
3.18
FOR
E MISSIONS
AND
R EMOVALS

1
2
Following are the recommended steps for matching land areas with emission and removal factors:
4
5
6
7
8
1.
Start with the most disaggregated land-use area stratification as well as the most detailed available emission
and removal factors needed to make an estimate. For example, the Forest land methodologies, described in
Chapter 4 of this Volume, provide a default factor for above-ground biomass stocks in forest plantations that
is disaggregated at the most detailed stratification, relative to other factors (i.e., forest type, region, species
group, age class, and climate). These strata would be used as an initial base stratification.
2.
Include only those strata applicable in your country and use this as a base stratification.
10
11
12
3.
Match land-use area estimates to the base stratification at the most disaggregated level possible. Countries
may need to use expert judgment to align the best available land-use area estimates with the base
stratification.
13
14
15
16
17
4.
Map emission and removal factors onto the base stratification by matching them as closely as possible to the
stratification categories. Note that many of the default stock change and emissions factors and other
parameters in Tier 1 (default) equations were statistically derived for specifically defined strata (e.g. climate
type, soil type) so that countries wishing to use Tier 1 methods for these emissions and removals should
stratify land-use categories using the definitions as specified for Tier 1 change factors and parameters.
18
19
20
21
22
23
If a national land-use classification is fitted to the land-use categories (and sub-categories) this facilitates
matching of emission and removal factors that follow the same classification. For example, default soil carbon
factors for Forest land, Cropland, and Grassland are disaggregated by the same climate regions (see Annex 3A.5).
Therefore, the same land area classification can be used to estimate soil carbon changes in each of the land-use
categories, enabling consistent tracking of lands and carbon fluxes on lands resulting from land-use category
conversions.
24
25
26
27
28
29
Countries may find that national land classifications change over time as national circumstances change and
more detailed activity data and emission/removal factors become available. In some cases, the stratification will
be elaborated with the addition of more detailed emission and removal factors. In other cases, new stratifications
systems will be established when countries implement new forest inventories or remote sensing sampling
designs. When changes to the stratification system occur, countries should recalculate the entire time-series of
estimates using the new stratification if possible.
30
31
3.5 UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE

APPROACHES
32
33
34
35
36
37
Uncertainties should be quantified and reduced as far as practicable. Land-use area uncertainty estimates are
required as an input to overall uncertainty analysis. Although the uncertainty associated with the Approaches (1
to 3) obviously depends on how well they are implemented, it is possible to give an indication of what can be
achieved in practice. Table 3.7 sets out the sources of uncertainty (not the significance) for different Approaches.
This provides a guide to sources of uncertainties, indicative levels of uncertainty under certain conditions that
might be encountered, and a basis for reducing uncertainties.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
The number of potential sources of uncertainty in area estimates will tend to increase from Approach 1 to
Approach 3, because successively more data are brought into the assessment. This does not imply that
uncertainty increases, however, because of the additional cross-checks that are made possible by the new data,
and because of the general reduction in uncertainties due to cancellation of errors. The main difference between
Approach 1, and Approaches 2 and 3 is that percentage uncertainties on conversion between land uses are likely
to be greater in Approach 1 (if known at all). This is because in Approach 1 land-use conversions are derived
from differences (net change) in total areas. The effect of this Approach 1 uncertainty on emissions and removals
from conversions will depend on the relative amount of land conversion in the country as a fraction of total land
area. Approach 3 produces detailed spatially-explicit information; which may be required e.g., for some spatial
modelling approaches to emissions estimation.
match each land-use category or sub-category to the most suitable carbon stock estimates, emission and
removal factors and other relevant data.
48
3.19
TABLE 3.7
SUMMARY OF UNCERTAINTIES UNDER APPROACHES 1 TO 3
Approach 1
Sources of uncertainty
Ways to reduce uncertainty
Indicative uncertainty
following checks
Sources of uncertainty may include

some or all of the following,
depending on the nature of the
source of data:
Check for consistent

relationship with national
area
Order of a few % to order of

10% for total land area in each
category.
Correct for differences in

definitions
Consult statistical
agencies on likely
uncertainties involved
Compare with
international datasets
Error in census returns
Differences in definition
between agencies
Sampling design
Sampling error
Interpretation of samples
Only net change in area is

known
Greater % uncertainty for

changes in area derived from
successive surveys.
Systematic errors may be

significant when data prepared
for other purposes is used.
In addition:
Cross-checks on area changes
between categories cannot be
conducted under Approach 1 and
this will tend to increase
uncertainties.
Approach 2
As Approach 1, but gross changes

in area are known, and with ability
to carry out cross-checks
As above, plus consistency

checks between inter-category
changes within the matrix
Order of a few % to order of

10% for total land area in each
category, and greater for
changes in area, since these are
derived directly
Approach 3
As Approach 2 plus uncertainties

linked to interpretation of remote
sensing data where used, and minus
any sampling uncertainty
As Approach 2 plus formal

analysis of uncertainties using
principles set out in Volume 1
Chapter 3
As Approach 2, but areas

involved can be identified
geographically. However, for
Approach 3, the amount of
uncertainty can be estimated
more accurately than for
Approach 2 because errors are
mapped and can be tested
against independent data/field
checked
3.20

ANNEX 3A.1 EXAMPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAND COVER DATASET
Dataset name
Asian Association on Remote Sensing (AARS)

Global 4-Minute Land Cover
International Geosphere-Biosphere Program

Data & Information Services (IGBP-DIS)
Global 1km Land Cover Data Set
Global Land Cover Dataset
Author
Center for Environmental Remote Sensing,

Chiba University
IGBP/DIS
United States Geological Survey (USGS),

USA
GLCF (Global Land Cover Facility)
Brief description
of contents
Land cover classes are identified through

clustering National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Advanced Very High
Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) monthly
data.
This classification is derived from AVHRR

1km data and ancillary data.
The data set is derived from a flexible data

base structure and seasonal land cover
regions concepts
Metrics describing the temporal dynamics of

vegetation were applied to 1984 PAL data at
8km resolution to derive a global land cover
classification product using a decision tree
classifier.
Classification
scheme
Original classification scheme is applied.

Compatible with IGBP/DIS classification
scheme.
It consists of 17 classes.
A convergence of evidence approach is used

to determine the land cover type for each
seasonal land cover class.
The classification was derived by testing

several metrics that describe the temporal
dynamics of vegetation over an annual cycle.
Data format
(vector/raster)
Raster
Raster
Raster
Raster
Spatial coverage
Global
Global
Global
Global
Data acquisition
year
1990
1992-1993
April 1992-March 1993
1987
Spatial resolution
4min x 4min.
or grid size
1km x 1km
1km x 1km
8km x 8km
Revision interval
(for time-series
datasets)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Quality
description
Ground truth data are compared against the

dataset.
High-resolution satellite imagery used to

statistically validate the dataset.
Sample point accuracy: 59.4% Areaweighted accuracy: 66.9% (Scepan, 1999).
No description
Contact address
and reference
URL
http://ceres.cr.chiba-u.ac.jp:8080/usrdir/you/ICHP/index.html
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/igbpdis/frame/coreprojects/index.html
icac@usgs.govhttp://edcdaac.usgs.gov/glcc/g
http://glcf.umiacs.umd.edu/index.shtml
lobe_int.html.
These datasets are primarily about land cover and/or land cover change. Few refer to actual land use.
3.21
Global Land Cover Dataset
Examples of international land cover datasets (Continued)
Dataset name
Geocover
Author
MacDonald Dettwiler &

Associates
Brief
description of
contents
A medium resolution land

cover database from
orthorectified Landsat
Thematic Mapper imagery
Classification
scheme
13 class map
Data format
(vector/raster)
Raster & vector
Spatial
coverage
CORINE land cover (CLC2000) database
Digital Chart of the World
Global Map
Dr. Ruth De Fries University of

Maryland at College Park, USA
European Environmental Agency
ESRI Products
Produced by National Mapping

Organizations, and Compiled by ISCGM.
The data set describes the geographical

distributions of eleven major cover
types based on inter-annual variations
in NDVI.
It provides a pan-European inventory of

biophysical land cover. CORINE land cover
is a key database for integrated
environmental assessment.
It is a worldwide base map of coastlines,

boundaries, land cover, etc. Contains more
than 200 attributes arranged into 17 thematic
layers with text annotations for geographical
features.
Digital geographic information in 1 km

resolution covering the whole land with
standardized specifications and available
to everyone at marginal cost.
It consists of the digital 13 class map
Uses a 44 class nomenclature.
8 Agriculture/ Extraction features and 7

surface cover features.
Refer to http://www.iscgm.org/gmspecifications11.pdf
Raster
Raster
Vector Polygons
Raster and Vector
Global
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech

Global coverage
Republic, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland ,
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, United
Kingdom, Parts of Morocco and Tunisia.
Participating countries (90 in number)
1987
Depends on the country (overall time span

is around 1985-95)
Based on ONCs of US Defence Mapping

Agency. Period 1970-80. Refer to the
Compilation date layer.
Depends on the participating nations.
1 x 1 degree
250m by 250m grid database which has

been aggregated from the original vector
data at 1:100,000.
1:1,000,000 scale
1km x 1km grids
Not applicable
CLC Update Project of 2000 for updating it Not applicable

to the 1990's data
No description
No specific information available. Refer to Data quality information exists at three levels Refer to http://www.iscgm.org/gmhttp://dataservice.eea.eu.int/dataservice/othe within the database: feature, layer and source. specifications11.pdf.
r/land_cover/lcsource.asp for country wise
information.
Global
Data
Various
acquisition year
Spatial
resolution or
grid size
30m x 30m grid
Revision
interval (for
time-series
datasets)
Not applicable
Quality
description
1 Land Cover Map from AVHRR
No description
landcov@geog.umd.edu
dataservice@eea.eu.int
http://www.esri.com/data/index.html
Contact
http://www.mdafederal.com/ http://www.geog.umd.edu/landcover/1 http://www.terrestrial.eionet.eu.int/CLC200
address and
geocover/project
d-map.html
0dataservice.eea.eu.int/dataservice/metadeta
reference URL
ils.asp?table=landcover and i=1
3.22
Approximately five-year intervals
sec@iscgm.org
http://www.iscgm.org/

ANNEX 3A.2 DEVELOPMENT OF LAND-USE

DATABASES
There are three broad sources of data for the land-use databases needed for greenhouse gas inventories:
databases prepared for other purposes;
collection by sampling; and
complete land inventory.
7
8
9
10
The following subsections provide general advice on the use of these types of data. Greenhouse gas inventory
preparers might not be involved in the detailed collection of remote sensing data or ground survey data, but can
use the guidance provided here to help plan inventory improvements and communicate with experts in these
areas.
11
3A.2.1
12
13
14
Two types of available databases may be used to classify land. In many countries, national datasets of the type
discussed below will be available. Otherwise, inventory compilers may use international datasets. Both types of
databases are described below.
15
NATIONAL DATABASES
16
17
18
These will usually be based on existing data, updated annually or periodically. Typical sources of data include
forest inventories, agricultural census and other surveys, censuses for urban and natural land, land registry data
and maps.
19
INTERNATIONAL DATABASES
20
21
22
23
Several projects have been undertaken to develop international land-use and land cover datasets at regional to
global scales (Annex 3A.1 lists some of these datasets). Almost all of these datasets are stored as raster data
generated using different kinds of satellite remote sensing imagery, complemented by ground reference data
obtained by field survey or comparison with existing statistics/maps. These datasets can be used for:
24
25
26
Estimating spatial distribution of land-use categories. Conventional inventories usually provide only the
total sum of land-use area by classes. Spatial distribution can be reconstructed using international land-use
and land cover data as auxiliary data where national data are not available.
27
28
29
30
Reliability assessment of the existing land-use datasets. Comparison between independent national and
international datasets can indicate apparent discrepancies, and understanding these may increase confidence
in national data and/or improve the usability of the international data, if required for purposes such as
extrapolation.
31
When using an international dataset, inventory compilers should consider the following:
Use of Data Prepared for Other Purposes
32
33
34
35
(i)
The classification scheme (e.g., definition of land-use classes and their relations) may differ from
that in the national system. The equivalence between the classification systems used by the country
and the systems described in Section 3.2 (Land-use categories) therefore needs to be established by
contacting the international agency and comparing their definitions with those used nationally.
36
37
(ii)
Spatial resolution (typically 1km nominally but sometimes an order of magnitude more in practice)
may be coarse, so national data may need aggregating to improve comparability.
38
39
40
(iii)
Classification accuracy and errors in geo-referencing may exist, though several accuracy tests are
usually conducted at sample sites. The agencies responsible should have details on classification
issues and tests undertaken.
41
42
(iv)
As with national data, interpolation or extrapolation will probably be needed to develop estimates
for the time periods to match the dates required for reporting.
43
3.23
1
3A.2.2
Collection of New Data by Sampling Methods
2
3
4
5
Sampling techniques for estimating areas and area changes are applied in situations where total tallies by direct
measurements in the field or assessments by remote sensing techniques are not feasible or would provide
inaccurate results. Sampling concepts that allow for estimation procedures that are consistent and unbiased, and
result in estimates that are precise, should be used.
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sampling usually involves a set of sampling units that are located on a regular grid within the inventory area. A
land-use class is then assigned to each sampling unit. Sampling units can be used to derive the proportions of
land-use categories within the inventory area. Multiplying the proportions by the total area provides estimates of
the area of each land-use category. Where the total area is not known it is assumed that each sampling unit
represents a specific area. The area of the land-use category can then be estimated via the number of sampling
units that fall into this category.
12
13
Where sampling for areas is repeated at successive occasions, area changes over time can be derived to construct
land-use conversion matrices.
14
15
16
Applying a sample-based type for area assessment enables the calculation of sampling errors and confidence
intervals that quantify the reliability of the area estimates in each category. Confidence intervals can be used to
verify if observed category area changes are statistically significant and reflect meaningful changes.
17
Annex 3A.3 provides more information on sampling.
18
3A.2.3
19
20
21
22
23
A complete inventory of land use of all areas in a country will entail obtaining maps of land use throughout the
country at regular intervals. This can be achieved by using remote sensing techniques. As outlined under
Approach 3, the data will be most easily used in a GIS based on a set of grid cells or polygons supported by
ground truth data needed to achieve unbiased interpretation. Coarser scale data can be used to build data for the
whole country or appropriate regions.
24
25
26
27
A complete inventory can also be achieved by surveying all landowners and each would need to provide suitable
data where they own many different blocks of land. Inherent problems in the method include obtaining data at
scales smaller than the size of the owners land as well as difficulties with ensuring complete coverage with no
overlaps.
28
3A.2.4
29
REMOTE SENSING (RS) TECHNIQUES
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Remotely sensed data, as discussed here, are those acquired by sensors (optical, radar or lidar) onboard satellites,
or by cameras equipped with optical or infrared films, installed in aircraft. These data are usually classified to
provide estimates of the land cover and its corresponding area, and usually require ground survey data to provide
an estimate of the classification accuracy. Classification can be done either by visual analysis of the imagery or
photographs, or by digital (computer-based) methods. The strengths of remote sensing come from its ability to
provide spatially-explicit information and repeated coverage, including the possibility of covering large and/or
remote areas that are difficult to access otherwise. Archives of past remote sensing data also span several
decades and can therefore be used to reconstruct past time-series of land cover and land use. The challenge of
remote sensing is related to the problem of interpretation: the images need to be translated into meaningful
information on land cover and land use. Depending on the satellite sensor, the acquisition of data may be
impaired by the presence of atmospheric clouds and haze. Another concern, particularly when comparing data
over long time periods, is that remote sensing systems may change. Remote sensing is particularly useful for
obtaining area estimates of land cover and land-use categories and for assisting in the identification of relatively
homogeneous areas that can guide the selection of sampling schemes and the number of samples to be collected.
44
45
46
47
48
49
Types of remote sensing (RS) data
Collection of New Data in Complete Inventories
Tools for Data Collection
The most commonly used types of RS data are: 1) aerial photographs, 2) satellite imagery using visible and/or
near-infrared bands, 3) satellite or airborne radar imagery and, 4) lidar. Combinations of different types of
remote sensing data (e.g., visible/infrared and radar; different spatial or spectral resolutions) might very well be
used for assessing different land-use categories or regions. A complete remote sensing system for tracking landuse conversions can include many sensor and data type combinations at a variety of resolutions.
3.24

Important criteria for selecting remote sensing data and products are:
Adequate land-use categorisation scheme;
Appropriate spatial resolution;
Appropriate temporal resolution for estimating of land-use conversion;
Availability of accuracy assessment;
Transparent methods applied in data acquisition and processing; and
Consistency and availability over time.
8
9
10
11
12
13
1. Aerial photographs
Analysis of aerial photographs can reveal forest tree species and forest structure from which relative age
distribution and tree health (e.g., needle loss in coniferous forests, leaf loss and stress in deciduous forests) may
be inferred. In agriculture, analysis can show crop species, crop stress, and tree cover in agro-forestry systems.
The smallest spatial unit possible to assess depends on the type of aerial photos used, but for standard products it
is often as small as 1 square metre.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2. Satellite images in visible and near infrared wavelengths
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3. Radar imagery
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
4. Lidar
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Ground reference data
46
47
48
49
Integration of remote sensing and GIS
50
51
Full use of remote sensing generally requires integration of the extensive coverage that remote sensing can
provide with ground-based point measurements or map data to represent areas associated with particular land
Complete land use or land cover of large areas (national or regional) may be facilitated by the use of satellite
images. The possibility exists of obtaining long time-series of data from the desired area since the satellite
continuously and regularly passes over it. The images usually generate a detailed mosaic of distinct categories,
but the labelling into proper land cover and land-use categories commonly requires ground reference data from
maps or field surveys. The smallest unit to be identified depends on the spatial resolution of the sensor and the
scale of work. The most common sensor systems have a spatial resolution of 20 30 metres. At a spatial
resolution of 30 metres, for example, units as small as 1ha can be identified. Data from higher resolution
satellites are also available.
The most common type of radar data are from the so-called Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) systems that
operate at microwave frequencies. A major advantage of such systems is that they can penetrate clouds and haze,
and acquire data during night-time. They may therefore be the only reliable source of remote sensing data in
many areas of the world with quasi-permanent cloud cover. By using different wavelengths and different
polarisations, SAR systems may be able to distinguish land cover categories (e.g., forest/non-forest), or the
biomass content of vegetation, although there are at present some limitations at high biomass due to signal
saturation.
Light detection and ranging (lidar) uses the same principles as radar. The lidar instrument transmits light out to a
target. The transmitted light interacts with and is changed by the target. Some of this light is reflected/scattered
back to the instrument where it is analysed. The change in the properties of the light enables some property of
the target to be determined. The time for the light to travel out to the target and back to the lidar is used to
determine the range to the target. There are three basic types of lidar: range finders, differential absorption lidar,
and doppler.
In order to make use of remote sensing data for inventories, and in particular to relate land cover to land use it is
good practice to complement the remotely sensed data with ground reference data (often called ground truth
data). Ground reference data can either be collected independently, or be obtained from forest or agricultural
inventories. Land uses that are rapidly changing over the estimation period or that have vegetation cover known
to be easily misclassified should be more intensively ground-truthed than other areas. This can only be done by
using ground reference data, preferably from actual ground surveys collected independently. High-resolution
photographs may also be useful.
Visual interpretation of images is often used for identifying sampling sites for forestry inventories. The method
is simple, and reliable. However, it is labour intensive and therefore restricted to limited areas, and may be
affected by subjective interpretations by different operators.
3.25
1
2
uses in space and time. This is generally achieved most cost effectively using a geographical information system
(GIS).
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Classification of land cover using remotely sensed data may be done by visual or digital (computer based)
analysis. Each one presents advantages and disadvantages. Visual analysis of imagery allows for human
inference through the evaluation of overall characteristics of the scene (analysis of the contextual aspects in the
image). Digital classification, on the other hand, allows several manipulations to be performed with the data,
such as merging of different spectral data, which can help to improve modelling of the biophysical ground data
(such as tree diameter, height, basal area, biomass) using the remotely sensed data. In addition, digital analysis
allows for the immediate computation of areas associated with the different land categories. It has developed
rapidly over the past decade, along with the associated technical computer development, making hardware,
software and also the satellite data readily available at low cost in most countries, although capacity to use these
data and facilities may have to be outsourced, particularly in mapping at national level.
Land cover classification using remotely sensed data
14
15
16
Detection of land-use conversion using RS
17
18
19
20
Post-classification change detection: This refers to techniques where two or more predefined land cover/use
classifications exist from different points in time, and where the changes are detected, usually by subtraction of
the datasets. The techniques are straightforward but are also sensitive to inconsistencies in interpretation and
classification of the land-use categories.
21
22
23
24
25
Pre-classification change detection: This refers to more sophisticated and biophysical approaches to change
detection. Differences between spectral response data from two or more points in time are compared by
statistical methods and these differences are used to provide information on land cover/use changes. This type is
less sensitive to interpretation inconsistencies and can detect much more subtle changes than the postclassification approaches, but is less straightforward and requires access to the original remotely sensed data.
26
27
28
29
30
31
There are also other viable methods. For example, one can use change enhancements and visual interpretation.
Areas of change are highlighted through display of different band combinations, band differences or derived
indices (e.g. vegetation indices). This focuses attention on potential land-use conversions sites that can then be
delineated and attributed through manual or automated techniques. These methods are subject to human
interpreter inconsistencies, but are capable of detecting subtle changes and better detecting and mapping land-use
conversion where land cover, context and ancillary information is needed to determine land-use conversion.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Evaluation of mapping accuracy
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Inventory compilers should estimate the accuracy of land-use/land cover maps on a category-by-category basis.
A number of sample points on the map and their corresponding real world categories are used to create a
confusion matrix (see footnote 5 in Annex 3A.4) with the diagonal showing the proportion of correct
identification and the off-diagonal elements showing the relative proportion of misclassification of a land
category into one of the other possible categories. The confusion matrix expresses not only the accuracy of the
map but it is also possible to assess which categories are easily confounded with each other. Based on the
confusion matrix, a number of accuracy indices can be derived (Congalton, 1991). Multi-temporal analysis
(analysis of images taken at different times to determine the stability of land-use classification) can also be used
to improve classification accuracy, particularly in cases where ground truth data are limited.
50
GROUND-BASED SURVEYS
51
52
53
54
Ground-based surveys may be used to gather and record information on land use, and for use as independent
ground-truth data for remote sensing classification. Prior to the advent of remote sensing techniques such as
aerial photography and satellite imagery, ground-based surveys were the only means of generating maps. The
process is essentially one of visiting the area under study and recording visible and/or other physical attributes of
Remote sensing can be used to detect locations of change. Methods for change detection can be divided into two
categories (Singh, 1989):
Whenever a map of land cover or land use is being used, inventory compilers should acquire information about
the reliability of the map. When such maps are generated from classification of remote sensing data, it should be
recognised that the reliability of the map is likely to vary between the different land categories. Some categories
may be uniquely distinguished while others may be confounded with others. For example, coniferous forest is
often more accurately classified than deciduous forest because its reflectance characteristics are more distinct,
while deciduous forest may easily be confounded with, for example, Grassland or Cropland. Similarly, it is often
difficult to ascertain changes in land management practices through remote sensing. For example, it may be
difficult to detect a change from intensive to reduced tillage on a specific land area.
3.26
1
2
3
4
the landscape for mapping purposes. Digitisation of boundaries and symbolising attributes are used to make hard
copy field notes and historical maps useful in Geographical Information Systems (GIS). This is done via
protocols on minimum land area delineation and attribute categorization that are linked to the scale of the
resultant map and its intended use.
5
6
7
8
9
Very precise measurements of area and location can be made using a combination of survey equipment such as
theodolites, tape measures, distance wheels and electronic distance measuring devices. Development of Global
Positioning Systems (GPS) means that location information can be recorded in the field directly into electronic
format using portable computer devices. Data are downloaded to an office computer for registration and
coordination with other layers of information for spatial analysis.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Landowner interviews and questionnaires are used to collect socio-economic and land management information,
but may also provide data on land use and land-use conversion. With this census type, the data collection agency
depends on the knowledge and records of landowners (or users) to provide reliable data. Typically, the resident
is visited and interviewed by a representative of the collection agency and data are recorded in a predetermined
format, or a questionnaire is issued to the land user for completion. The respondent is usually encouraged to use
any relevant records or maps they may have, but questions may also be used to elicit information directly
(Swanson et al., 1997).
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Census surveys are probably the oldest form of data collection methods (Darby, 1970). Land user surveys can be
conducted on the entire population or a sample of suitable size. Modern applications employ a full range of
validation and accuracy assessment techniques. The survey may be undertaken through personal visits, telephone
interviews (often with computer-assisted prompts) or mail-out questionnaires. Land user surveys start with the
formulation of data and information needs into a series of simple and clear questions soliciting concise and
unequivocal responses. The questions are tested on a sample of the population in order to ensure that they are
understandable and to identify any local technical terminology variations. For sample applications, the entire
study area is spatially stratified by appropriate ecological and/or administrative land units, and by significant
categorical differences within the population (e.g., private versus corporate, large versus small, pulp versus
lumber, etc.). For responses dealing with land areas and management practices, some geographic location,
whether precise coordinates, cadastral description or at least ecological or administrative units should be required
of the respondent. Post-survey validation of results is conducted by searching for statistical anomalies,
comparing with independent data sources, conducting a sample of follow-up verification questionnaires or
conducting a sample of on-site verification surveys. Finally, presentation of results must follow the initial
stratification parameters.
32
33
3.27
1
ANNEX 3A.3 SAMPLING
3A.3.1
3
4
5
6
Data on land use are often obtained from sample surveys and typically are used for estimating changes in land
use or in carbon stocks. National forest inventories are important examples of the type of surveys used. This
section provides guidance for the use of data from sample surveys for the reporting of emissions and removals of
greenhouse gases, and for the planning of sample surveys in order to acquire data for this purpose.
3A.3.2
Introduction
Overview on Sampling Principles
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Sampling infers information about an entire population by observing a fraction of it: the sample (see Figure
3A.3.1). For example, changes of carbon in tree biomass at regional or national levels can be estimated from the
growth, mortality and cuttings of trees on a limited number of sample plots. Sampling theory then provides the
means for scaling up the information from the sample plots to the selected geographical level. Properly designed
sampling can greatly increase efficiency in the use of inventory resources. Furthermore, field sampling is generally
needed in developing inventories because, even if remote sensing data provide complete territorial coverage, there
will be a need for ground-based data from sample sites for interpretation and verification.
15
Figure 3A.3.1
Principle of sampling
16
Selection
17
18
19
20
Population
21
22
Sample
23
24
Inference
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Standard sampling theory relies on random selection of a sample from the population; each unit in the population
has a specific probability of being included in the sample. This is the case when sample plots have been
distributed entirely at random within an area, or when plots have been distributed in a systematic grid system as
long as the positioning of the grid is random. Random sampling reduces the risk of bias and allows for an
objective assessment of the uncertainty of the estimates. Therefore, randomly sampled data generally should be
used where available, or when setting up new surveys.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Samples may also be taken at subjectively chosen locations, which are assumed to be representative for the
population. This is called subjective (or purposive) sampling and data from such surveys are often used in
greenhouse gas inventories (i.e., when observations from survey sites that were not selected randomly are used to
represent an entire land category or strata). Under these conditions, observations about, for example, forest type
might be extrapolated to areas for which they are not representative. However, due to limited resources
greenhouse gas inventories may need to make use of data also from subjectively selected sites or research plots.
In this case, it is good practice to identify, in consultation with the agencies responsible for the sites or plots, the
land areas for which the subjective samples can be regarded as representative.
40
3.28

3A.3.3
Sampling Design
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Sampling design determines how the sampling units (the sites or plots) are selected from the population and thus
what statistical estimation procedures should be applied to make inferences from the sample. Random sampling
designs can be divided into two main groups, depending on whether or not the population is stratified (i.e., subdivided before sampling) using auxiliary information. Stratified surveys will generally be more efficient in terms
of what accuracy can be achieved at a certain cost. On the other hand, they tend to be slightly more complex,
which increases the risk of non- sampling errors due to incorrect use of the collected data. Sampling designs
should aim for a good compromise between simplicity and efficiency, and this can be promoted by following
three aspects as set out below:
10
Use of auxiliary data and stratification;
11
Systematic sampling;
12
Permanent sample plots and time-series data.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Use of auxiliary data and stratification
20
21
22
Stratification increases efficiency in two main ways: (i) by improving the accuracy of the estimate for the entire
population; and (ii) by ensuring that adequate results are obtained for certain subpopulations, e.g., for certain
administrative regions.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
On the first issue, stratification increases sampling efficiency if a sub-division of the population is made so that
the variability between units within a stratum is reduced as compared to the variability within the entire
population. For example, a country may be divided into a lowland region (with certain features of the land-use
categories of interest) and an upland region (with different features of the corresponding categories). If each
stratum is homogeneous a precise overall estimate can be obtained using only a limited sample from each
stratum. The second issue is important for purposes of providing results at a specific degree of accuracy for all
administrative regions of interest, but also in case sampled data are to be used together with other existing
datasets, which have been collected using different protocols with the same administrative or legal boundaries.
31
32
33
34
35
36
Use of remote sensing or map data for identifying the boundaries of the strata (the land-use class sub-divisions to
be included in a sample survey) can introduce errors where some areas may be incorrectly classified as
belonging to the stratum whilst other areas that do belong to the specific class are missed. Errors of this kind can
lead to substantial bias in the final estimates, since the area identified for sampling will then not correspond to
the target population. Whenever there is an obvious risk that errors of this kind may occur, it is good practice to
make an assessment of the potential impact of such errors using ground truth data.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
When data for the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions or removals are taken from existing large- scale
inventories, such as national forest inventories, it is convenient to apply the standard estimation procedures of
that inventory, as long as they are based on sound statistical principles. In addition, post- stratification (i.e.,
defining strata based on remote sensing or map auxiliary data after the field survey has been conducted) means
that it may be possible to use new auxiliary data to increase efficiency without changing the basic field design
(Dees et al., 1998). Using this estimation principle, the risk for bias pointed out in the previous paragraph also
can be reduced.
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Systematic sampling
One of the most important sampling designs which incorporate auxiliary information is stratification, whereby
the population is divided into subpopulations on the basis of auxiliary data. These data may consist of
knowledge of legal, administrative boundaries or boundaries of forest administrations which will be efficient to
sample separately, or maps or remote sensing data distinguishing between upland and lowland areas or between
different ecosystem types. Since stratification is intended to increase efficiency, it is good practice to use
auxiliary data when such data are available or can be made available at low additional cost.
Sample based forest or land-use surveys generally make use of sample points or plots on which the
characteristics of interest are recorded. One important issue here regards the layout of these points or plots. It is
often appropriate to allocate the plots in small clusters in order to minimise travel costs when covering large
areas with a sample based survey. With cluster sampling, the distance between plots should be large enough to
avoid major between-plot correlation, taking (for forest sampling) stand size into account. An important issue is
whether plots (or clusters of plots) should be laid out entirely at random or systematically using a regular grid,
which is randomly located over the area of interest (see Figure 3A.3.2). In general, it is efficient to use
systematic sampling, since in most cases this will increase the precision of the estimates. Systematic sampling
also simplifies the fieldwork.
3.29
1
Figure 3A.3.2
Simple random layout of plots (left) and systematic layout (right)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Somewhat simplified, the reason why systematic random sampling generally is superior to simple random
sampling is that sample plots will be distributed evenly to all parts of the target area.3 With simple random
sampling, some parts of an area may have many plots while other parts will not have any plots at all.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Permanent sample plots and time-series data
21
22
23
When undertaking repeated sampling, the required data regarding the current state of areas or carbon stocks are
assessed on each occasion. Changes are then estimated by calculating the difference between the state at time (t + 1)
from the state at time t. Three common sampling designs can be used for change estimation:
24
The same sampling units are used on both occasions (permanent sampling units);
25
Different, independent sets of sampling units are used on both occasions (temporary sampling units);
26
27
Some sampling units can be replaced between occasions while others remain the same (sampling with
partial replacement).
28
Figure 3A.3.3 shows these three approaches.
Greenhouse gas inventories must assess both current state and changes over time (e.g., in areas of land-use
categories and carbon stocks). Assessment of changes is most important and it involves repeated sampling over
time. The time interval between measurements should be determined based on the frequency of the events that
cause changes, and also on the reporting requirements. Generally, sampling intervals of 5-10 years are adequate,
and in many countries data from well designed surveys are already available for many decades, especially in the
forest sector. Nevertheless, since estimates for the reporting are required on an annual basis, interpolation and
extrapolation methods will need to be applied. Where sufficiently long time-series are not available, it may be
necessary to extrapolate backwards in time to capture the dynamics of carbon stock changes.
29
In unusual cases when there is a regular pattern in the terrain that may coincide with the systematic grid system, systematic
sampling may lead to less precise estimates than simple random sampling. However, such potential problems generally can
be handled by orienting the grid system in another direction.
3.30

1
2
3
Figure 3A.3.3
Use of different configurations of permanent and temporary sampling units

for estimating changes
Identical set
Independent sets
Sampling with partial replacement
(permanent plots)
(temporary plots)
(permanent and temporary plots)
Sampling unit measured at occasion 1

Sampling unit measured at occasion 2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Permanent sample plots generally are more efficient in estimating changes than temporary plots because it is
easier to distinguish actual trends from differences that are only due to changed plot selection. However, there
are also some risks in the use of permanent sample plots. If the locations of permanent sample plots become
known to land managers (e.g., by visibly marking the plots), there is a risk that management of the permanent
plots will differ from the management of other areas. If this occurs, the plots will no longer be representative and
there is an obvious risk that the results will be biased. If it is perceived that there might be a risk of the above
kind, it is good practice to assess some temporary plots as a control sample in order to determine if the
conditions on these plots deviate from the conditions on the permanent plots.
13
14
15
16
The use of sampling with partial replacement can address some of the potential problems with relying on
permanent plots, because it is possible to replace sites that are believed to have been treated differently.
Sampling with partial replacement may be used, although the estimation procedures are complicated (Scott and
Khl, 1994; Khl et al., 1995).
17
18
19
20
21
When only temporary plots are used, overall changes still can be estimated but it will no longer be possible to
study land-use conversions between different categories unless a time dimension can be introduced into the
sample. This can be done by drawing on auxiliary data, for example maps, remote sensing or administrative
records about the state of land in the past. This will introduce additional uncertainty into the assessment which it
may be difficult to quantify other than by expert judgement.
22
3A.3.4
23
24
Many approaches for assessing land-use areas or conversions in areas of land use rely on sampling. Areas and
changes in areas can be estimated in two different ways using sampling:
25
Estimation via proportions;
26
Direct estimation of area.
27
28
29
The first approach requires that the total area of the survey region is known, and that the sample survey provides
only the proportions of different land-use category. The second approach does not require the total area to be
known.
30
31
32
33
34
35
Both approaches require assessment of a given number of sampling units located in the inventory area. Selection
of sampling units may be performed using simple random sampling or systematic sampling (see Figure 3A.3.2).
Systematic sampling generally improves the precision of the area estimates, especially when the different landuse classes occur in large patches. Stratification also may be applied to improve the efficiency of the area
estimates; in this case it is good practice to perform the procedures described below independently in each
stratum.
Sampling Methods for Area Estimation
36
3.31
1
2
3
In estimating proportions it is assumed that the sampling units are dimensionless points, although a small area
around each point must be considered when the land-use category is determined. Sample plots may also be used
for area estimation, although this principle is not further elaborated here.
3A.3.5
Estimation of areas via proportions
5
6
7
8
9
10
The total area of an inventory region is generally known. In this case the estimation of the areas of different landuse categories can be based on assessments of area proportions. When applying this approach, the inventory area
is covered by a certain number of sample points, and land use is determined for each point. The proportion of
each land-use category then is calculated by dividing the number of points located in the specific category by the
total number of points. Area estimates for each land-use category are obtained by multiplying the proportion of
each category by the total area.
11
Table 3A.3.1 provides an example of this procedure. The standard error of an area estimate is obtained
12
as A (p i (1 p i )) (n 1) , where pi is the proportion of points in the particular land-use category i; A the known
13
14
total area, and n the total number of sample points.4 The 95% confidence interval for Ai, the estimated area of
land-use category i, will be given approximately by 2 times the standard error.
TABLE 3A.3.1
EXAMPLE OF AREA ESTIMATION VIA PROPORTIONS
Sampling procedure
Estimation of proportions
Estimated areas of land-use

category
Standard error
pi = ni / n
Ai = pi A
s(Ai)
0.333
p2 = 2/ 9 0.222
p3 = 4/ 9 0.444
A1 = 300 ha
s(A1)= 150.0 ha
A2 = 200 ha
s(A2)= 132.2 ha
A3 = 400 ha
s(A3)= 158.1 ha
p1 = 3/ 9
Sum = 1.0
Total = 900 ha
15
16
Where:
17
total area (= 900 ha in the example)
18
Ai =
estimated area of land-use category i
19
ni
number of points located in land-use category i
20
total number of points
21
22
Estimates of land-use conversion areas can be made by introducing categories of the type Aij where land use is
converted from category i to category j between successive surveys.
23
3A.3.6
24
25
26
27
28
Whenever the total inventory area is known, it is efficient to estimate areas, and area changes, via assessment of
proportions, since that procedure will result in the highest accuracy. In cases where the total inventory area is not
known or is subject to unacceptable uncertainty, an alternative procedure that involves a direct assessment of
areas under different land-use classes can be applied. This approach can only be used when systematic sampling
is applied; each sample point will represent an area corresponding to the size of the grid cell of the sample layout.
29
30
31
For example, when sample points are selected from a square systematic grid with 1000 metres distance between
the points, each sample point will represent an area of 1km 1km = 100 ha. Thus, if 15 plots fall within a
specific land-use class of interest the area estimate will be 15 100 ha = 1500 ha.
Direct estimation of area
32
Note that this formula is only approximate when systematic sampling is applied.
3.32

1
2
3
4
ANNEX 3A.4 OVERVIEW OF POTENTIAL METHODS

FOR DEVELOPING APPROACH 3 DATASETS
Figure 3A.4.1
Overview of Approach 3: Direct and repeated assessments of land use from

full spatial coverage
Description
Under Approach 3 the country is sub-divided into spatial units such as grid cells or small polygons. In this
example grid cells are used for sub-division of the area. The grid cells may be sampled by remote sensing
and/or ground survey, in order to establish the areas of the land use whose estimated extent is shown by the
grey lines below the grid. Remote sensing can also enable complete coverage of all grid cells (Figure
3A.4.1A) in the interpretation of land use. Ground surveys can be carried out in a sample of grid cells and
can be used to establish land use directly, as well as to help interpret remotely sensed data. The sample of
grid cells can be distributed regularly (Figure 3A.4.1B) or irregularly (Figure 3A.4.1C), for example, to
give greater coverage where land-use conversion is more likely. Generalised maps can be prepared using
the grid cells, which can also be aggregated into polygons (Figure 3A.4.1D). The final result of the
Approach can result in either a tabular or spatially-explicit land-use conversion matrix.
Time 1
Time 2
Figure 3A.4.1A Remote sensing can also enable complete coverage of all grid cells
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
F
G
G
G
G
F
F
F
G
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
C
F
F
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
S
C
S
C
C
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
F
F
G
G
G
G
G
F
F
F
F
G
G
F
F
F
F
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
S
S
S
S
C
C
Figure 3A.4.1B The sample of grid cells can be distributed regularly
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
F
F
G
C
F
F
F
C
S
G
C
G
G
C
F
F
F
F
F
G
G
C
F
G
G
S
S
C
C
Figure 3A.4.1C The sample of grid cells can be distributed irregularly
3.33
G
G
G
G
F
G
G
F
G
F
F
F
F
C
F
F
C
C
C
C
C
S
C
S
G
G
G
G
F
F
F
G
G
G
F
F
C
G
C
C
C
C
S
S
S
S
Figure 3A.4.1D Generalised maps can be prepared using the grid cells, which can also be aggregated into
polygons
G
F
S
C
S S
C
1
2
Note: F = Forest land, G = Grassland, C = Cropland, W = Wetlands, S = Settlements, O = Other land
3.34

When using Approach 3, inventory compilers should:
2
3
4
Use a sampling strategy consistent with the advice provided in this chapter. This strategy should ensure that
the data are unbiased and can be scaled up where necessary. The number and location of the sampling units
may need to change over time in order to remain representative.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Where remote sensing data are used, develop a method for its interpretation into land categories using
ground reference data as set out in this chapter (Remote sensing techniques). Care should be taken to
correctly assign land cover information obtained through imagery, into land-use category. Conventional
forest inventories or other survey data can be used for this. It is necessary to avoid possible misclassification
of land types and map accuracy established by means of ground reference or very high resolution remotely
sensed data. The conventional technique is to establish a matrix5 showing, for any given classification of
land, the proportion of misclassification as one of the other candidate classifications.
12
13
Construct confidence intervals for those land category areas and changes in area that will be used in the
estimation of carbon stock changes, emissions and removals.
14
Derive summary tables of the national areas under different land-use conversion.
15
Sometimes called the confusion matrix.
3.35
1
2
ANNEX 3A.5 DEFAULT CLIMATE AND SOIL

CLASSIFICATIONS
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Climate regions are classified in order to apply emission and stock change factors for estimating biomass, dead
organic matter and soil C stock changes. The default climate classification is provided in Figure 3A.5.1 and can
be derived using the classification scheme in Figure 3A.5.2. This classification should be used for Tier 1
methods because the default emission and stock change factors were derived using this scheme. Note that
climate regions are further subdivided into ecological zones to apply the Tier 1 method for estimating biomass C
stock changes (see Table 4.1, Chapter 4). Inventory compilers have the option of developing a country-specific
climate classification if using Tier 2 and 3 methods, along with country-specific emission and stock change
factors. It is good practice to apply the same classification, either default or country-specific, across all land-use
types. Thus, stock change and emission factors are assigned to each pool in a national inventory using a uniform
classification of climate.
13
14
15
16
17
Soils are classified in order to apply reference C stocks and stock change factors for estimation of soil C stock
changes, as well as the soil N2O emissions (i.e., organic soils must be classified to estimate N2O emissions
following drainage). Organic soils are found in wetlands or have been drained and converted to other land-use
types (e.g. cropland, grassland, forest land, settlements). Organic soils are identified on the basis of criteria 1
and 2, or 1 and 3 listed below (FAO 1998):
18
19
1) Thickness of organic horizon greater than or equal to 10 cm. A horizon of less than 20 cm must have
12 percent or more organic carbon when mixed to a depth of 20 cm.
20
21
2) Soils that are never saturated with water for more than a few days must contain more than 20 percent
organic carbon by weight (i.e., about 35 percent organic matter).
22
3) Soils is subject to water saturation episodes and has either
23
24
a.
At least 12 percent organic carbon by weight (i.e., about 20 percent organic matter) if the soil
has no clay; or
25
26
b.
has 60% or more clay; or
27
c.
An intermediate, proportional amount of organic carbon for intermediate amounts of clay.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
All other types of soils are classified as mineral. A default mineral soil classification is provided in Figure
3A.5.3 for categorizing soil types based on the USDA taxonomy (USDA, 1999) and Figure 3A.5.4 for the
World Reference Base for Soil Resources Classification (FAO, 1998) (Note: Both classifications produce
the same default IPCC soil types). The default mineral soil classification should be used with Tier 1
methods because default reference C stock and stock change factors were derived according to these soil
types. Inventory compilers have the option of developing a country-specific classification if applying Tier 2
and 3 methods, in combination with developing country-specific reference C stocks and stock change
factors. It is good practice to use the same classification of soils across all land-use types.
36
3.36

Figure 3A.5.1 Delineation of major climate zones, updated from the 1996 IPCC Guidelines.
3.37
1
2
3
4
Figure 3A.5.2 Classification scheme for default climate regions. The classification is based on
elevation, mean annual temperature (MAT), mean annual precipitation
(MAP), mean annual precipitation:potential evapotransporation ratio
(PET:MAP),and frost occurrence.
MAT >18C
and = 7 days of
frost /year
Start
MAT > 10C?
No
Yes
Yes
Tropical
Montane
Yes
Elevation
>1000m?
Warm
Temperate
Moist
MAP:PET
>1?
Yes
No
No
Tropical Wet
Yes
No
Warm
Temperate
Dry
MAP >
2000mm?
No
MAT
>0C?
Tropical
Moist
Yes
MAP =
2000mm and
> 1000mm?
Yes
MAP:PET
>1?
Cool
Temperate
Moist
Yes
No
No
No
Cool
Temperate
Dry
Tropical Dry
Polar Moist
Boreal Moist
Yes
Yes
MAP:PET
>1?
Yes
All Months
Average <10C?
No
MAP:PET
>1?
No
No
Polar Dry
Boreal Dry
5
6
7
8
9
3.38

Figure 3A.5.3 Classification scheme for mineral soil types based on USDA taxonomy
2
3
4
5
6
Greater
than 70% sand
and less than 8%
clay
Start
Sandy Soils
Yes
8
9
No
10
11
Aquic
12
Yes
Wetland Soils
Yes
Volcanic
Soils
Yes
Spodic Soils
Soil?
13
14
No
15
16
17
Andisols?
No
Spodisols?
No
Low Activity
Clay Soils
No
Mollisols,
Vertisols, High-base
status, Alfisols,
Aridisols,
Inceptisols?
Yes
High Activity
Clay Soils
3.39
1
2
Figure 3A.5.4 Classification scheme for mineral soil types based on World Reference Base for
Soil Resources (WRB) classification.
3
4
5
Greater
than 70% sand
and less than 8%
clay?
Start
6
7
Yes
Sandy Soils
8
9
No
10
11
Gleysols?
12
Yes
Wetland Soils
Yes
Volcanic
Soils
Yes
Spodic Soils
13
No
14
15
16
Andosols?
17
18
19
No
20
21
Podzols?
22
23
24
No
25
26
27
28
29
30
Low Activity
Clay Soils
31
32
No
Leptosols,
Vertisols, Kastanozems, Chernozems,
Phaeozems,Luvisols,,Alisols,
Albeluvisols, Solonetz,
Calcisols,Gypsisols,
Umbrisols, Cambisols,Regosols?
Yes
High Activity
Clay Soils
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
3.40

References
2
3
Congalton R.G. (1991). A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data. Remote
Sensing of Environment, 37(1), pp. 35-46.
4
5
Darby H.C. (1970). Doomsday Book The first land utilization survey. The Geographical Magazine, 42(6), pp.
416 423.
6
7
FAO (1995). Planning for Sustainable use of Land Resources: Towards a New Type. Land and Water Bulletin 2,
Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome Italy, 60 pp.
Scott and Kohl (1994) Sampling with partial replacement and stratification.Forest Science 40(1):30-46.
9
10
Singh A., (1989). Digital change detection techniques using remotely sensed data. Int. J. Remote Sensing, 10(6),
pp. 989 1003.
11
12
Swanson B.E., R.P. Bentz and A.J., Sofranco (Eds.). (1997). Improving agricultural extension. A reference
manual. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
13
USGS (2001) http://edcdaac.usgs.gov/glcc/globe_int.html
14
3.41
Chapter 4: Forest Land

2
3
CHAPTER 4
FOREST LAND
4.1
1
Authors
2
3
4
Harald Aalde (Norway), Patrick Gonzalez (USA), Michael Gytarsky (Russia), Thelma Krug (Brazil), Werner A.
Kurz (Canada), Stephen M. Ogle (USA), John Raison (Australia), Dieter Schoene (FAO), and N.H.
Ravindranath (India)
5
6
Nagmeldin G. Elhassan (Sudan), Linda Heath (USA), Niro Higuchi (Brazil), Samuel Kainja (Malawi), Mitsuo
Matsumoto (Japan), Maria Jose Sanz Sanchez (Spain), and Zoltan Somogyi (European Commission/Hungary)
7
8
9
10
Contributing Authors
Jim B. Carle (FAO), Indu K. Murthy (India)
4.2

Contents
4.1
Introduction
4.2
Forest land remaining Forest land
4.2.1
6
10
Biomass
10
4.2.1.1
Choice of Method
10
4.2.1.2
Choice of emission Factors
13
4.2.1.3
Choice of Activity Data
14
4.2.1.4
Calculation Steps for Tier 1
16
4.2.1.5
Uncertainty Assessment
18
Dead Organic Matter
18
10
4.2.2
11
4.2.2.1
Choice of Method
19
12
4.2.2.2
Choice of Emission/Removal Factors
20
13
4.2.2.3
20
14
4.2.2.4
21
15
4.2.2.5
21
Soil Carbon
21
16
4.2.3
17
4.2.3.1
Choice of Method
22
18
4.2.3.2
Choice of Emission Factors
23
19
4.2.3.3
24
20
4.2.3.4
25
21
4.2.3.5
25
22
4.2.4 Greenhouse gas emissions from Biomass Burning
26
23
4.2.4.1
Choice of Method
26
24
4.2.4.2
Choice of Emissions Factors
26
25
4.2.4.3
26
26
4.2.4.4
27
27
28
Land Converted to Forest land
4.3
4.3.1
27
Biomass
28
29
4.3.1.1
Choice of Method
28
30
4.3.1.2
Choice of emission factors
30
31
4.3.1.3
31
32
4.2.1.4
32
33
4.3.1.5
34
Dead Organic Matter
34
34
4.3.2
35
4.3.2.1
Choice of Method
35
36
4.3.2.2
35
37
4.3.2.3
35
38
4.3.2.4
36
4.3
1
2
4.3.2.5
4.3.3
36
Soil Carbon
36
4.3.3.1
Choice of Method
37
4.3.3.2
38
4.3.3.3
38
4.3.3.4
39
4.3.3.5
40
Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from biomass burning
40
Completeness, Time Series, QA/QC, and Reporting and documentation
40
8
9
4.3.4
4.4
10
4.4.1
Completeness
40
11
4.4.2
Developing a Consistent Times Series
40
12
4.4.3
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
41
13
4.4.4
Reporting and Documentation
42
14
4.5
Tables
15
Annex 4A.1 Glossary for Forest Land
44
69
16
Figures
17
18
19
Figure 4.1 Global ecological zones, based on observed climate and vegetation patterns
(FAO 2001). Data for geographic information systems available at http://www.fao.org. ...8
20
21
22
Figure 4.2. Global forest and land cover 1995. Original spatial resolution of the forest data is 1 km2
(analysis U.S. Geological Survey (Loveland et al. 2000) and FAO (2001)). Data for
geographic information systems available at http://edc.usgs.gov. .......................................9
23
Tables
24
25
26
Table 4.1 Climate Domains (FAO, 2001), Climate Regions (Chapter 2), and
Ecological Zones (fao 2001) ..............................................................................................44
27
Table 4.2 Forest and land cover classes......................................................................................................45
28
Table 4.3 Carbon fraction of aboveground forest biomass .........................................................................46
29
30
Table 4.4 ratio of below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass (R); tonnes

root dry matter (tonnes shoot dry matter-1) .......................................................................47
31
32
Table 4.5 Default Biomass Conversion and Expansion Factors (BCEF), tonnes biomass
(m3 of wood volume)-1 ....................................................................................................48
33
34
Table 4.5 (continued) Default Biomass Conversion and Expansion Factors (BCEF),
tonnes biomass (m3 of wood volume)-1 ...........................................................................49
35
36
Table 4.5 (continued) Default Biomass Conversion and Expansion Factors (BCEF),
tonnes biomass (m3 of wood volume)-1 ...........................................................................50
37
Table 4.6 Emission factors for drained organic soils in managed forests ...................................................51
4.4

Table 4.7 Above-ground biomass in forests ...............................................................................................52
Table 4.8 Above-ground biomass in forest plantations ..............................................................................53
Table 4.9 Above-ground net biomass growth in natural forests .................................................................55
Table 4.10 Above-ground net biomass growth in tropical and sub-tropical forest plantations...................57
Table 4.11A Above-ground net volume growth of selected forest plantation species................................58
6
7
Table 4.11B Mean annual increment (growth of merchantable volume) for some forest plantation
species................................................................................................................................59
8
9
Table 4.11B (continued) Mean annual increment (growth of merchantable volume) for some forest
plantation species ...............................................................................................................60
10
11
Table 4.12 Tier 1 estimated biomass values from tables 4.74.11 (Except Table 4.11B) (Values are
approximate. Use only for Tier 1)......................................................................................60
12
Table 4.13 Basic wood density (D) of tropical tree species (oven-dry tonnes (moist m-3)).......................61
13
14
Table 4.14 Basic wood density (D) of selected temperate and boreal tree taxa
(oven-dry tonnes (moist m-3)) ...........................................................................................68
15
16
Box
17
Box 4.1 Levels of Detail ...............................................................................................................................7
18
Box 4.2 Biomass Conversion and Expansion Factors for Assessing biomass and carbon in forests..........12
19
Box 4.4 Examples of Good Practice Approach in Identification of Lands Converted to Forest land ........32
20
21
22
4.5
1
4.1 INTRODUCTION
2
3
4
5
This chapter provides methods for estimating greenhouse gas emissions and removals due to changes in biomass,
dead organic matter and soil organic carbon on Forest land and lands converted to Forest land. It builds on the
Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (1996 Guidelines) and the Good
Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (GPG-LULUCF). The chapter:
6
7
addresses all five carbon pools identified in Chapter 1 and transfers of carbon between different pools within
the same land areas;
8
9
10
includes carbon stock changes on managed forests due to human activities such as establishing and
harvesting plantations, commercial felling, fuelwood gathering and other management practices, in addition
to natural losses caused by fire, windstorms, insects, diseases, and other disturbances;
11
12
provides simple (Tier 1) methods and default values and outline approaches for higher tier methods for the
estimation of carbon stock changes;
13
14
provides methods to estimate non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning (other non-CO2
emissions such as N2O emissions from soils are covered in Chapter 11);
15
16
should be used together with generic description of methods and equations from Chapter 2, and the
approaches for obtaining consistent area data described in Chapter 3.
17
18
19
20
21
The Guidelines provide methods for estimating and reporting sources and sinks of greenhouse gases only for
managed forests, as defined in Chapter 1. Countries should consistently apply national definitions of managed
forests over time. National definitions should cover all forests subject to human intervention, including the full
range of management practices from protecting forests, raising plantations, promoting natural regeneration,
commercial timber production, non-commercial fuelwood extraction, and abandonment of managed land.
22
This chapter does not include harvested wood products (HWP) which are covered by Chapter 12 of this Volume.
23
24
Managed forest land is partitioned into two sub categories and the guidance and methodologies are given
separately in two sections:
25
Section 4.2 Forest land remaining Forest land
26
Section 4.3 Land converted to Forest land
27
28
29
30
31
32
Section 4.2 covers the methodology that applies to lands that have been Forest land for more than the transition
period required to reach new soil carbon levels (default is 20 years). Section 4.3 applies to lands converted to
Forest land within that transition period. The 20-year interval is taken as a default length of transition period for
carbon stock changes following land-use change. It is good practice to differentiate national forest lands by the
above two categories. The actual length of transition period depends on natural and ecological circumstances of
a particular country or region and may differ from 20 years.
33
34
35
Unmanaged forests, which are brought under management, enter the inventory and should be included in the
land converted to Forest land. Unmanaged forests which are converted to other land uses enter the inventory
under their post conversion land categories with the appropriate transition period for the new land category.
36
37
38
If there are no data on land conversion and the period involved are available, the default assumption is that all
managed forest land belongs to the category Forest land remaining Forest land and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and removals are estimated using guidance given in Section 4.2.
39
40
Relevant carbon pools and non-CO 2 gases

The relevant carbon pools and non-CO2 gases for which methods are provided are given below:
41
Biomass (above ground and below ground biomass)
42
Dead organic matter (dead wood and litter)
43
Soil organic matter
44
Non-CO2 gases (CH4, CO, N2O, NOX)
45
46
The selection of carbon pools or non-CO2 gases for estimation will depend on the significance of the pool and
tier selected for each land-use category.
4.6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Forest land-use Classification

Greenhouse gas emissions and removals per hectare vary according to site factors, forest or plantation types,
stages of stand development and management practices. It is good practice to stratify Forest land into various
sub categories to reduce the variation in growth rate and other forest parameters and to reduce uncertainty (Box
4.1). As a default, the Guidelines use the most recent ecological zone (Table 4.1, Figure 4.1) and forest cover
(Table 4.2, Figure 4.2) classifications, developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2001).
National experts should use more detailed classifications for their countries, if available and suitable, given the
other data requirements.
9
10
11
BOX 4.1
LEVELS OF DETAIL
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Stratification of forest types into homogeneous sub-categories, and if possible at regional or subregional level within a country, reduces the uncertainty of estimates of greenhouse gas emissions
and removals. For simplicity and clarity, this chapter discusses estimation of emissions and
removals at national level and for a relatively small number of subcategories of Forest land. This
level of detail is designed to match the available sources of default input data, carbon contents and
other assumptions. It is important, however, for users of these Guidelines to understand that they
are encouraged to carry out the greenhouse gas emissions inventory calculations at a finer level of
detail, if possible. Many countries have more detailed information available about forests and
land-use change than were used in constructing default values in this Chapter. These data should
be used, if suitable, for the following reasons:
22
1. Geographic detail at regional rather than national level
23
24
25
Experts may find that greenhouse gas estimation for various regions within a country are necessary
to capture important geographic variations in ecosystem types, biomass densities, fractions of
cleared biomass which are burned, etc.
26
2. Finer detail by subcategory
27
28
29
Experts may subdivide the recommended land-use categories and subcategories to reflect
important differences in climate, ecology or species, forest types, land-use or forestry practices,
fuelwood gathering patterns, etc.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
In all cases, working at finer levels of disaggregation does not change the basic nature of the
method of estimations, although additional data and assumptions will generally be required beyond
the defaults provided in this Chapter. Once greenhouse gas emissions are estimated, using the
most appropriate level of detail determined by the national experts, results should also be
aggregated up to the national level and the standard categories requested in these Guidelines. This
will allow for comparability of results among all participating countries. Generally, the data and
assumptions used for finer levels of detail should also be reported to ensure transparency and
repeatability of methods.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Terminology
The terminology used in the methods for estimating biomass stocks and changes need to be consistent with the
terminologies and definitions used by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). FAO is the main source of
activity data and emission factors for forest and other land-use categories in Tier 1 level calculations. Examples
of terminology from FAO are: biomass growth, mean annual increment, biomass loss, and wood-removal. The
Glossary in Annex 4A.1 includes definitions of these terminologies.
45
4.7
1
2
Figure 4.1 Global ecological zones, based on observed climate and vegetation patterns (FAO
2001). Data for geographic information systems available at http://www.fao.org.
3
4
5
4.8

1
2
3
4
Figure 4.2. Global forest and land cover 1995. Original spatial resolution of the forest data is 1
km 2 (analysis U.S. Geological Survey (Loveland et al. 2000) and FAO (2001)). Data for
geographic information systems available at http://edc.usgs.gov.
5
6
4.9
1
4.2 FOREST LAND REMAINING FOREST LAND
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This section deals with managed forests that have been under Forest land for over 20 years (default), or for over
a country-specific transition period. Greenhouse gas inventory for Forest land Remaining Forest land (FF)
involves estimation of changes in carbon stock from five carbon pools (i.e. above-ground biomass, belowground biomass, dead wood, litter, and soil organic matter), as well as emissions of non-CO2 gases. Methods for
estimating greenhouse gas emissions and removals for lands converted to Forest land in the past 20 years (e.g.
from Cropland and Grassland) are presented in Section 4.3. The set of general equations to estimate the annual
carbon stock changes on Forest land are given in Chapter 2.
4.2.1
Biomass
10
11
12
13
This section presents methods for estimating biomass gains and losses. Gains include total (above-ground and
below-ground) biomass growth. Losses are roundwood removal/harvest, fuelwood removal/harvest/gathering,
and losses from disturbances by fire, insects, diseases and other disturbances. When such losses occur, belowground biomass is also reduced and transformed to dead organic matter (DOM).
14
4.2.1.1
15
16
17
Chapter 2 describes two methods, namely, Gain-Loss Method based on estimates of annual change in biomass
from estimates of biomass gain and loss (Equation 2.7) and a Stock-Difference Method which estimates the
difference in total biomass carbon stock at time t2 and time t1 (Equation 2.8).
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
The biomass gain-loss method is applicable for all tiers although the stock-difference method is more suited to
Tiers 2 and 3. This is because, in general, the stock-difference method will provide more reliable estimates for
relatively large increases or decreases of biomass or where very accurate forest inventories are carried out. For
areas with a mix of stands of different forest types, and/or where biomass change is very small compared to the
total amount of biomass, the inventory error under the stock-difference method may be larger than the expected
change. Unless periodic inventories give estimates on stocks of dead organic matter, in addition to growing stock,
one should be aware that other data on mortality and losses will still be required for estimating the transfer to
dead organic matter, harvested wood products and emissions caused by disturbances. Subsequent inventories
must also allow identical area coverage in order to get reliable results when using the stock-difference method.
The choice of using gain-loss or stock-difference method at the appropriate tier level will therefore be a matter of
expert judgment, taking into account the national inventory systems, availability of data and information from
ecological surveys, forest ownership patterns, activity data, conversion and expansion factors as well as costbenefit analysis.
31
32
33
The decision tree as shown in Figure 1.2 in Chapter 1 should be used to guide choice between the Tiers. This
promotes efficient use of available resources, taking into account whether the biomass of this category is a
significant carbon pool or a key category as described in Volume 1 Chapter 4.
34
35
36
37
38
39
Tier-1 Method (Biomass Gain-Loss Method): Tier 1 is feasible even when country-specific estimates of
activity data and emission/removal factors are not available, and works when changes of the carbon pool in
biomass on Forest land remaining Forest land are relatively small. The method requires the biomass carbon loss
to be subtracted from the biomass carbon gain (Equation 2.7). The annual change in carbon stocks in biomass
can be estimated using the gain-loss method, where the annual increase in carbon stocks due to biomass growth
and annual decrease in carbon stocks due to biomass losses are estimated.
C HOICE
OF
M ETHOD
40
41
The annual increase in biomass carbon stock is estimated using Equation 2.9, where area under each
forest sub-category is multiplied by mean annual increment in tonnes of dry matter per hectare per year.
42
43
44
45
Since the biomass growth is usually in terms of merchantable volume or above ground biomass, the
below ground biomass is estimated with a root biomass to above-ground biomass ratio (Equation 2.10).
Alternatively, merchantable volume (m3) can be converted directly to total biomass using biomass
conversion and expansion factors (BCEFI), (Equation 2.10).
46
47
48
49
50
51
The average above-ground biomass of forest areas affected by disturbances are given in Tables 4.7 and
4.8; net average annual above-ground biomass growth values are provided in Tables 4.9, 4.10, and 4.12;
net volume annual increment values are provided in Table 4.11; wood density is given in Tables 4.13
and 4.14 and root biomass to above-ground biomass ratios are given in Table 4.4. Refer to Box 4.2 for
detailed explanation on how to convert and expand volumes of growing stock, increment and wood
removals to biomass.
4.10

1
2
3
4
5
In some ecosystems, basic wood density (D) can influence spatial patterns of forest biomass (Baker et
al., 2004b). Tier 1 users who do not have measurements of wood density at the desired sub-strata level
can estimate wood density by estimating the proportion of total forest biomass contributed by the 2-3
dominant species and using species-specific wood density values (Tables 4.13 and 4.14) to calculate a
weighted average wood density value.
6
7
8
9
10
Annual biomass loss or decrease in biomass carbon stocks is estimated using Equation 2.11, which
requires estimates of annual carbon loss due to wood removals (Equation 2.12), fuelwood gathering
(Equation 2.13) and disturbance (Equation 2.14). Transfer of biomass to dead organic matter is
estimated using Equation 2.20, based on estimates of annual biomass carbon lost due to mortality
(Equation 2.21), annual carbon transfer to slash (Equation 2.22).
11
Biomass estimates are converted to carbon values using carbon fraction of dry matter (Table 4.3).
12
13
14
15
When either the biomass stock or its change in a category (or sub-category) is significant or a key category, then
it is good practice to select a higher tier methodology for estimation. The choice of Tier 2 or 3 method depends
on the types and accuracy of data and models available, level of spatial disaggregation of activity data and
national circumstances.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
If using activity data collected via Approach 1 (see Chapter 3), and it is not possible to use supplementary data
identify the amount of land converted from and to Forest land, then the inventory compiler should estimate C
stocks in biomass on all Forest lands using the Tier 1 method described above for Forest land remaining Forest
land. If the area of forest is expanding, the forest area to use in the equations should be the average area
estimated for the year for which the inventory is being prepared less ten times the area being added every year1.
If the forest is area is falling because of conversion to other land uses,! the area to use is the area estimated for
the end of the year (the smaller area), and the reduction of forest carbon stocks due to conversion will be
accounted for through the loss terms.
24
25
26
27
28
29
Tier 2: Tier 2 can be used in countries where country-specific estimates of activity data and emission/removal
factors are available or can be gathered at reasonable cost. Tier 2 uses the Equations 2.7 to 2.14 (excluding
Equation 2.8) as in the case of Tier 1. Species-specific wood density values (Tables 4.13 and 4.14) permit the
calculation of biomass from species-specific forest inventory data. It is possible to use the stock-difference
method (Equation 2.8) at Tier 2 where the necessary country-specific data are available
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Tier 3: Tier 3 approach for biomass carbon stock change estimation allows for a variety of methods, including
process based models. Implementation may differ from one country to another, due to differences in inventory
methods, forest conditions and activity data. Transparent documentation of the validity and completeness of the
data, assumptions, equations and models used is therefore a critical issue at Tier 3. Tier 3 requires use of detailed
national forest inventories when the stock-difference method is used (Equation 2.8). They may be supplemented
by allometric equations and models (for example, Chambers et al. (2001) and Baker et al. (2004a) for the
Amazon, Jenkins et al. (2004) and Kurz and Apps (in press) for North America, and Zianis et al. (2005) for
Europe), calibrated to national circumstances that allow for direct estimation of biomass growth.
38
The subtraction is to adjust for the lower increments in the immature forests in the areas added, assuming the 20 year
default conversion period. For other conversion periods, the area subtracted should be half the conversion period times the
area being added every year. If the area added is varying over time, use the average area over the conversion period. In all
cases the full area of forest for the inventory year should be used for the area cross checks outlined in Chapter 3.
4.11
1
2
BOX 4.2
BIOMASS CONVERSION AND EXPANSION FACTORS FOR ASSESSING BIOMASS AND CARBON IN FORESTS2
3
4
5
6
Forest inventories and operational records usually document growing stock, net annual increment
or wood removals in m3 of merchantable volume. This excludes non-merchantable above-ground
components such as tree tops, branches, twigs, foliage, sometimes stumps, and, below-ground,
roots.
7
8
9
10
Assessments of biomass and carbon stocks and changes, on the other hand, focus on total biomass,
biomass growth and biomass removals (harvest), including non-merchantable components,
expressed in tons of dry-weight. Several methods may be used to derive forest biomass and its
changes. Above-ground biomass and changes can be derived in two ways namely:
11
12
13
(i) directly by measuring sample tree attributes in the field, such as diameters and heights, and
applying, species-specific allometric equations or biomass tables based on these equations once or
periodically.
14
15
(ii) indirectly by transforming available volume data from forest inventories, e.g. merchantable
volume of growing stock, net annual increment or wood removals (Somogyi et al. 2006).
16
17
18
19
The latter approach may achieve the transformation by applying biomass regression functions,
which usually express biomass of species or species groups (t/ha) or its rate of change, directly as a
function of growing stock density (m3/ha), and age, eco-regions or other variables (Pan et.al.,
2004).
20
21
More commonly than these biomass regression functions, a single, discrete transformation factors3
is applied to merchantable volume to derive above-ground biomass and its changes:
22
23
24
25
26
(i) Biomass Expansion Factors (BEF) expand the dry weight4 of the merchantable volume of
growing stock, net annual increment or wood removals to account for non-merchantable
components of the tree, stand and forest. Before applying such BEFs, merchantable volume (m3)
must be converted to dry-weight (tonne) by multiplying with a conversion factor known as basic
wood density (D) in (t/m3). BEFs are dimensionless since they convert between units of weight.
27
28
This method gives best results, when the BEFs have actually been determined based on dry
weights, and when locally applicable basic wood densities are well known.
29
30
31
32
(ii) Biomass Conversion and Expansion Factors (BCEF) combine conversion and expansion.
They have the dimension (t/m3) and transform in one single multiplication growing stock, net
annual increment or wood removals (m3) directly into above-ground biomass, above-ground
biomass growth or biomass removals (t).
33
34
35
BCEF are more convenient; they can be applied directly to volume-based forest inventory data and
operational records, without the need of having to resort to basic wood densities. They provide
best results, when they have been derived locally, based directly on merchantable volume.
36
Mathematically, BCEF and BEF are related by:
37
BCEF = BEF * D
38
39
40
41
42
43
Application of this equation requires caution because basic wood density and biomass expansion
factors tend to be correlated. If the same sample of trees was used to determine D, BEF or BCEF,
conversion will not introduce error. If, however, basic wood density is not known with certainty,
transforming one into the other might introduce error, as BCEF implies a specific but unknown
basic wood density. Ideally, all conversion and expansion factors would be derived or their
applicability checked locally.
Please see glossary for definitions of terms
While these transformation factors are usually applied in discrete form, they can also be expressed and depicted
as continuous functions of growing stock density, age or other variables.
In some applications, biomass expansion factors expand dry-weight of merchantable components to total
biomass, including roots, or expand merchantable volume to above-ground or total biomass volume (Somogyi
et.al., 2006). As used in this document, biomass expansion factors always transform dry-weight of merchantable
volume including bark to above-ground biomass, excluding roots.
4.12

1
2
3
4
Both BEF and BCEF tend to decrease as a function of stand age, as growing stock density (volume
of growing stock per ha) increases. This is because of the increasing ratio of merchantable volume
to total volume. The decrease is rapid at low growing stock densities or for young stands and levels
out for older stands and higher stand densities.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
The GPG-LULUCF provided only average default BEF values, together with wide ranges, and
general guidance on how to select applicable values for specific countries from these ranges. To
facilitate selection of more reliable default values, this document provides default factors as a
function of growing stock density in Table 4.5. Since more comprehensive and more recent data
were found in the literature, Table 4.5 contains BCEF defaults only. Countries that possess
country-specific basic wood densities and BEF on a consistent basis may apply them to calculate
country-specific BCEF using the formula given above.
12
13
BCEF or BEF that apply to growing stock and net annual increment are different. In this
document, the following symbols are used:
14
15
BCEFS: biomass conversion and expansion factor applicable to growing stock; transforms
merchantable volume of growing stock into above-ground biomass.
16
17
BCEFI: biomass conversion and expansion factor applicable to net annual increment; transforms
merchantable volume of net annual increment into above-ground biomass growth.
18
19
20
21
22
23
BCEFR: biomass conversion and expansion factors applicable to wood removals; transforms
merchantable biomass to total biomass (including bark). BCEFR and BEFR for wood and fuelwood
removal will be larger than that for growing stock due to harvest loss (see Annex 4A.1 Glossary).
If a country specific value for harvest loss is not known, defaults are 10% for hardwoods and 8%
for conifers (Kramer and Akca, 1982). Default conversion and expansion factors for wood
removals can be derived by dividing BCEFS by (10.08) for conifers and (1-0.1) for broadleaves.
24
25
26
27
It is good practice to estimate growing stock biomass, above-ground biomass growth and aboveground biomass removals by strata, document these strata, and aggregate results ex post. Methods
described above will yield above-ground biomass and its changes. Results must be expanded to
total biomass via applicable root biomass to above-ground biomass ratios.
28
29
4.2.1.2
C HOICE
30
31
32
33
The Gain-Loss Method requires the above-ground biomass growth, BCEF (biomass conversion and expansion
factor), BEF, and/or basic wood densities according to each forest type and climatic zone in the country, plus
emission factors related to biomass loss, including losses due to wood removals, fuelwood removals and
disturbances.
34
Annua l b ioma ss ca rbon ga in, C G
35
36
37
38
M ean A bove-gro und Bioma s s Growt h ( Increment), G W

Tier 1: Default values of the above-ground biomass growth (GW) which are provided in Tables 4.9, 4.10 and
4.12 can be used at Tier 1. If available, it is good practice to use other regional default values for different forest
types more relevant to the country.
39
40
41
42
43
Tier 2: Tier 2 method uses more country-specific data to calculate the above-ground biomass growth, GW from
country-specific net annual increment of growing stock (IV). Tables 4.11a and 4.11b provide default values for
IV. Combined default biomass conversion and expansion factor (BCEFI) of Iv are provided in Table 4.5. Separate
data on biomass expansion factor for increment (BEFincrement) and basic wood density (D) can also be used to
convert the available data to GW. Table 4.13 and 4.14 provide default values for basic wood density.
44
45
46
47
48
Tier 3: Under Tier 3, process based estimation will have access to detailed forest inventory or monitoring
system with data on growing stock and past and projected net annual increment and functions relating to
growing stock or net annual increment directly to biomass and biomass growth. It is also possible to derive net
annual increment by process simulation. Specific carbon fraction and basic wood density should also be
incorporated.
49
50
51
52
Forest inventories usually provide conditions of forest growing stock and net annual increment in the year of the
inventory. When the year of inventory does not coincide with the year of reporting, interpolated or extrapolated
net annual increment or increment estimated by models (i.e. model capable of simulating forest dynamics),
should be used along with data on harvesting and disturbances to update inventory data to the year of interest.
OF EMISSION
F ACTORS
4.13
1
Below-ground biomass growth (increment)
2
3
4
5
6
Tier 1: Below-ground carbon stock changes, as a default assumption consistent with the Guidelines, can be
zero. Alternatively, default values for below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass ratios (R) are to be used
to estimate below-ground biomass growth, and are provided in Table 4.4. Strictly, these ratios of below-ground
biomass to above-ground biomass are only valid for stocks, but no appreciable error is likely to obtain if they are
applied to above-ground biomass growth over short periods.
7
8
Tier 2: Country-specific below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass ratios should be used to estimate
below-ground biomass for different forest types.
9
10
11
Tier 3: For preference, below-ground biomass should be directly incorporated in models for calculating total
biomass increment and losses. Alternatively, nationally or regionally determined below-ground biomass to
above-ground biomass ratios or regression models (e.g. Li et al. 2003) may be used.
12
An nua l carbon los s in b ioma ss , C L
13
14
15
16
17
18
Bioma ss loss due to wood remova ls , L w o o d - r e m o v a l s and L f u e l w o o d

When computing carbon loss through biomass removals, the following factors are needed: Wood removal (H),
fuelwood removal as trees or parts of trees (FG), basic wood density (D), below-ground biomass to aboveground biomass ratio (R), carbon fraction (CF), BCEF for wood removals. While all wood removals represent a
loss for the forest biomass pool, Chapter 12 provides guidance for estimating annual change in carbon stocks in
harvested wood products.
19
20
21
22
23
D i stu rban ce s, L d i s t u r b a n c e
The estimate of other losses of carbon requires data on areas affected by disturbances (A disturbance) and the
biomass of these forest areas (BW). Above ground biomass estimates of forest types affected by disturbance are
required, along with below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass ratio and fraction of biomass lost in
disturbance.
24
25
26
Chapter 2, Tables 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 provide fuel biomass consumption values, emission factors, and combustion
factors needed for estimating proportion of biomass lost in fires and proportion to be transferred to dead organic
matter under higher tiers.
27
28
29
30
31
Tier 1: The average biomass varies with the forest types and management practices. The default values are
given in Tables 4.9 and 4.10. In the case of fire, both CO2 and non-CO2 emissions occur from combusted fuels of
above-ground biomass including understory. Fire may consume a high proportion of understory vegetation. In
the case of other disturbances, a fraction of above ground biomass is transferred to dead organic matter and
under Tier 1, all biomass in area subjected to disturbance is assumed to be emitted in the year of disturbance.
32
33
Tier 2: Under Tier 2, biomass changes due to disturbances will be taken into account by forest category, type of
disturbance and intensity. Average values for biomass are obtained from country-specific data.
34
35
Tier 3: In addition to calculating losses similar to Tier 2, Tier 3 can also adopt models, which typically employ
spatially referenced or spatially explicit information on the year and type of disturbance.
36
4.2.1.3
37
38
39
Area of manag ed Fo rest land

All tiers require information on areas of managed Forest land according to different forest types, climate,
management systems and regions.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Tier 1: Tier 1 uses data of forest area which can be obtained through national statistics, from forest agencies
(which may have information on areas of different management practices), conservation agencies (especially for
areas managed for natural regeneration), municipalities, survey and mapping agencies. Cross-checks should be
made to ensure complete and consistent representation for avoiding omissions or double counting as specified in
Chapter 3. If no country data are available, aggregate information can be obtained from international data
sources (FAO, 1995; FAO 2001, TBFRA, 2000). It is good practice to verify, validate, and update the FAO data
using national sources.
47
48
49
Tier 2: Tier 2 uses country-defined national data sets, according to different forest types, climate, management
systems and regions, with a resolution sufficient to ensure appropriate representation of land areas in line with
provisions of Chapter 3 of this report. Approach 2 of Chapter 3 is relevant for Tier 2.
50
51
52
Tier 3: Tier 3 uses country-specific data on managed Forest lands from different sources, notably national forest
inventories, registers of land use and land-use changes, or remote sensing. These data should give a full
accounting of all land-use transitions to Forest land and disaggregate along climate, soil and vegetation types.
4.14
C HOICE
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA

1
2
Geo-referenced area under different forest types may be used to track changes in area under different land-use
types, using Approach 3 of Chapter 3.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wood Remova ls
The inventory requires data on wood removals, including fuelwood removals and biomass losses due to
disturbances in order to calculate biomass stock changes and carbon pool transfers. In addition to wood removals
for industrial purposes, there may also be wood removals for small scale processing or direct sales to consumers
from land owners. This quantity may not be included in official statistics and may need to be estimated by
survey. Fuelwood from branches and tops of felled trees must be subtracted from transfers to the dead wood
pool. Salvage of wood from areas affected by disturbances must also be subtracted from biomass, to ensure that
no double counting occurs in Tier 1 inventories in which the biomass in areas affected by disturbances is already
assumed released to the atmosphere.
12
13
14
In using production statistics, users must pay careful attention to the units involved. It is important to check
whether the information in the original data is reported in biomass, volumes underbark or overbark to ensure that
expansion factors are used only where appropriate and in a consistent way.
15
16
17
18
19
20
Unless restricted to Approach 1 land representation without supplementary data, so that all forest land is counted
under Forest land remaining Forest land, wood removals from Forest land being converted to another land use
should not be included in losses reported for Forest land remaining Forest land since these losses are reported in
the new land-use category. If the statistics on wood removals do not provide stratification on lands, then an
amount of biomass approximating the biomass loss from lands converted from Forest land should be subtracted
from the total wood removals.
21
22
23
24
Extraction of roundwood is published in the UNECE/FAO Timber Bulletin and by FAO Yearbook of Forest
Products. The latter is based primarily on data provided by the countries. In the absence of official data, FAO
provides an estimate based on the best information available. Usually, the FAO yearbook appears with a twoyear time lag.
25
26
27
28
Tier 1: FAO data can be used as a Tier 1 default for H in Equation 2.12 in Chapter 2. The roundwood data
include all wood removed from forests which are reported in cubic meters underbark. The underbark data need
conversion to overbark before using BCEFH. Conversion from underbark to overbark volumes is done by using
bark percentages.
29
Tier 2: Country-specific data should be used.
30
31
Tier 3: Country-specific wood removals data from different forest categories should be used at the spatial
resolution chosen for reporting
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
F ue lwoo d re mova l
Estimation of carbon losses due to fuelwood removal requires annual volume of fuelwood removed (FG) and
basic wood density (D). Fuelwood is produced in different ways in countries and varies from ordinary timber
harvesting, to using parts of trees, to gathering of dead wood. Fuelwood constitutes the largest component of
biomass loss for many countries, thus reliable estimates are needed for such countries. . If possible, fuelwood
removal from Forest land remaining Forest land and that coming from Forest land conversion to other uses
should be separated.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Tier 1: FAO provides statistics on fuelwood and charcoal removals for all countries. FAO statistics are based
on what is provided by the concerned ministries/ departments in the countries and in some cases may not account
fully for the entire fuelwood and charcoal removal due to the limitations of national data collection and reporting
systems. Thus, under Tier 1, FAO statistics can be used directly but should be checked for completeness by the
national source of data for the FAO such as the Ministry of Forests or Agriculture or any statistical organization.
FAO or any national estimates should be supplemented from regional surveys or local studies on fuelwood
consumption, since fuelwood is collected from multiple sources; forests, timber processing residues, farms,
homesteads, village commons, etc. If more complete information is available nationally, it should be used.
47
48
49
50
Tier 2: Country-specific data should be used, if available. Regional surveys of fuelwood removals can be used
to verify and supplement the national or FAO data source. At the national level, aggregate fuelwood removals
can be estimated by conducting regional level surveys of rural and urban households at different income levels,
industries and establishments.
51
52
53
Tier 3: Fuelwood removals data from national level studies should be used at the resolution required for the
Tier 3 model, including the non-commercial fuelwood removals. Fuelwood removal should be linked to forest
types and regions.
54
55
56
Different methods of fuelwood removal from Forest land remaining Forest land should be accounted at regional
or disaggregated level through surveys. The source of fuelwood should be identified to ensure that no double
counting occurs.
4.15
1
2
3
D isturba nces
A database on rate and impact of natural disturbances by type, for all European countries (Schelhaas et al., 2001),
can be found at: http://www.efi.fi/projects/dfde
4
5
A UNEP database on global

earlywarning/preview/ims/gba/
6
7
8
9
However, one should note that the UNEP database is only valid for year 2000. In many countries inter-annual
variability in burned area is large, so these figures will not provide a representative average. Many countries
maintain their own disturbance statistics e.g., Stocks et al. (2002) which can be employed in Tier 2 or Tier 3
approaches (Kurz and Apps, in press).
10
burnt
area
can
be
found
at:
http://www.grid.unep.ch/activities/
The FRA2005 (FAO, 2005) should also be examined for data on disturbances.
11
12
4.2.1.4
C ALCULATION S TEPS
13
14
15
T he fo llo wing s umma r iz e s s tep s for e s tima ting cha nge in c arbo n s to ck s in bio mas s ( C B )
u s ing t he d e f a u l t me t ho d s
16
17
18
19
20
Step 1: Using guidance from Chapter 3 (approaches in representing land areas), categorise the area (A) of
Forest land remaining Forest land into forest types of different climatic or ecological zones, as adopted by the
country. As a point of reference, Annex 3A.1 of GPG-LULUCF (IPCC, 2003) provides national- level data of
forest area and annual change in forest area by region and by country as a means of comparison. Alternatively
FAO also periodically provides area data;
21
22
23
Step 2: Estimate the annual biomass gain in Forest land remaining Forest land (CG) using estimates of area and
biomass growth, for each forest type and climatic zone in the country available using Equations 2.9 and 2.10 in
Chapter 2;
24
Step 3: Estimate the annual carbon loss due to wood removals (Lremovals) using Equation 2.12 in Chapter 2;
25
Step 4: Estimate annual carbon loss due to fuelwood removal (Lfuelwood) using Equation 2.13 in Chapter 2;
26
27
Step 5: Estimate annual carbon loss due to disturbance (Ldisturbance) using Equation 2.14 in Chapter 2, avoid
double counting of losses already covered in wood removals and fuelwood removals;
28
29
Step 6: From the estimated losses in Steps 3 to 5, estimate the annual decrease in carbon stocks due to biomass
losses (CL) using Equation 2.11 in Chapter 2;
30
Step 7: Estimate the annual change in carbon stocks in biomass (CB) using Equation 2.7 in Chapter 2.
FOR
T IER 1
31
32
33
34
Example. The following example shows Gain-Loss Method (Tier 1) calculations of annual change
in carbon stocks in biomass (CB), using Chapter 2 Equation 2.7 (CB = (CG CL), for a
hypothetical country in temperate continental forest zone of Europe (Table 4.1, Section 4.5).
35
36
The area of Forest land remaining Forest land (A) within the country is 100,000 ha (see
Chapter 3 for area categorization).
37
It is a 25-year-old pine forest, average above-ground growing stock volume is 50 m3 ha-1.
38
The merchantable round wood harvest over bark (H) is 1,000 m3 yr-1;
39
whole trees fuel wood removal (FGtrees) is 500 m3 yr-1;
40
area of insect disturbance is 2,000 ha yr-1 with above-ground biomass affected 4.0 t dm ha-1.
41
Annual gain in biomass (CG) is a product of mean annual biomass increment (GTOTAL), area of
42
43
44
45
land (A) and carbon fraction of dry matter (CF), Equation 2.9 (CG = ij (A GTOTAL CF),
Chapter 2. GTOTAL is calculated using Chapter 2 Equation 2.10 for given values of annual aboveground biomass growth (GW), below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass ratio (R), and
default data tables in Section 4.5.
46
For the hypothetical country,
4.16

- GW = 4.0 t dm-1 yr-1 (Table 4.9)
2
3
- R = 0.29 t dm t-1 dm-1 for above-ground biomass 50 to 150 t ha-1 (Table 4.4 with reference to
Table 4.7 for above ground biomass);
- GTOTAL = 4.0 t dm ha-1 yr-1 (1 + 0.29) = 5.16 t dm ha-1 yr-1 (Equation 2.10).
- CF = 0.47 t C t-1 dm-1 (Table 4.3).
6
7
Consequently, (Equation 2.9): CG = 100,000 ha 5.16 t dm ha-1 yr-1 0.47 t C t-1 dm-1 = 242,520
t C yr-1.
8
9
Biomass loss (CL) is a sum of annual loss due to wood removals (Lremovals), fuel wood gathering
(Lfuelwood) and disturbances (Ldisturbance), Equation 2.11 in Chapter 2.
10
11
12
13
Wood removal (Lremovals) is calculated with Equation 2.12, Chapter 2, merchantable round wood
over bark (H), biomass conversion expansion factor (BCEFR), bark fraction in harvested wood
(BF), root biomass to above-ground biomass ratio (R), carbon fraction of dry matter (CF) and
default tables, Section 4.5.
14
For the hypothetical country,
15
- BCEFR = 1.11 t dm m-3 (Table 4.5 with reference to growing stock volume 50 m3 ha-1).
16
17
- BF = 0.1 t dm t-1 dm-1. R = 0.29 t dm t-1 dm-1 for above-ground biomass 50 to 150 t ha-1 (Table
4.4, for above-ground biomass refer to Table 4.7).
18
- CF = 0.47 t C t-1 dm-1 (Table 4.3).
19
20
Lremovals = 1,000 m3 yr-1 1.11 t dm m-3 (1 + 0.29 + 0.1) 0.47 t C t-1 dm-1 = 725.16 t C yr-1
(Equation 2.12).
21
22
23
24
Fuelwood removal (Lfuelwood) is calculated using Equation 2.13, Chapter 2, wood removals as
whole trees (FGtrees), biomass conversion expansion factor (BCEFR), root biomass to above-ground
biomass ratio (R), carbon fraction of dry matter (CF) and default tables in Section 4.5. For the
hypothetical country,
25
- BCEFR = 1.11 t dm m-3 (Table 4.5 with reference to growing stock volume 50 m3 ha-1)
26
27
- R = 0.29 t dm t-1 dm-1 for above-ground biomass 50 to 150 t ha-1 (Table 4.4, for above-ground
biomass refer to Table 4.7).
28
CF = 0.47 t C t-1 dm-1 (Table 4.3).
29
30
Lfuelwood = 500 m3 yr-1 0.75 t dm m-3 (1 + 0.29) 0.47 t C t-1 dm-1 = 336.50 t C yr-1 (Equation
2.13).
31
32
33
34
Annual carbon loss in biomass due to disturbances (Ldisturbance) is calculated using Equation
2.14, Chapter 2, area of disturbances (Adisturbance), average above-ground biomass affected (BW),
root biomass to above-ground biomass ratio (R), carbon fraction of dry matter (CF), fraction of
biomass lost in disturbance (fd) and default tables in Section 4.5. For the hypothetical country,
35
- fd = 0.3;
36
37
- R = 0.29 t dm t-1 dm-1 for above-ground biomass 50 to 150 t ha-1 (Table 4.4, for above-ground
38
- CF = 0.47 t C t-1 dm-1 (Table 4.3).
39
40
Ldisturbance = 2,000 ha yr-1 4.0 t dm ha-1 (1 + 0.29) 0.47 t C t-1 dm-1 0.3= 1,455.12 t C yr-1
(Equation 2.14).
41
CL = 725.16 t C yr-1 + 336.50 t C yr-1 + 1,455.12 t C yr-1 = 2,516.78 t C yr-1 (Equation 2.11).
42
Annual change in carbon stocks in biomass (CB)
43
Using Chapter 2 Equation 2.7 (CB = (CG CL),
44
CB = 242,520 t C yr-1 - 2,516.78 t C yr-1 = 240,003.22 t C yr-1
45
4.17
1
4.2.1.5
2
3
4
5
6
This section considers source-specific uncertainties relevant to inventory estimates made for Forest land
remaining forest. Estimating country-specific and/or disaggregated values requires more accurate information on
uncertainties than given below. Volume 1 Chapter 3 provides information on uncertainties associated with
sample-based studies. The literature available on uncertainty estimates on emission factors and activity data is
limited.
7
8
9
10
11
Emission and remo va l fa ctors

FAO (in press) provides uncertainty estimates for forest carbon factors; basic wood density (10 to 40%); annual
increment in managed forests of industrialized countries (6 %); growing stock (industrialized countries 8%, nonindustrialized countries 30%); combined natural losses for industrialized countries (15%); wood and fuelwood
removals (industrialized countries 20%).
12
13
14
15
In Finland, the uncertainty of basic wood density of pine, spruce and birch trees is under 20% in studies of
Hakkila (1968, 1979). The variability between forest stands of the same species should be lower or at most the
same as for individual trees of the same species. In Finland, the uncertainty of biomass expansion factors for
pine, spruce, and birch was approximately 10% (Lehtonen et al. 2003).
16
17
In eight Amazon tropical forest inventory plots, combined measurement errors led to errors of 10-30% in
estimates of basal area change over periods of less than 10 years (Phillips et al. 2002).
18
19
20
21
22
The major sources of uncertainty of wood density and biomass expansion factors are stand age, species
composition, and structure. To reduce uncertainty, countries are encouraged to develop country- or regionspecific biomass expansion factors and BCEFs that fit their conditions. In case country- or regional-specific
values are unavailable, the sources of default parameters should be checked and their correspondence with
specific conditions of a country should be examined.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
The causes of variation of annual increment include climate, site growth conditions, and soil fertility. Artificially
regenerated and managed stands are less variable than natural forests. The major ways to improve accuracy of
estimates are associated with application of country-specific or regional increment stratified by forest type. If the
default values of increment are used, the uncertainty of estimates should be clearly indicated and documented.
Tier 3 approaches can use growth curves stratified by species, ecological zones, site productivity and
management intensity. Similar approaches are routinely used in timber supply planning models and this
information can be incorporated into carbon accounting models (e.g. Kurz et al. 2002).
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Data on commercial fellings are relatively accurate, although they may be incomplete or biased due to illegal
fellings and underreporting due to tax regulations. Traditional wood that is gathered and used directly, without
being sold, is not likely to be included in any statistics. Countries must carefully consider these issues. The
amount of wood removed from forests after storm breaks and pest outbreaks varies both in time and volume. No
default data can be provided on these type of losses. The uncertainties associated with these losses can be
estimated from the amount of damaged wood directly withdrawn from the forest or using data on damaged wood
subsequently used for commercial and other purposes. If fuelwood gathering is treated separately from fellings,
the relevant uncertainties might be high, due to high uncertainty associated with traditional gathering.
38
39
40
41
42
Activity da ta
Area data should be obtained using the guidance in Chapter 3 or from FAO (2000). Industrialized countries
estimated an uncertainty in forest area estimates of approximately 3% (FAO 200). Among non-industrialized
countries, only 25% reported forest area by expert judgment or based on very small-scale mapping only and the
remainder applied more accurate methods such as large-scale mapping and field sampling (FAO 200).
43
4.2.2
44
45
The general description of methods for estimating changes in carbon stocks in dead organic matter (DOM) pools
(litter and dead wood) has been provided in Chapter 2.
46
47
48
49
50
This section focuses on methods for estimating carbon stock changes in dead organic matter pools for Forest
land remaining Forest land. Tier 1 methods assume that the net carbon stock changes in DOM pools are zero
because the simple input and output equations used in Tier 1 methods are not suitable to capture the DOM pool
dynamics. Countries that want to quantify DOM dynamics need to develop Tier 2 or 3 methodologies. The
countries where DOM is a key category should adopt higher tiers and estimate DOM changes.
51
52
53
The dead wood (DW) pool contains carbon in coarse woody debris, dead coarse roots, standing dead trees, and
other dead material not included in the litter or soil carbon pools. Estimating the size and dynamics of the dead
wood pool poses many practical limitations, particularly related to field measurements. The uncertainties
4.18
U NCERTAINTY A SSESSMENT
Dead Organic Matter

1
2
3
4
5
6
associated with estimates of the rate of transfer from the DOM pool to the litter and soil pools, and emissions to
the atmosphere are generally high. The amount of dead wood is highly variable between stands, both in managed
(Duvall and Grigal, 1999; Chojnacky and Heath, 2002) and unmanaged lands (Spies et al., 1988). Amounts of
dead wood depend on the time since last disturbance, the type of the last disturbance, losses during disturbances,
the amount of biomass input (mortality) at the time of the disturbance (Spies et al. 1988), natural mortality rates,
decay rates, and management (Harmon et al. 1986).
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Net litter accumulation rates can be estimated using the stock-difference method or the gain-loss method. The
latter requires an estimate of the balance of the annual amount of litterfall (which includes all leaves, twigs and
small branches, fruits, flowers, roots, and bark) minus the annual rate of litter decomposition. In addition,
disturbances can add and remove carbon from the litter pool, influencing the size and composition of the litter
pool. The litter dynamics during the early stages of stand development depend on the type and intensity of the
last disturbance. Where disturbance has transferred biomass to DOM pools (e.g. wind-throw or insect kill), litter
pools are decreasing until losses are compensated by litter inputs. Where disturbance has removed litter (e.g.
wildfire), litter pools can be increasing in the early stages of stand development if litter input exceeds decay.
Management such as timber harvesting, slash burning, and site preparation alter litter properties (Fisher and
Binkley, 2000), but there are few studies clearly documenting the effects of management on litter carbon (Smith
and Heath, 2002).
18
4.2.2.1
19
20
21
The decision tree in Figure 1.2 in Chapter 1 provides guidance in the selection of the appropriate tier level for
the implementation of estimation procedures. The choice of method is described jointly for dead wood and Litter
since the equations are identical for both, but the estimates are calculated separately for each of the two pools.
22
23
The estimation of changes in carbon stocks in DOM pool requires estimates of changes in carbon stocks of dead
wood and litter pools (refer to Equation 2.17 of Chapter 2).
24
25
26
27
28
Tier 1: The Tier 1 method assumes that the dead wood and litter carbon stocks are in equilibrium so that the
changes in carbon stock in the DOM pools are assumed to be zero. Countries experiencing significant changes in
forest types, disturbance or management regimes in their forests are encouraged to develop domestic data to
quantify the impacts from these changes using Tier 2 or 3 methodologies and to report the resulting stock
changes and non-CO2 emissions.
29
30
31
Tiers 2 and 3: Two general methods are available for estimating the carbon stock changes in dead wood and
litter. Similar methods exist for the estimation of biomass carbon stock changes, and the choice of method for
estimating DOM changes may be affected by the choice of method for biomass carbon stock change estimation.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Gain-Loss Method: The Gain-Loss method uses a mass balance of inputs to and losses from the dead wood and
litter pools to estimate stock changes over a specified period. This involves estimating the area of managed
Forest land remaining Forest land and the average annual transfer of carbon stock into and out of dead wood and
litter pools (Equation 2.18 in Chapter 2). To reduce uncertainty, the area under Forest land remaining Forest land
can be further stratified by climate or ecological zones, and classified by forest type, productivity, disturbance
regime, management practice, or other factors that affect dead wood and litter carbon pool dynamics. Estimation
of the net balance requires calculation on a per hectare basis of the annual transfers into the dead wood and litter
pools from stem mortality, litterfall and turnover, and the losses from decomposition. In addition, in areas
subject to management activities or natural disturbances, dead wood and litter will be added in the form of
biomass residues, and transferred through harvest (salvage of standing dead trees), burning or other mechanisms.
42
43
It is good practice that the stratification of Forest land adopted for DOM be identical to that used for the
estimation of changes in biomass carbon stocks (Section 4.2.A).
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Stock-Difference Method: This involves estimating the area of managed Forest land remaining Forest land,
determining the dead wood and litter carbon stocks at two points of time and the calculation of the difference
between the two carbon stock estimates (Equation 2.19 in Chapter 2). The annual carbon stock change for the
inventory year is obtained by dividing the change in carbon stock by the period (years) between the two
measurements. Method 2 is only feasible for countries which have forest inventories based on sample plots.
Calculating carbon stock changes as the difference of carbon stocks at two points in time requires that the area at
time t1 and t2 is identical to ensure that reported carbon stocks are not the result of changes in area.
51
52
53
For Tier 2 and 3 methods, both options, are data intensive and require field measurements and models for their
implementation. Such models can build on the knowledge and information compiled for the simulation of forest
dynamics as used in the timber supply planning process (e.g. Kurz et al. 2002, and Kurz and Apps, in press).
C HOICE
OF
M ETHOD
4.19
1
4.2.2.2
2
3
4
5
Tier 1: By default, it is assumed that the carbon stocks in the DOM pools in Forest land remaining Forest land
are stable. Carbon-dioxide emissions originating from dead wood and litter pools during wildfire are assumed to
be zero, and accumulation of carbon in dead wood and litter pools during regrowth is also not counted. NonCO2 emissions from wildfire, including CH4 and CO are estimated in Tier 1.
6
7
8
Tier 2 and 3: fBLol is the fraction of total biomass left to decay on the ground, see Chapter 2, Equation 2.20.
Resolution and accuracy of the transferred carbon will correspond to the expansion factors applied in calculating
losses.
9
10
Tier 2 estimation of fBlol requires national data on average proportions of carbon left after disturbances. When
national data are incomplete, Chapter 2 provides two tables:
11
12
Default values of combustion factor to be used as (1 fBL) in case the country has good growing stock
biomass data; in this case the proportion lost is used; see Table 2.6
13
14
Default values of biomass removals to be used as [MB (1 fBL)] in case the growing stock biomass data are
not reliable. MB is the mass of fuel available for combustion (see Table 2.4 and Equation 2.27 in Chapter 2).
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Country-specific values for transfer of carbon in live trees that are harvested to harvest residues can be derived
from national expansion factors, taking into account the forest type (coniferous/broadleaved/
mixed), the rate of biomass utilization, harvesting practices and the amount of damaged trees during harvesting
operations. Both harvest and natural disturbances add biomass to dead wood and litter pools. Other management
practices (such as burning of harvest residues) and wildfire remove carbon from dead wood and litter pools. If
the area under each management practice and type of forest affected by disturbance are known, then disturbance
matrices (see Chapter 2, Table 2.1; Kurz et al. 1992) can be used to define for each disturbance type the
proportion of each biomass, dead organic matter and soil carbon pool that is transferred to other pools, to the
atmosphere, or removed from the forest during harvest.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Tier 3 estimation of fBlol, will require more detailed knowledge of the proportion of rapid emissions from
disturbances such as fires and windstorms. Data should be obtained by on-site measurements or from studies of
similar disturbances. Disturbance matrices (see Chapter 2 Table 2.1) have been developed to define for each
disturbance type the proportion of biomass (and all other carbon pools) that is transferred to other carbon pools,
released to the atmosphere, or transferred to harvested wood products (Kurz et al. 1992). Disturbance matrices
ensure conservation of carbon when calculating the immediate impacts of harvest or disturbances on ecosystem
carbon.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Tier 3 methods rely on more complex forest carbon accounting models that track the rates of input and losses
from dead organic matter pools for each forest type, productivity and age-class. Where comprehensive forest
inventories exist that include re-measurement of dead organic matter pools, estimates of carbon stock changes
can also be derived using the stock-difference approach described in Equation 2.19 in Chapter 2. It is good
practice that inventory-based approaches with periodic sampling follow the principles set out in Chapter 3
Annex 3A.3. Inventory-based approaches can be coupled with models to capture the dynamics of all forest
carbon pools. Tier 3 methods provide estimates of greater certainty than lower tiers and feature a greater link
between the dynamics of biomass and dead organic matter carbon pools. Other important parameters in
modelling dead wood and litter carbon budgets are decay rates, which may vary with the forest type and climatic
conditions, and forest management practices (e.g. controlled broadcast burning or thinning and other forms of
partial harvest).
42
4.2.2.3
43
44
Countries using a Tier 1 method require no activity data for estimation of changes in carbon stock in DOM in
Forest land remaining Forest land.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Countries using higher tiers require activity data on the areas of Forest land remaining Forest land classified by
major forest types, management practices, and disturbance regimes. Total forest area and all other activity data
should be consistent with that reported under other sections of this chapter, notably under biomass section of
Forest land remaining Forest land. Country-specific activity data on the area annually affected by harvest and
disturbances can be derived from national monitoring programs. The assessment of changes in carbon stock in
DOM is greatly facilitated if this information can be used in conjunction with national soil and climate data,
vegetation inventories, and other geophysical data.
52
53
Data sources will vary according to a countrys forest management system. Data can be compiled from
individual contractors or companies, regulation bodies and governmental agencies responsible for forest
4.20
C HOICE
C HOICE
OF
OF
E MISSION /R EMOVAL F ACTORS
A CTIVITY D ATA

1
2
3
inventory and management, and from research institutions. Data formats vary widely, and include, among others,
activity reports submitted regularly within incentive programs or as required by regulations, forest management
inventories and from monitoring programs using remotely sensed imagery (Wulder et al. 2004).
4.2.2.4
5
6
Since Tier 1 assumes no change in DOM for Forest land Remaining Forest land, guidance on calculations steps
is not relevant.
4.2.2.5
C ALCULATION S TEPS
FOR
T IER 1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Tier 1 by definition assumes stable carbon stocks so formal uncertainty analysis is not appropriate. In fact the
assumption is almost never true at the stand level and unlikely to be true in general, although the resulting error
could be small for a forested landscape because increases in some stands could be off-set by decreases in others,
but for the entire landscape or country, dead organic matter pools can be either increasing or decreasing. An
understanding of the types of changes that are occurring in the forests of a country can provide some qualitative
insight into the direction of change in dead organic matter pools. For example, in some countries biomass
growing stocks are increasing because harvest and disturbance losses are smaller than growth increments. It is
likely that dead organic matter pools are also increasing, even if the rate of increase cannot be known unless a
Tier 2 or 3 estimation method is used.
17
18
19
20
Countries that use methods that assume all carbon losses occur in the year of disturbance are likely to
overestimate disturbance losses in the years of above-average disturbances, and underestimate true emissions in
years of below-average disturbances. Countries with fairly constant harvest or disturbance rates that rely on such
methods are likely to be closer to the actual net carbon stock changes.
21
22
23
24
25
26
The uncertainty of estimates using higher Tier methods must be evaluated for each country using expert
judgment. It is fair to assume that the uncertainty in the estimates of changes of carbon stock in dead organic
matter is generally larger than that of the estimates of changes in carbon stock in biomass since, in most
countries, considerably more data are available on biomass stocks than on dead organic matter stocks. Moreover,
models that describe biomass dynamics are generally more advanced than models of dead organic matter
dynamics.
27
28
29
30
Given the increased importance of understanding the non-timber components of forest ecosystems, many
countries have revised their inventory procedures. More data on dead organic matter carbon stocks and their
dynamics are becoming available, which will allow inventory agencies to better identify, quantify and reduce
uncertainties in dead organic matter estimates in the years to come.
31
4.2.3
32
33
34
This section elaborates on estimation procedures and good practices for estimating change in forest soil C stocks
It does not include forest litter, which is a dead organic matter pool. Separate guidance is provided for two types
of forest soils: 1) mineral forest soils, and 2) organic forest soils.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The organic C content of mineral forest soils (to 1 m depth) typically varies between 20 to over 300 tonnes C
ha-1 depending on the forest type and climatic conditions (Jobbagy and Jackson 2000). Globally, mineral forest
soils contain approximately 700 Pg C (Dixon et al. 1994), but soil organic C pools are not static due to
differences between C inputs and outputs over time. Inputs are largely determined by the forest productivity, the
decomposition of litter and its incorporation into the mineral soil and subsequent loss through
mineralization/respiration (Pregitzer 2003). Other losses of soil organic C occur through erosion or the
dissolution of organic C that is leached to groundwater or loss through overland flow. A large proportion of
input is from above-ground litter in forest soils so soil organic matter tends to concentrate in the upper soil
horizons, with roughly half of the soil organic C in the upper 30 cm layer. The C held in the upper profile is
often the most chemically decomposable, and the most directly exposed to natural and anthropogenic
disturbances. This section only deals with soil C and does not address decomposing litter (i.e., dead organic
matter, see Section 4.2.2).
47
48
49
50
51
52
Human activities and other disturbances such as changes in forest type, productivity, decay rates and
disturbances can alter the C dynamics of forest soils. Different forest management activities, such as rotation
length; choice of tree species; drainage; harvest practices (whole tree or sawlog; regeneration, partial cut or
thinning); site preparation activities (prescribed fires, soil scarification); and fertilization, affect soil organic C
stocks (Harmon and Marks 2002, Liski et al. 2001, Johnson and Curtis 2001). Changes in disturbance regimes,
notably in the occurrence of severe forest fires, pest outbreaks, and other stand-replacing disturbances are also
Soil Carbon
4.21
1
2
expected to alter the forest soil C pool (Li and Apps 2002, de Groot et al. 2002). In addition, drainage of forest
stands on organic soils reduces soil C stocks.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
General information and guidelines on estimating changes soil C stocks are found in Chapter 2 Section 2.3.3,
and needs to be read before proceeding with the specific guidelines dealing with forest soil C stocks. Changes in
soil C stocks associated with forests are computed using Equation 2.24 in Chapter 2, which combines the change
in soil organic C stocks for mineral soils and organic soils; and stock change for soil inorganic C pools (Tier 3
only). This section elaborates on estimation procedures and good practices for estimating change in forest soil C
organic stocks (Note: It does not include forest litter, i.e., dead organic matter). Separate guidance is provided for
two types of forest soils: 1) mineral forest soils, and 2) organic forest soils. See Section 2.3.3.1 for general
discussion on soil inorganic C (no additional information is provided in the Forest land discussion below).
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
To account for changes in soil C stocks associated with Forests Remaining Forests, countries need to have, at a
minimum, estimates of the total forest area at the beginning and end of the inventory time period, stratified by
climate region and soil type. If land-use and management activity data are limited, Approach 1 activity data (see
Chapter 3) can be used as the basis for a Tier 1 approach, but higher Tiers are likely to need more detailed
records or knowledge of country experts about the approximate distribution of forest management systems.
Forest classes must be stratified according to climate regions and major soil types, which can be accomplished
with overlays of suitable climate and soil maps.
18
4.2.3.1
19
20
21
Inventories can be developed using Tier 1, 2 or 3 approaches, and countries may choose to use different tiers for
mineral and organic soils. Decision trees are provided for mineral (Figure 2.4) and organic soils (Figure 2.5) in
Chapter 2 to assist inventory compilers with selection of the appropriate tier for their soil C inventory.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Minera l So ils
In spite of a growing body of literature on the effect of forest types, management practices and other
disturbances on soil organic C, the available evidence remains largely site- and study-specific, but eventually
may be generalized based on the influence of climatic conditions, soil properties, the time scale of interest,
taking into consideration sampling intensity and effects across different soil depth increments (Johnson and
Curtis 2001, Hoover 2003, Page-Dumroese et al. 2003). However, the current knowledge remains inconclusive
on both the magnitude and direction of C stock changes in mineral forest soils associated with forest type,
management and other disturbances, and cannot support broad generalizations.
30
31
32
Tier 1: Due to incomplete scientific basis and resulting uncertainty, it is assumed in the Tier 1 method that
forest soil C stocks do not change with management. Furthermore, if using Approach 2 or 3 activity data (see
Chapter 3), it is not necessary to compute C stock changes for mineral soils (i.e., change in SOC stocks is 0).
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
If using activity data collected via Approach 1 (see Chapter 3), and it is not possible to identify the amount of
land converted from and to Forest lands, then the inventory compiler should estimate soil C stocks for Forest
lands using the areas at and the end of the year for which the inventory is being estimated, and the difference
estimates the uptake or less of forest soil. The changes in soil C stocks for forestlands are summed with the
changes in stocks for other land uses to estimate the influence of land-use change. If the compiler does not
compute a stock for Forest lands, it is likely to create systematic errors in the inventory. For example, land
converted from forest to cropland or grassland will have a soil C stock estimated in the final year of the
inventory, but will have no stock in the first year of the inventory (when it was forest). Consequently,
conversion to cropland or grassland is estimated as a gain in soil C because the soil C stocks are assumed to be 0
in the Forest land, but not in cropland and grassland. This would introduce a bias into the inventory estimates.
SOC0 and SOC0-T are estimated for the top 30 cm of the soil profile using Equation 2.25 (Chapter 2). Note that
areas of exposed bedrock in Forest lands are not included in the soil C stock calculation (assume a stock of 0).
45
46
47
48
49
Tier 2: Using Equation 2.25 (Chapter 2) soil organic C stocks are computed based on reference soil C stocks
and country-specific stock change factors for forest type (FI), management (FMG) and natural disturbance regime
(FD). Note that the stock change factor for natural disturbance regime (FD) is substituted for the land-use factor
(FLU) in Equation 2.25. In addition, country-specific information can be incorporated to better specify reference
C stocks, climate regions, soil types, and/or the land management classification system.
50
51
52
53
Tier 3: Tier 3 approaches will require considerable knowledge and data allowing for the development of an
accurate and comprehensive domestic estimation methodology, including evaluation of model results and
implementation of a domestic monitoring scheme and/or modelling tool. The basic elements of a countryspecific approach are (adapted from Webbnet Land Resource Services Pty ltd, 1999):
54
55
C HOICE
OF
M ETHOD
Stratification by climatic zones, major forest types and management regimes coherent with those used for
other C pools in the inventory, especially biomass;
4.22

Determination of dominant soil types in each stratum;
2
3
Characterization of corresponding soil C pools, identification of determinant processes in SOC input and
output rates and the conditions under which these processes occur; and
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Determination and implementation of suitable methods to estimate carbon stock changes from forest soils
for each stratum on an operational basis, including model evaluation procedures; methodological
considerations are expected to include the combination of monitoring activities such as repeated forest soil
inventories - and modelling studies, and the establishment of benchmark sites. Further guidance on good soil
monitoring practices is available in the scientific literature (Kimble et al. 2003, Lal et al. 2001, McKenzie et
al. 2000). It is good practice for models developed or adapted for this purpose to be peer-reviewed, and
validated with observations representative of the ecosystems under study and independent from the
calibration data.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
O rganic So ils
Tier 1: Currently only C emissions due to drainage of forest organic soils are addressed in the Tier 1 method due
to data limitations and lack of sufficient knowledge that constrain the development of a more refined default
methodology. Using Equation 2.26 (Chapter 2), drained forest organic soils are stratified by climate type, and
then multiplied by a climate-specific emission factor to derive an estimate of annual C emissions. Areas
converted to Forest land can be included in the total area estimate, in using Approach 1 land representation
without supplementary data to be able to identify land use changes.
19
20
21
Tier 2: For Tier 2, the same basic equation is used as in Tier 1 (Equation 2.26), but country-specific information
is incorporated to better specify emission factors, climate regions, and/or develop a forest classification scheme,
relevant for organic soils.
22
23
24
Tier 3: Tier 3 methodology involves the estimation of CO2 emissions associated with management of forested
organic soils, including all anthropogenic activities likely to alter the hydrological regime, surface temperature
and vegetation composition of forested organic soils; and major disturbances such as fires.
25
4.2.3.2
26
27
28
29
30
Minera l So ils
Tier 1: It is not necessary to compute the stock estimates for forest remaining Forest lands with Approach 2 or 3
activity data (see Chapter 3). If using Approach 1 activity data, stock change factors, including input,
management and disturbance regime, are equal to 1 using the Tier 1 approach. Consequently, only reference C
stocks are needed to apply the method, and those are provided in Table 2.3 of Chapter 2.
31
32
33
34
Tier 2: In a Tier 2 approach, stock change factors are derived based on a country-specific classification scheme
for management, forest types, and natural disturbance regimes. A Tier 2 approach should also include the
derivation of country-specific reference C stocks, and a more detailed classification of climate and soils than the
default categories provided with the Tier 1 method.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
It is good practice to focus on the factors that have the largest overall effect, taking into account the impact on
forest SOC and the extent of affected forests. Management practices can be coarsely labeled as intensive (e.g.,
plantation forestry) or extensive (e.g., natural forest); these categories can also be redefined according to national
circumstances. The development of stock change factors is likely to be based on intensive studies at
experimental sites and sampling plots involving replicated, paired site comparisons (Johnson et al. 2002, Olsson
et al. 1996, see also the reviews by Johnson and Curtis 2001 and Hoover 2003). In practice, it may not be
possible to separate the effects of a different forest types, management practices and disturbance regimes, in
which case some stock change factors can be combined into a single modifier. If a country has well-documented
data for different forest types under different management regimes, it might be possible to derive soil organic C
estimates directly without using reference C stocks and adjustment factors. However, a relationship to the
reference C stocks must be established so that the impact of land-use change can be computed without artificial
increases or decreases in the C stocks due to a lack of consistency in the methods across the various land-use
sectors (i.e., cropland, grassland, forests, settlements, other lands).
48
49
50
51
Inventories can also be improved by deriving country-specific reference C stocks (SOCref), compiled from
published studies or surveys. Such values are typically obtained through the development and/or compilation of
large soil profile databases (Scott et al. 2002, Siltanen et al. 1997). Additional guidance for deriving stock
change factors and reference C stocks is provided in Section 2.3.3.1 (Chapter 2).
52
53
Tier 3: Constant stock change rate factors per se are less likely to be estimated in favor of variable rates that
more accurately capture land-use and management effects. See Section 2.3.3.1 (Chapter 2) for further discussion.
54
O rganic So ils
C HOICE
OF
E MISSION F ACTORS
4.23
1
2
Tier 1: Default emission factors are provided in Table 4.6 of Section 4.5, to estimate the loss of C associated
with drainage of organic soils.
3
4
5
6
7
8
Tier 2: Tier 2 approaches involve the derivation of emission factors from country-specific data. The main
consideration is whether forests types or management in addition to climate regions will be subdivided into finer
classes. These decisions will depend on experimental data that demonstrate significant differences in C loss
rates. For example, drainage classes can be developed for various forest management systems. In addition,
management activities may disrupt the C dynamics of the underlying organic soils. Harvest, for example, may
cause a rise in the water table due to reduced interception, evaporation and transpiration (Dub et al. 1995).
9
10
Tier 3: Constant emission rate factors per se are less likely to be estimated in favor of variable rates that more
accurately capture land-use and management effects See Section 2.3.3.1 (Chapter 2) for further discussion.
11
4.2.3.3
12
13
Minera l So ils
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Tier 1: For the Tier 1 approach, it is assumed that forest soil C stocks do not change with management, and
therefore it is not necessary to classify forest into various types, management classes or natural disturbance
regimes. However, if using Approach 1 activity data (see Chapter 3), environmental data will be needed to
classify the country into climate regions and soil types in order to apply the appropriate reference C stocks to
Forest lands. A detailed description of the default climate classification scheme is given in Chapter 3 Annex
3A.5. If the information needed to classify climate types is not available from national databases, there are
international sources of climate data such as United Nations Environmental Program. Data will be also be
needed to classify soils into the default categories provided in Chapter 3, and if national data are not available to
map the soil types, international soils data provide a reasonable alternative, such as the FAO Soils Map of the
World.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Tier 2: Activity data for the Tier 2 approach consist of the major forest types, management practices,
disturbance regimes and the areas to which they apply. It is preferable for the data to be linked with the national
forest inventory, where one exists, and/or with national soil and climate databases. Typical changes include:
conversion of unmanaged to managed forest; conversion of native forest into a new forest type; intensification of
forest management activities, such as site preparation, tree planting and rotation length changes; changes in
harvesting practices (bole vs. whole-tree harvesting; amount of residues left on-site); frequency of disturbances
(pest and disease outbreaks, flooding, fires etc). Data sources will vary according to a countrys forest
management system, but could include individual contractors or companies, statutory forest authorities, research
institutions and agencies responsible for forest inventories. Data formats vary widely, and include, among others,
activity reports, forest management inventories and remote sensing imagery.
34
35
36
37
38
In addition, Tier 2 should involve a finer stratification of environmental data than the Tier 1 approach, including
climate regions and soil types, which would likely be based on national climate and soils data. If a finer
classification scheme is utilized in a Tier 2 inventory, reference C stocks will also need to be derived for the
more detailed set of climate regions and soil types, and the land management data will need to be stratified based
on the country-specific classification.
39
40
41
Tier 3: For application of dynamic models and/or a direct measurement-based inventory in Tier 3, similar or
more detailed data on the combinations of climate, soil, topographic and management data are needed, relative to
the Tier 1 and 2 methods, but the exact requirements will be dependent on the model or measurement design
42
43
44
45
O rganic So ils
Tier 1: Forests are not stratified into various systems using Tier 1 methods. However, land areas do need to be
stratified by climate region and soil type (see Chapter 3 for guidance on soil and climate classification) so that
organic soils may be identified and the appropriate default emission factor applied.
46
47
48
49
50
51
Tier 2: Tier 2 approaches may involve a finer stratification of management, forest type or disturbance regime, in
a manner consistent with the country-specific emission factors for organic soils. For example, forest systems will
need to be stratified by drainage if management factors are derived by drainage class. However it is good
practice for the classification to be based on empirical data that demonstrates significant differences in rates of C
change for the proposed categories. In addition, Tier 2 approaches should involve a finer stratification of climate
regions.
52
53
54
the Tiers 1 and 2 methods, but the exact requirements will be dependent on the model or measurement design.
4.24
C HOICE
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA

4.2.3.4
C ALCULATION S TEPS
2
3
4
Minera l So ils
Since Tier 1 assumes no change in mineral soil C stocks for Forest Land Remaining Forest, guidance on
calculations steps are not provided.
5
6
7
8
9
O rganic So ils
Step 1: Estimate the area of drained organic soils under managed forest in each climatic region of the country
for each year or for the last year in each time period of the inventory (e.g., emissions over an inventory time
period between 1990 and 2000 would be based on the land-use in 2000, assuming land-use and management are
only known for these two years during the inventory time period).
FOR
T IER 1
10
Step 2: Select the appropriate emission factor (EF) for annual losses of CO2 (from Table 4.8).
11
12
Step 3: Estimate total emissions by summing the product of area (A) multiplied by the emission factor (EF) for
all climate zones.
13
4.2.3.5
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Three broad sources of uncertainty exists in soil C inventories: 1) uncertainties in land-use and management
activity and environmental data; 2) uncertainties in reference soil C stocks if using Tier 1 or 2 approaches
(mineral soils only); and 3) uncertainties in the stock change/emission factors for Tier 1 or 2 approaches, model
structure/parameter error for Tier 3 model-based approaches, or measurement error/sampling variability
associated with Tier 3 measurement-based inventories. In general, precision of an inventory is increased (i.e.,
smaller confidence ranges) with more sampling to estimate values for the three broad categories. In addition,
reducing bias (i.e., improve accuracy) is more likely through the development of a higher Tier inventory that
incorporates country-specific information.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
For Tier 1, uncertainties are provided with the reference C stocks in the first footnote of Table 2.3 (Chapter 2),
and emission factor uncertainties for organic soils are provided in Table 4.6, Section 4.5. Uncertainties in landuse and management data will need to be addressed by the inventory compiler, and then combined with
uncertainties for the default factors and reference C stocks (mineral soils only) using an appropriate method,
such as simple error propagation equations. Refer to Section 4.2.1.5 for uncertainty estimate for land area
estimates. However, it is good practice for the inventory compiler to derive uncertainties from country-specific
activity data instead of using a default level.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Default reference C stocks for mineral soils and emission factors for organic soils can have inherently high
uncertainties, particularly bias, when applied to specific countries. Defaults represent globally averaged values of
land-use and management impacts or reference C stocks that may vary from region-specific values (Powers et al.
2004, Ogle et al. 2006). Bias can be reduced by deriving country-specific factors using Tier 2 method or by
developing a Tier 3 country-specific estimation system. The underlying basis for higher Tier approaches will be
research in the country or neighbouring regions that address the effect of land use and management on soil C. In
addition, it is good practice to further minimize bias by accounting for significant within-country differences in
land-use and management impacts, such as variation among climate regions and/or soil types, even at the
expense of reduced precision in the factor estimates (Ogle et al. 2006). Bias is considered more problematic for
reporting stock changes because it is not necessarily captured in the uncertainty range (i.e., the true stock change
may be outside of the reported uncertainty range if there is significant bias in the factors).
40
41
42
43
Uncertainties in land-use activity statistics may be improved through a better national system, such as
developing or extending a ground-based survey with additional sample locations and/or incorporating remote
sensing to provide additional coverage. It is good practice to design a classification that captures the majority of
land-use and management activity with a sufficient sample size to minimize uncertainty at the national scale.
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
For Tier 2 methods, country-specific information is incorporated into the inventory analysis for purposes of
reducing bias. For example, Ogle et al. (2003) utilized country-specific data to construct probability distribution
functions for US specific factors, activity data and reference C stocks for agricultural soils. It is good practice to
evaluate dependencies among the factors, reference C stocks or land-use and management activity data. In
particular, strong dependencies are common in land-use and management activity data because management
practices tend to be correlated in time and space. Combining uncertainties in stock change/emission factors,
reference C stocks and activity data can be done using methods such as simple error propagation equations or
Monte-Carlo procedures.
52
53
54
Tier 3 models are more complex and simple error propagation equations may not be effective at quantifying the
associated uncertainty in resulting estimates. Monte Carlo analyses are possible (Smith and Heath 2001), but
can be difficult to implement if the model has many parameters (some models can have several hundred
4.25
1
2
3
4
5
6
parameters) because joint probability distribution functions must be constructed quantifying the variance as well
as covariance among the parameters. Other methods are also available such as empirically-based approaches
(Monte et al. 1996), which use measurements from a monitoring network to statistically evaluate the relationship
between measured and modelled results (Falloon and Smith 2003). In contrast to modelling, uncertainties in
measurement-based Tier 3 inventories can be determined from the sample variance, measurement error and other
relevant sources of uncertainty.
4.2.4 Greenhouse gas emissions from Biomass Burning
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Both uncontrolled (wildfires) and managed (prescribed) fires can have a major impact on the non-CO2
greenhouse gas emissions from forests. In Forest land remaining Forest land, emissions of CO2 from biomass
burning also need to be accounted for because they are generally not synchronous with rates of CO2 uptake. This
is especially important after stand replacing wildfire, and during cycles of shifting cultivation in tropical regions.
Where the type of forest changes (e.g. conversion of natural forests to plantation forests), there may be net
emissions of CO2 from biomass burning during the initial years, in particular if significant woody biomass is
burnt during the conversion. Over time, however, the impacts are not as great as those that result from Forest
land converted to Cropland or Grassland. Fire emissions during land-use conversion are reported in the new
land-use category unless restricted Approach 1 land area representation is being used without supplementary
data to enable land use conversions to be identified explicitly, in which case fire emissions from Forest land
should all be included in the Forest land remaining Forest land category.
19
20
21
The general method for estimating greenhouse gas emissions in Forest land remaining Forest land, and in Land
converted to Forest land is described in Equation 2.27 in Chapter 2. Default tables for Tier 1 approach or
components of a Tier 2 approach are provided in that Section 2.4 of Chapter 2.
22
4.2.4.1
23
24
25
26
27
28
It is good practice that countries choose the appropriate Tier for reporting greenhouse gas emissions from fire,
based on the decision tree in Figure 2.6 in Chapter 2. Where fire is a key category, emphasis should be on using
a Tier 2 or Tier 3 approach. For prescribed fires, country-specific data are required to generate reliable estimates
of emissions, since activity data, in general, are poorly reflected in global data sets. In Forest land, both the CO2
emissions due to biomass burning and the CO2 removals resulting from vegetation regrowth need to be
accounted for when estimating the net carbon flux.
29
4.2.4.2
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
The mass of fuel available for combustion (MB of Equation 2.27) is critical for estimating the non-CO2 emissions.
Default data to support estimation of emissions under a Tier 1 approach are given in Tables 2.4 to 2.6 in Chapter
2. Countries need to judge how their vegetation types correspond with the broad vegetation categories described
in the default tables. Guidance for this is provided in Chapter 3 (Consistent Representation of Lands). Countries
using Tier 2 are likely to have national data at disaggregated level on MB, according to forest types and
management systems. Tier 3 estimation requires spatial estimates of MB according to different forest types,
regions and management systems. Tier 3 estimation methods can also distinguish fires burning at different
intensities, resulting in different amounts of fuel consumption.
38
4.2.4.3
39
40
41
42
43
44
Estimates of area burnt in Forest land remaining Forest land are needed. A global database exists that covers the
area burnt annually by fires but this will not provide reliable data for the area burnt annually by prescribed fires
in individual countries. It is good practice to develop national estimates of the area burned and the nature of the
fires especially how they affect forest carbon dynamics (e.g., effects on tree mortality) to improve the reliability
of national inventories. Countries using Tier 2 are likely to have access to national estimates. Tier 3 estimation
requires regional and forest type specific estimates of area subjected to fire and fire intensity.
C HOICE
C HOICE
C HOICE
OF
OF
OF
M ETHOD
E MISSIONS F ACTORS
A CTIVITY D ATA
45
46
47
Summary of Steps for calculating greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning using Equation 2.27 in
Chapter 2:
48
49
50
Step 1: Using guidance from Chapter 3 (approaches in representing land-use areas), categorise the area of Forest
land remaining Forest land into forest types of different climatic or ecological zones, as adopted by the country
for Equation 2.27. Obtain estimates of A (area burnt) from global database or from national sources.
4.26

1
2
Step 2: Estimate the mass of fuel (MB) available for combustion, in t/ha, which includes biomass, litter and dead
wood.
Step 3: Select combustion factor Cf (default values are in Table 2.6, Chapter 2).
4
5
Step 4: Multiply MB and Cf to provide an estimate of the amount of fuel combusted. If MB or Cf is unknown,
defaults for the product of MB and Cf are given in Table 2.4.
Step 5: Select emission factors Gef (default factors are in Table 2.5, Chapter 2).
7
8
Step 6: Multiply parameters A, MB, Cf, (or MB and Cf, Table 2.4) and Gef to obtain the quantity of greenhouse
gas emission from biomass burning. Repeat the steps for each greenhouse gas.
4.2.4.4
10
11
12
13
14
Country-specific uncertainty estimates are to be estimated for Forest land remaining Forest land. These result
from the product of the uncertainties associated with activity data (area burnt) and the emission factors. It is
good practice to provide error estimates (e.g., ranges, standard errors) and not to use country-specific data (for
example, if it is of a limited nature) or approaches, unless this leads to a reduction in uncertainties compared
with a Tier 1 approach.
15
4.3 LAND CONVERTED TO FOREST LAND
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
This section provides methodological guidance on annual estimation of emissions and removals of greenhouse
gases, which occur on lands converted to Forest lands from different land-uses, including Cropland, Grassland,
Wetlands, Settlements, and Other land, through afforestation and reforestation, either by natural or artificial
regeneration (including plantations). The emissions and removals on abandoned lands, which are regenerating to
forest due to human activities, should be also estimated under this section. It substitutes the method described
under categories 5A, 5C, and 5D of the IPCC Guidelines. Land is converted to Forest land by afforestation and
reforestation, either by natural or artificial regeneration (including plantations). The anthropogenic conversion
includes promotion of natural re-growth (e.g. by improving the water balance of soil by drainage), establishment
of plantations on non-forest lands or previously unmanaged Forest land, lands of settlements and industrial sites,
abandonment of croplands, pastures or other managed lands, which re-grow to forest. Unmanaged forests are not
considered as anthropogenic greenhouse gas sources or sinks, and are excluded from inventory calculations.
Where these unmanaged forests are affected by human activities such as planting, thinning, promotion of natural
regeneration or others, they change status and become managed forests, reported under the category land
converted to Forest land, whose greenhouse gas emissions and removals should be included in the inventory and
estimated with the use of the guidance in this section. Land conversion may result in an initial loss of carbon due
to changes in biomass, dead organic matter and soil carbon. But natural regeneration or plantation practices lead
to carbon accumulation and that is related to changes in the area of plantations and their biomass stocks.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Converted areas are considered Forest land, if, following conversion, they correspond to definition of forest
adopted by the country. Lands converted to Forest land are covered in this section of the national greenhouse gas
inventory until the time the soil carbon in new forests reach a stable level. A default period of 20 years5 is
suggested. .Forest ecosystems may require a certain time to return to the level of biomass, stable soil and litter
pools of undisturbed state. With this in mind and as a practical matter, the default 20-year time interval is
suggested. Countries also have an option to extend the length of transition period. After 20 years or other time
interval chosen, the converted lands become forest, i.e., the land areas are transferred from the Land converted to
Forest land category to Forest land Remaining Forest land (Section 4.2), where areas still becoming established
can be treated as a separate stratum if necessary. Logging followed by regeneration or re-growth should be
considered under Forest land remaining Forest land category, since no land-use change is involved.
43
44
45
46
47
Some abandoned lands may be too infertile, saline, or eroded for forest re-growth to occur. In this case, either
the land remains in its current state or it may further degrade and lose organic matter. Those lands that remain
constant with respect to carbon flux can be ignored. However, in some countries, the degradation of abandoned
lands may be a significant problem and could be an important source of CO2. Where lands continue to degrade,
both above-ground biomass and soil carbon may decline rapidly, e.g., due to erosion. The carbon in eroded soil
It is clear that most forest ecosystems will take longer than 100 years to return to the level of biomass, soil and litter pools in
undisturbed state; however human-induced activities can enhance the rate of return to stable state of carbon stocks. With
this in mind and as a practical matter, the default 20-year time interval is suggested to capture the establishment of the
forest ecosystems. Countries also have the option to extend the length of the transition period, though a consistent
transition period will be required for the land use matrix system of land area representation to work properly.
4.27
1
2
could be re-deposited in rivers, lakes or other lands downstream. For countries with significant areas of such
lands, this issue should be considered in a more refined calculation.
3
4
5
6
Classification of land: Land converted to forest can be classified based on climate domain and ecological zones
and forest crown cover classes. The carbon stock varies with climate, biome or forest type, species mix,
management practices etc. It is good practice to stratify lands into homogenous sub-categories (see Chapter 3) to
reduce uncertainty in estimates of greenhouse gas emissions.
7
8
9
10
11
12
The estimation of emissions and removals of carbon from land-use conversion to Forest land is divided into
three sub-sections: Change in Carbon Stocks in Biomass (Section 4.3.1), Change in Carbon Stocks in Dead
Organic Matter (Section 4.3.2) and Change in Carbon Stocks in Soils (Section 4.3.3). The annual changes in
carbon stocks on land converted to forest are calculated using Equations 2.2 and 2.3 of Chapter 2 on the basis of
annual changes in carbon stocks in biomass, dead organic matter (including dead wood and litter) and soil.
Changes in carbon stock in land converted to Forest land are estimated using:
13
annual change in carbon stocks in above- and below-ground biomass
14
annual change in carbon stocks in dead organic matter that includes dead wood and litter
15
annual change in carbon stocks in soils
16
17
The approach for calculation of non-CO2 emissions is described in Section 4.3.4 based on methods given in
Chapter 2.
18
19
20
21
Application of these methods will only be possible if using Approach 2 or 3 land area representation as set out in
Chapter 3, or Approach 1 data with supplementary data to enable land use conversions to be identified. The
actions to be taken in this case have already been identified in Section 4.2 above (Forest land remaining Forest
land).
22
4.3.1
23
24
25
26
This section presents methodological guidance for calculation of emissions and removals of CO2 by changes in
biomass on lands converted to Forest land. It substitutes the methodology provided for reporting on Changes in
Forest and Other Woody Biomass Stocks and Abandonment of Managed Lands categories of the IPCC
Guidelines as applied to newly established forests.
27
4.3.1.1
28
29
30
31
32
This section presents methodological guidance for calculation of emissions and removals of CO2 by changes in
above- and below-ground biomass on lands converted to Forest land. Based on key category analysis, activity
data and resources available, three tier methods are suggested to estimate changes in biomass stocks. The
decision tree in Figure 1.3 in Chapter 1 illustrates good practice approach for choosing the method to calculate
CO2 emissions and removals in biomass on lands converted to forests.
33
34
35
36
Tier 1: Annual change in carbon stocks in biomass is estimated with the use of Equation 2.7 in Chapter 2. Tier
1 follows the default approach. It implies the use of default parameters provided in Section 4.5. This approach
can be also applied, if the data on previous land uses are not available, which may be the case, when areas are
estimated using Approach 1 from Chapter 3. It implies the use of default parameters in Tables 4.1 through 4.14.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Annual Increase in Carbon Stocks in Biomass, CG. The calculations of CG should be made according to
Equation 2.9 in Chapter 2. As the growth rate of trees strongly depends on management regime, a distinction
should be made between intensively (e.g. plantation forestry) and extensively (naturally re-growing stands with
reduced or minimum human intervention) managed forests. The calculations should be made according to
Equation 2.9 in Chapter 2. The intensively and extensively managed forests can be further stratified based on
climate, species, management practices etc. Hence, the annual increase in carbon stocks can be estimated
separately for intensively and extensively managed forests, using Equation 2.9 twice. First, for intensively
managed forests using relevant area (AI) and the relevant mean annual biomass growth (GTotal) for intensively
managed forests and second, for extensively managed forests by using appropriate area (AE) and mean annual
biomass growth (GTotal) data for extensively managed forests. GTOTAL is calculated using Equation 2.10, Chapter
2, and default data tables in Section 4.5. The intensively managed and extensively managed forests can be
further stratified based on climate, species, forest management practices etc. The default data for extensively and
intensively managed forests from the tables should be chosen with regard to tree species composition and
climatic region. The default data for extensively and intensively managed forests should be taken from Section
4.5, correspondingly.
4.28
Biomass
C HOICE
OF
M ETHOD

1
2
3
Annual Decrease in Carbon Stocks in Biomass Due to Losses, CL. Biomass loss due to wood removal
(Lremoval), fuelwood removal (Lfuelwood) and disturbances (Ldisturbance) attributed to land converted to forest, is
estimated using Equation 2.11 in Chapter 2.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
The loss of biomass due to wood removal (Lremoval) is estimated with the use of Equation 2.12, of Chapter 2, and
default values of basic wood density and the data on round wood logging, biomass conversion expansion factor,
below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass ratio (R) and carbon fraction of dry matter (CF)), provided in
Section 4.5 tables. The biomass loss due to fuelwood removal (Lfuelwood) is estimated using Equation 2.13,
fuelwood collecting data and relevant BCEFH for growing stock, R and CF from default tables in Section 4.5.
The (Ldisturbance) could be estimated using Equation 2.14, in Chapter 2, area of disturbance, average growing stock
biomass of land areas affected by disturbances and appropriate BCEF, R and CF from default tables in Section
4.5. The CL should be assumed 0, if no data on losses are available (for Equation 2.11). To prevent double
accounting or omission, consistent reporting of biomass loss should be maintained in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.3.1.
13
14
15
16
17
Tier 2: The Tier 2 method is similar to Tier 1, but it uses nationally derived data and more disaggregated
activity data and allows for more precise estimates of changes in carbon stocks in biomass. The net annual CO2
removals are calculated as a sum of increase in biomass due to biomass growth on converted lands, changes due
to actual conversion (difference between biomass stocks before and after conversion) and losses on converted
lands (Equations 15 and 16, Chapter 2).
18
19
20
21
22
23
In addition to default values, the application of Tier 2 (Equation 2.15) requires national data on: i) area annually
converted to forest; ii) average annual growth in carbon stocks in biomass per ha on converted lands, obtained
e.g. from forest inventories (no default data can be provided); iii) change in biomass carbon when non-forest
land becomes forest and iv) emissions due to loss of biomass on converted land. The approach may require data
on previous land uses as well as knowledge of land-use change matrix (see Table 3.4 in Chapter 3) and carbon
stocks on those lands.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
CG should be estimated using Equation 2.9, where the area (A) of land converted to forest should be considered
separately along with respective mean annual increments for intensively and extensively managed forests
(further categorized based on species, climate etc.) and summed up. Average annual increment in biomass for
managed forests is calculated in accordance with Tier 2 method as in Section 4.2.A, Forest land remaining Forest
Land and Equation 2.10, Chapter 2, based on country-specific data on average annual biomass growth in
merchantable volume per ha on land converted to forests (obtained e.g. from forest inventories) and on basic
wood density, biomass conversion and expansion factors and below-ground to above-ground biomass ratio.
31
32
33
34
35
36
CCONVERSION accounts for the initial change in biomass stocks resulting from the land-use conversion, e.g. part
of biomass may be withdrawn through land clearing, restocking or other human-induced activities applied on
land prior to artificial or natural regeneration. These changes in carbon stocks in biomass are calculated with the
use of (Equation 2.16 in Chapter 2). This requires estimates of biomass stocks on land type i before (BBEFOREi)
and after (BAFTERi ) the conversion in tonnes d.m. ha-1, area of land-use i converted to Forest land (ATO_FORESTi)
in a certain year, and the carbon fraction of dry matter (CF).
37
38
39
The calculation of CCONVERSION may be applied separately to account for different carbon stocks occurring on
specific types of land (ecosystems, site types etc.) before the transition. The ATO_FORESTi refers to the particular
inventory year for which the calculations are made.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
CL is estimated using Equation 2.11 in Chapter 2. Biomass loss due to wood removal (Lremoval) fuelwood
removal (Lfuelwood) and disturbances (Ldisturbance) should be estimated with the use of Equations 2.12 to 2.14, in
Chapter 2. Inventory compilers are encouraged to develop country-specific wood density and BEF or BCEF
values for growing stock increment and harvests to apply them in Equation 2.12 (for Tier 2 calculations).
Chapter 2 describes the method for calculation of biomass losses from fuelwood gathering (Lfuelwood) and
disturbances (Ldisturbance). The CL should be assumed 0, if no data on losses are available. It is good practice to
ensure consistent reporting on biomass losses between Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 to avoid over- and
underestimates due to double counting or omissions.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Tier 3: Tier 3 should be used when land conversion to forests represents is a key category and leading to a
significant change of carbon stocks. It can follow the same equations and steps as Tier 2 or can use more
complex methods and models, but in either case, it can make use of substantial national methods and countryspecific data. The Equations 2.15 and 2.16 can be expanded on the basis of finer geographical scale and subdivision to forest type, species, and land type before conversion. Country-defined methodologies may be based
on regular forest inventory or geo-referenced data and (or) models for accounting for changes in biomass.
National activity data can have high resolution and be available for all categories of converted lands and forest
types established on them. It is good practice to describe and document the methodology in accordance with
Volume 1 Chapter 8 (Reporting Guidance and Tables).
4.29
1
2
3
4
Transfer of biomass to dead organic matter: During the process of conversion of land to Forest land as well
as during the process of extraction of biomass through felling, the non-commercial component of the biomass is
left on the forest floor or transferred to dead organic matter. Refer to Section 4.3.2 for description of the method
and the assumptions about the fate of dead organic matter.
4.3.1.2
C HOICE
OF EMISSION FACTORS
6
7
8
9
10
11
Annua l Increa se in Carbon Stock s in Bioma ss, C G

The calculations distinguish between two broad management practices; intensive (e.g. plantation forestry with
site preparation, planting of selected species and fertilisation) and extensive (natural regeneration with minimum
human intervention). These categories can also be refined according to national circumstances, for example
based on stand origin (e.g. natural or artificial regeneration, restocking, promotion of natural re-growth etc.),
climate, species, management practice etc.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Tier 1: The methods for calculation of total biomass require above- and below-ground biomass pools (for pool
descriptions, refer to Chapter 1). The tables in Section 4.5 represent default values of average annual growth in
above-ground biomass for intensively (plantations) and extensively (naturally regenerated) managed forests,
biomass conversion expansion factors, root biomass to above-ground biomass ratio and carbon fraction of dry
matter (CF). The root biomass to above-ground biomass ratio should be used to account for below-ground
biomass in total biomass estimations. Basic wood density and biomass expansion factors, which allow for
calculation of CG biomass as described in Section 4.2.1 Forest land remaining Forest land. It is good practice to
explore any regional or otherwise relevant default values to the country.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Tier 2: It is good practice to determine wherever possible annual increment values, root biomass to aboveground biomass, basic wood density, and biomass conversion expansion factors appropriate for national
conditions and use them in calculations under Tier 2. These categories can also be refined according to national
circumstances, for example based on stand origin (e.g. natural or artificial regeneration, restocking, promotion of
natural re-growth etc.), climate, species composition, management regime, The further stratifications may refer
to tree species composition, management regime, stand age, climatic region and soil type etc. Countries are
encouraged to obtain specific biomass increment and expansion factors through research efforts. Additional
guidance is provided in Section 4.2.1.
28
29
30
31
Tier 3: The increment in biomass carbon stocks can be estimated based on country-specific annual biomass
growth and carbon fraction in biomass data that come from forest inventories, sample plots, research and (or)
models. The inventory compilers should ensure that the models and forest inventory data have been
appropriately documented and described in line with the requirements highlighted in Volume 1 Chapter 8.
32
33
34
35
Change in Biomass stocks on land before and after conversion, CCONVERSION

The calculations of biomass stocks before and after conversion should be made with the use of values consistent
with other land uses. For example, comparable values of carbon stock should be used to estimate initial carbon
stock for Grassland converted to Forest land and for changes in biomass for Grassland remaining Grassland.
36
Tier 1: No estimate of CCONVERSION is required for Tier 1 calculations.
37
38
39
40
41
Tier 2: It is good practice to obtain and use wherever possible country-specific data on biomass stocks on land
before and after conversion. The estimates should be consistent with those used in calculations of carbon stock
changes in grassland, cropland, wetlands, settlements and other land uses and should be obtained from national
agencies or surveys. Tier 2 may imply the use of a combination of country-specific and default data. For default
biomass stock values on land before the conversion, refer to other sections of this Volume.
42
43
Tier 3: Estimates and calculations should be performed based on forest inventory and or model data. Forest
inventory and models and data should be documented in line with procedures outlined in Volume 1 Chapter 8.
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Cha nge in Carbo n Stocks in Biomass Due to Lo sses, C L

Wood removal, fuelwood removal and natural disturbances such as windfall, fires and insect outbreaks result in
loss of carbon on land converted to Forest land that should be reported in accordance with good practice
approach provided in Section 4.2.1 Forest land remaining Forest land, of this Chapter. The good practice
approach provided in Section 4.2.1 for estimating losses of carbon is fully applicable and should be used for
appropriate calculations under Section 4.2.2. If changes in carbon stocks are derived from regular forest
inventories, the losses from wood removal and disturbances will be covered without a need to report on them
separately. It is good practice to ensure consistent reporting on losses of biomass between Sections 4.2.1 and
4.2.2 to avoid double counting or omissions.
4.30

1
2
3
4
The data on logging of round wood should be taken from national sources or FAO. It should be noted that FAO
data on logging is in merchantable round wood over bark. Bark fraction in harvested wood (BF) should be
applied to account for bark in wood removals with harvest. If logging is significant in the country, the inventory
compilers are encouraged to use national harvest data or derive country-specific BF values.
5
6
7
8
In most countries, information on area disturbed is not likely to be available by the two sub-categories, Forest
land remaining Forest land and land converted to Forest land sub-categories. Given that the latter is in most
cases much smaller than the former, all disturbances can be applied to Forest land remaining Forest land, or the
disturbed area can be pro-rated in proportion to the two land sub-categories.
9
10
11
12
Fuelwood consumption data are not normally reported separately for Forest land remaining Forest Land and
Land Converted to Forest Land. Then it is likely that the default fuelwood data is likely to be reported in Forest
land Remaining Forest land. The reporting of fuelwood should be cross-checked between the two land subcategories to avoid double counting by checking with reporting of fuelwood in Forest land remaining Forest land.
13
4.3.1.3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Area of La nd Co nverted to forest, A T O _ F O R E S T

All tiers require information on areas converted to Forest land over the 20 years prior to the inventory year. After
20 years or other time interval chosen, the lands converted to Forest land as defined in the country, such areas
should be transferred to and accounted for under Section 4.2. The same area data should be used for Sections
4.3.2 (Change in Carbon Stocks in Dead Organic Matter), Section 4.3.3 (Change in Carbon Stocks in Soils), and
Section 4.3.4 (Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions). If possible, these areas should be further disaggregated to
take into consideration major soil types and biomass densities on land before and after conversion. Box 4.4 gives
examples of a good practice approach in identification of lands converted to Forest land. Subject to national data
availability, the inventory compilers can also choose good practice approach on the basis of approaches provided
in Chapter 3.
24
25
26
Different biomass growth rates should be used for calculations of biomass stocks for forests naturally re-growing
on abandoned lands and for forest plantations. To undertake calculations under Tier 2 and 3, inventory compilers
are encouraged to obtain information on types of previous land uses for lands converted to forests.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Tier 1: Activity data can be obtained through national statistics, from forestry agencies (information on areas of
different management practices), conservation agencies (naturally regenerated areas), municipalities, survey and
mapping agencies. Expert judgment may be used to assess whether new forests are predominantly intensively or
extensively managed, if no recorded data are available. If the data on intensively and extensively managed areas
of forests become available, these should be used for further partitioning areas to obtain more accurate estimates.
Cross-checks should be applied to ensure complete and consistent representation of data to avoid omissions or
double counting. If no country data are available, aggregate information can be obtained from international data
sources (FAO, 2001; TBFRA, 2000).
35
36
37
38
39
Tier 2: Areas under different land uses subjected to conversion during a given year or over a period of years
should be available. They can come from national data sources and a land-use change matrix or its equivalent
that covers all possible transitions to Forest land. Country-defined national data sets should have a resolution
sufficient to ensure appropriate representation of land areas in line with provisions of Chapter 3 of this Volume.
It is important to estimate area converted to forest through natural regeneration and plantation approach.
40
41
42
43
44
Tier 3: National activity data on land conversion to forest through natural and artificial regeneration should be
available from different sources, notably national forest inventories, registers of land-use and land-use changes
and remote sensing, as described in Chapter 3 of this Volume. These data should give a full accounting of all
land-use transitions to Forest land and can be further disaggregated along climate, soil and vegetation types.
Area under plantations is usually available according to species and age of the stand.
C HOICE
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA
45
4.31
1
2
BOX 4.4
EXAMPLES OF GOOD PRACTICE APPROACH IN IDENTIFICATION OF LANDS CONVERTED TO FOREST LAND
3
4
5
6
7
8
National land management systems can allow for identification of land-use changes, and the land
census systems implemented in many countries also enables consistent representation and timely
tracking changes in land use. The national inventory compilers should take the data from land
management systems or censuses and use them as the basis for identification of converted lands.
The land conversion data may be obtained directly from companies, private owners, ministries and
agencies, which undertake particular activities over converted lands.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
In some countries, special accounting systems have been designed to estimate emissions and
removals over converted lands. The Australia National Carbon Accounting System (NCAS)
<http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas> is an example of a good practice approach in identification
of land conversion. The NCAS is a sophisticated model-based tool that comprises data from
resource census, field studies and remote sensing. It operates at high spatial and temporal scales.
The NCAS addresses all sectors of activity in land systems, including carbon pools and all
greenhouse gases as affected by human-induced activities. It allows for tracking afforestation and
reforestation activities within the territory of the country along with estimating emissions and
removals relevant to them. As soon as the new data enter the NCAS, the inventory data are
updated continuously. Design and implementation of the NCAS and its components has been
subjected to extensive peer review and Quality Assurance/Quality Control regime (AGO, 2002).
20
21
22
23
Similar systems are being developed in New Zealand (Stephens et al. (2005); Trotter et al. (2005)),
Canada (Kurz and Apps, in press) and other countries. The use of such land management systems
contributes to development of high quality inventories and reduces the levels of uncertainty within
the sector.
24
25
4.2.1.4
26
27
28
29
30
T he fo llo wing s umma r iz e s s tep s for e s tima ting cha nge in c arbo n s to ck s in bio mas s ( C B )
u s ing t he d e f a u l t me t ho d s
Step 1: Estimate area converted to Forest land (during the period 20 years before the year of the inventory) from
other land categories such as, cropland, grassland and settlements. Refer to Chapter 3 for detailed approaches for
estimating land converted to Forest land.
31
32
33
Step 2: Disaggregate the area converted to Forest land according to intensively managed forest (through
plantation forestry) and extensively managed forest (through natural regeneration) based on the approach used
for conversion.
34
35
Step 3: Calculate the initial biomass loss associated with the land conversion (Equation 2.16). This can be
stratified by land conversion methods.
36
37
38
Step 4: Estimate the annual increase in carbon stocks in biomass growing on Land Converted to Forest land for
intensively managed forests at species and other sub-category level using Equations 2.9 and 2.10 in Chapter 2.
Estimate annual increment of biomass at species and other sub-category level.
39
40
Step 5: Estimate the annual increase in carbon stocks in biomass growing on Land Converted to Forest land for
extensively managed forests at species and other sub-category level using Equation 2.9 and 2.10 in Chapter 2.
41
42
Step 6: Estimate annual loss or decrease in biomass (Lremoval) due to commercial fellings (industrial wood and
sawn logs) using Equation 2.12 in Chapter 2.
43
44
Step 7: Estimate biomass loss due to fuelwood removal (Lfuelwood) on land converted to forestland using Equation
2.13 in Chapter 2.
45
Step 8: Estimate annual carbon loss due to disturbance or other losses using Equation 2.14 in Chapter 2
46
47
Step 9: Estimate the total loss of biomass carbon due to wood removal, fuelwood removal and disturbance using
Equation 2.11 in Chapter 2.
48
49
Step 9: Estimate the annual change in carbon stock in biomass CB on Land converted to Forest land by
deducting total loss of biomass CL from total annual increase in biomass stocks CG in Chapter 2.
4.32
C ALCULATION S TEPS
FOR
T IER 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Example. The following example shows Gain-Loss method (Tier 1) calculations of annual change
in carbon stocks in biomass (CB, Equation 2.7, Chapter 2) for a hypothetical country in temperate
continental forest zone of Europe (Table 4.1, Section 4.5). The area of non-forest land converted to
Forest land (A) within the country is 1,000 ha (see Chapter 3 for area categorization). The new
forest is intensively managed 9-year-old pine plantation, average above-ground growing stock
volume is 10 m3 ha-1. Thinning removed 100 m3 yr-1 of merchantable round wood over bark (H);
50 m3 yr-1 of whole trees (FGtrees) were removed as fuel wood. The area of insect disturbance
(Adisturbance) is 50 ha yr-1 with 1.0 t dm ha-1 of above-ground biomass affected (BW).
10
11
Annual gain in biomass (CG) is a product of mean annual biomass increment (GTOTAL), area of
land converted to Forest land (A) and carbon fraction of dry matter (CF), Equation 2.9, Chapter 2.
12
13
- GTOTAL is calculated using annual above-ground biomass increment (GW), root biomass to aboveground biomass ratio (R) (Equation 2.10, Chapter 2) and default data tables, Section 4.5.
14
15
16
- For the hypothetical country, GW = 4.0 t dm-1 yr-1 (Table 4.12). R = 0.40 t dm t-1 dm-1 for aboveground biomass <50 t ha-1 (Table 4.4, with reference to Table 4.8 for above-ground biomass). GTOTAL = 4.0 t dm ha-1 yr-1 (1 + 0.40) = 5.6 t dm ha-1 yr-1 (Equation 2.10).
17
- CF = 0.47 t C t-1 dm-1 (Table 4.3).
18
- CG (Equation 2.9): = 1,000 ha 5.6 t dm ha-1 yr-1 0.47 t C t-1 dm-1 = 2,632 t C yr-1.
19
20
Biomass loss (CL) is a sum of annual loss due to wood removals (Lremovals), fuelwood removal
(Lfuelwood) and disturbances (Ldisturbance), Equation 2.11, Chapter 2.
21
22
23
24
Wood removals (Lremovals) is calculated with Equation 2.12, Chapter 2, merchantable round wood
over bark (H), biomass conversion expansion factor (BCEFR), bark fraction in harvested wood
(BF), root biomass to above-ground biomass ratio (R), carbon fraction of dry matter (CF) and
default tables in Section 4.5. For the hypothetical country;
25
BCEFR = 2.0 t dm m-3 (Table 4.5, with reference to volume of growing stock 10 m3 ha-1).
26
Default BEF = 0.1 t dm t-1 dm-1;
27
28
R = 0.40 t dm t-1 dm-1 for above-ground biomass <50 t ha-1 (Table 4.4, for above-ground
29
CF = 0.47 t C t-1 dm-1 (Table 4.3).
30
31
Lremovals = 100 m3 yr-1 2 t dm m-3 (1 + 0.40 + 0.1) 0.47 t C t-1 dm-1 = 141 t C yr-1 (Equation
2.12).
32
Fuelwood removal (Lfuelwood) is calculated using Equation 2.13, Chapter 2,
33
wood removals as whole trees (FGtrees),
34
biomass conversion expansion factor (BCEFR),
35
below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass ratio (R),
36
carbon fraction of dry matter (CF) and default tables in Section 4.5.
37
BCEFR = 2.0 t dm m-3 (Table 4.5, with reference to growing stock volume 10 m3 ha-1).
38
39
R = 0.40 t dm t-1 dm-1 for above-ground biomass <50 t ha-1 (Table 4.4, with reference to Table
4.8 for above-ground biomass).
40
CF = 0.47 t C t-1 dm-1 (Table 4.3).
41
42
Lfuelwood = 50 m3 yr-1 2.0 t dm m-3 (1 + 0.40) 0.47 t C t-1 dm-1 = 65.80 t C yr-1 (Equation
2.13).
43
44
45
46
47
Annual carbon loss in biomass due to disturbances (Ldisturbance) is calculated using Equation
2.14, Chapter 2, area of disturbances (Adisturbance), average above-ground biomass affected (BW),
below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass ratio (R), carbon fraction of dry matter (CF),
fraction of biomass lost in disturbance (fd) and default tables in Section 4.5. For the hypothetical
country,
48
fd = 0.3; R = 0.40 t dm t-1 dm-1 for above-ground biomass <50 t ha-1 (Table 4.4, with reference
4.33
1
to Table 4.8 for above-ground biomass).
2
3
CF = 0.47 t C t-1 dm-1 (Table 4.3). Ldisturbance = 50 ha yr-1 1.0 t dm ha-1 (1 + 0.40) 0.47 t C t1
dm-1 0.3= 9.87 t C yr-1 (Equation 2.14).
CL = 141.00 t C yr-1 + 65.80 t C yr-1 + 9.87 t C yr-1 = 216.67 t C yr-1 (Equation 2.11).
Annual change in carbon stocks in biomass (CB)
Using Chapter 2 Equation 2.7 (CB = (CG CL),
CB = 2,632 t C yr-1 - 216.67 t C yr-1 = 2,415.33 t C yr-1 (Equation 2.7)
8
9
10
4.3.1.5
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
The emission factors required for estimating carbon stock changes for Land Converted to Forest land are nearly
identical to those required for Forest land Remaining Forest land, but refer to lands converted to forests within
20 years of the inventory year (default period of conversion). The discussion on uncertainty for Forest land
Remaining Forest land also applies here. The uncertainty involved in the estimation of biomass stocks on land
before and after conversion is likely to be high. This uncertainty can be reduced by conducting sample field
studies in dominant land categories subjected to conversion to Forest land. The uncertainty is likely to be low for
the wood removal (industrial round wood), since national statistics are likely to be maintained on commercial
harvests, although sometimes it may be difficult to separate commercial harvests due to deforestation from those
that come from Forest land remaining Forest land. However, the uncertainty is likely to be high for fuelwood
removal and gathering and biomass loss due to disturbance. The uncertainty involved for commercial and
traditional methods should be reduced by conducting sample surveys in different socio-economic and climatic
regions.
23
24
25
26
27
28
The critical activity data required for estimating carbon stock changes include the area of land converted and loss
rates of biomass during the initial conversion and thereafter. The level of uncertainty for area under intensive and
extensive plantations is likely to be low since most countries maintain records of the area afforested and
reforested. The uncertainty should be reduced by developing a land-use change matrix of Forest land Remaining
Forest land and for different categories of land converted to forest, based on remote sensing or other monitoring
techniques. A combination of remote sensing and ground surveys could have an uncertainty as low as 10-15%.
29
4.3.2
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
In this section, changes in carbon stock in dead organic matter pools are discussed for the land category land
converted to Forest land. Croplands, grasslands, settlements, and other land categories can be potentially
converted to Forest land through planting or natural regeneration. It is likely that most non-forest land will not
have significant dead wood or litter carbon pools. Accordingly, the Tier 1 assumption is that carbon stocks in
dead wood and litter pools in non-forest land are zero, and that carbon in dead organic matter pools increases
linearly to the value of mature forests over a specified time period (default = 20 years). The Tier 1 assumption
for the conversion of unmanaged to managed Forest land is that the dead organic matter carbon stocks in
unmanaged forests are similar to those of managed forests and that no carbon stock changes need to be reported.
In reality, other things being equal, dead organic matter carbon stocks in unmanaged forests are higher than
those in managed forests because harvest removes woody biomass that would otherwise contribute to long-term
dynamics of DOM pools (Kurz et al. 1998) and it is good practice that countries with high rates of conversion of
unmanaged to managed forests use higher Tier methods to estimate the resulting changes in DOM carbon stocks.
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Methods to estimate emissions and removals of carbon in dead organic matter pools following conversion of
land to Forest land require estimates of the carbon stocks just prior to and just following the conversion, and
estimates of the areas of lands converted during the inventory period. Some of the non-forest land categories,
such as wetlands, settlements, cropland and grassland can have significant carbon stock in the DOM pools. It is
good practice to assess whether the assumption of zero DOM pool sizes is justified for lands converted to forest.
Higher Tier methods can specify the initial DOM pool sizes (e.g. in some land categories dead wood and litter
pools are non-zero) and quantify the length of the transition period (default = 20 years) during which DOM pools
are changing as a result of a transition to Forest land.
4.34
Dead Organic Matter

4.3.2.1
C HOICE
2
3
4
5
The general methods for estimating changes in carbon stock in dead organic matter pools have been described in
Chapter 2 Section 2.3.2. The decision tree in Figure 1.3 in Chapter 1 provides guidance in the selection of the
appropriate tier level for the implementation of estimation procedures. Dead wood and litter carbon stock
estimates often differ significantly depending on previous land use, forest type, and regeneration type.
Tier 1
OF
M ETHOD
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
For land converted to Forest land, the Tier 1 assumption is that dead wood and litter pools increase linearly from
zero (in the non-forest land category) to the default values for the climate region over a period of T years (the
current default is 20 years for both litter and dead wood carbon pools). Human activities such as fuelwood
collection and some silvicultural practices such as frequent thinnings can greatly affect the rate of carbon
accumulation in dead wood and litter pools. It is good practice to assess whether the default pool sizes and the
assumed transitions periods are reasonable given a countrys climatic and management regimes. The 20-year
default period is appropriate for litter pools but likely too short for dead wood pools, particularly in colder
regions with slow growing vegetation. If the time required to accumulate DOM pools is longer than the default
period, then the Tier 1 assumptions may overestimate the rates of carbon accumulation. Where the area involved
in land-use conversion to forests is large, it is good practice to develop national estimates of the rates of litter
and dead wood carbon accumulation in lands converted to Forest land.
18
Tiers 2 and 3
19
20
21
22
23
24
Changes in carbon stock in dead wood and litter pools under a Tier 2 or Tier 3 can be estimated using the two
methods outlined in Chapter 2 (Equations 2.18 and 2.19 in Chapter 2). It is good practice to stratify areas
converted to Forest land according to the prior land use, the methods used during the conversion (e.g. site
preparation, treatment of residual biomass), and the productivity and characteristics of the forest that is
regrowing. All of these factors influence the magnitude and rate of change of carbon stock in the DOM pools on
land converted to Forest land.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Countries using higher Tier methods are also encouraged to select more appropriate transition periods for litter
and dead wood carbon stocks. Litter pools can stabilize relatively quickly as inputs balance outputs. Dead wood
pools generally require much longer transition periods from non-forest to forest conditions. Moreover, both litter
and dead wood carbon stock sizes are affected by many factors and countries using higher Tiers are encouraged
to select DOM stock values at maturity that adequately reflect national circumstances. Countries using Tier 3
modeling approaches will obtain estimates of dead organic matter stocks based on the simulated balance of input
and losses.
32
4.3.2.2
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Tier 1: Countries using a Tier 1 method require data on the default dead wood and litter carbon stocks in the six
land-use categories in different climatic regions, as defined in Table 3.1 Chapter 3. The Tier 1 assumption is that
carbon stocks in litter and dead wood pools in all non-forest land categories are zero. For lands converted to
Forest land, the carbon stocks in dead wood and litter pools are assumed to increase linearly over the transition
period T (default is 20 years for both litter and dead wood C stocks). Thus, the annual rate of increase is
estimated as the ratio between the difference in carbon stocks in the DOM pools in the non-forest and forest
categories, and the number of years in the transition period T.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Tier 2 and 3: The higher Tier methods described in Chapter 4.2 Forest land remaining Forest land are equally
applicable to land converted to Forest land. Additional emission and removal factors are required where the
impacts of the land-use conversion practices (e.g. site preparation and slash burning) are to be estimated.
Additional requirements may arise if the assumption that carbon stocks in dead wood and litter pools of nonforest land categories are zero cannot be justified, such as in some agro-forestry systems, in settlements with
substantial forest cover, and in other circumstances. This may pose special challenges because forest inventories
typically do not include such areas and other data sources need to be identified or measurement programs
implemented.
48
4.3.2.3
49
50
51
52
The Tier 1 method requires activity data on the annual rate of conversion to Forest land. Activity data should be
consistent with those used for estimating changes in carbon stock in biomass on land converted to Forest land,
according to the general principles set out in Chapter 3. Activity data can be obtained from national statistics,
from forest management agencies, conservation agencies, municipalities, survey and mapping agencies. Where
C HOICE
C HOICE
OF
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA
4.35
1
2
3
reporting programs are used, it is good practice to implement verification procedures and cross-checks to ensure
complete and consistent representation of land converted to Forest land, to avoid omissions or double counting.
Data should be disaggregated according to the general climatic categories and forest types.
4
5
Inventories using higher Tiers will require more comprehensive information on the establishment of new forests,
with refined soil classes, climate, and spatial and temporal resolution.
6
7
8
All changes in dead organic matter pools occurring over the number of years (T) selected as the transition period
should be included. Lands where the transitions occurred more than T years ago are transferred to and reported
under the category Forest land remaining Forest land.
4.3.2.4
C ALCULATION S TEPS
FOR
T IER 1
10
11
12
13
14
The fo llo wing summa rizes step s for estima ting cha nge in carbo n sto ck s in dead organic
ma tter using the defa ult methods
Step 1: Estimate area converted to Forest land (during the period 20 years prior to the year of inventory) from
other land categories such as, cropland, grassland and settlements. Refer to Chapter 3 for detailed approaches for
estimating land converted to Forest land.
15
16
17
18
19
20
Step 2: The Tier 1 assumption is that dead organic matter (dead wood and litter) carbon stocks on non-forest
land are zero. If national data on dead wood and litter carbon stocks in non-forest land are available,
disaggregate the area converted to Forest land according to the land-use category of origin, e.g. grassland,
cropland etc. using the same categories for which dead organic matter estimates are available. Default values for
litter carbon stocks in Forest land are provided in Table 2.1. Statistically valid, regional default estimates for
dead wood carbon stocks in forests are not available.
21
22
23
24
Step 3: Estimate the average annual increment of dead organic matter stocks, separately for dead wood and litter,
by dividing the difference in pre- and post-conversion carbon stocks by the time period of transition (Equation
2.23 in Chapter 2). The default Tier 1 assumption is that non-forest dead organic matter carbon stocks are zero
and that the period of transition is 20 years.
25
26
27
Step 4: Estimate the annual change in carbon stock in dead organic matter on Land converted to Forest land by
multiplying the average annual increment (Step 3) times the area land of converted to Forest land over the past
20 (default) years.
28
4.3.2.5
29
30
31
32
33
In general, the magnitude of uncertainty in dead organic matter pools is larger than the uncertainty in biomass
estimates because much less data are typically available for DOM pools compared to biomass pools.
Uncertainties in area estimates made using the approaches suggested in Chapter 3 are indicated in Table 3.7 and
uncertainties in assessing dead organic matter carbon stock changes may be several times larger than the
uncertainty of biomass stock change estimates using default coefficients.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Although relatively few estimates of uncertainty, in changes in carbon stock in DOM pools, are available in the
literature or elsewhere, several sources of uncertainty can be identified for the estimates of changes in carbon
stock in dead organic matter pools on land converted to Forest land. First, the assumption that carbon stocks in
DOM are zero in non-forest land is not always justified. Underestimating the true initial DOM stock size will
lead to overestimates of the true accumulation rates. Second, the default values for litter and dead wood carbon
stock sizes are likely to be biased by being based upon estimates from land that was Forest land for a long period
of time. Thus the stock sizes at the end of the transition period may be overestimated, again, leading to
overestimates of the accumulation rates. Third, the default transition period may be too long for litter carbon
stocks, leading to underestimates of the true accumulation rates. For the dead wood pool, however, the current
default assumption of a 20-year transition period is likely to be too short. Thus, the rate of carbon accumulation
in the dead wood pool may be overestimated.
45
4.3.3
46
47
48
49
50
Land conversions on mineral soils generally either maintain similar levels of C storage or create conditions that
increase soil C stocks, particularly if the land was previously managed for annual crop production (Post and
Kwon, 2000). However, under certain circumstances, grassland conversion to Forest land has been shown to
cause small C losses in mineral soils for several decades following conversion (Davis and Condron, 2002; Paul
et al., 2002). Emissions of C from organic soils will vary depending on the previous use and level of drainage.
4.36
Soil Carbon

1
2
Specifically, conversion from croplands will tend to decrease emissions; conversions from grasslands will likely
maintain similar emission rates; while conversion from wetlands often increases C emissions.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
General information and guidelines on estimating changes soil C stocks are found in Section 2.3.3 in Chapter 2
(including equations), and need to be read before proceeding with guidelines dealing with forest soil C stocks.
The total change in soil C stocks for Land Converted to Forests is computed using Equation 2.24 (Chapter 2),
which combines the change in soil organic C stocks for mineral soils and organic soils; and carbon stock changes
for inorganic soil C pools (Tier 3 only). This section provides specific guidance for estimating soil organic C
stock changes; see Section 2.3.3.1 (Chapter 2) for general discussion on soil inorganic C (no additional
information is provided in the Forest land discussion below).
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
To account for changes in soil C stocks associated with Land Converted to Forest land, countries need to have,
at a minimum, estimates of the areas of land converted to forests during the inventory time period, stratified by
climate region and soil type. If land-use and management data are limited, Approach 1 activity data can be used
as a starting point, along with knowledge of country experts of the approximate distribution of land-use types
being converted. If previous lands uses and conversions for Land Converted to Forest land are unknown, SOC
stocks changes can still be computed using the methods provided in Forest land Remaining Forest land, but the
land base will likely be different for forests in the current year relative to the initial year in the inventory. It is
critical, however, that the total land area across all land-use sectors be equal over the inventory time period (e.g.,
If 5 Million ha is converted from cropland and grassland to forest land during the inventory time period, then
forest land will have an additional 5 Million ha in the last year of the inventory, while cropland and grassland
will have a corresponding loss of 5 Million ha in the last year), and the total change will be estimated when
summing SOC stocks across all land uses. Land Converted to Forest land is stratified according to climate
regions and major soil types, which could either be based on default or country-specific classifications. This can
be accomplished with overlays of climate and soil maps, coupled with spatially-explicit data on the location of
land conversions.
25
26
27
28
Inventories can be developed using Tier 1, 2 or 3 approaches, with each successive Tier requiring more detail
and resources than the previous. It is possible that countries will use different tiers to prepare estimates for the
separate components in this source category (i.e., soil organic C stocks changes in mineral soils and organic soils;
and stock changes associated with soil inorganic C pools).
29
4.3.3.1
30
31
32
Inventories can be developed using Tier 1, 2 or 3 approaches and countries may choose different tiers for mineral
and organic soils. Decision trees are provided for mineral (Figure 2.4) and organic soils (Figure 2.5) in Section
2.3.3.1 (Chapter 2) to assist inventory compilers with selection of the appropriate tier for their soil C inventory.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Minera l So ils
Tier 1: Change in soil organic C stocks can be estimated for mineral soils with land-use conversion to forests
using Equation 2.25 (Chapter 2). For Tier 1, the initial (pre-conversion) soil organic C stock (SOC(0-T)) and C
stock in the last year of the inventory time period (SOC0) are determined from the common set of reference soil
organic C stocks (SOCREF) and default stock change factors (FLU, FMG, FI) as appropriate for describing land use
and management both pre- and post-conversion. Note that area of exposed bedrock in Forest land or the previous
land use are not included in the soil C stock calculation (assume a stock of 0). Annual rates of stock changes are
calculated as the difference in stocks (over time) divided by the time dependence (D) of the stock change factors
(default is 20 years).
42
43
44
Tier 2: The Tier 2 approach for mineral soils also uses Equation 2.25 (Chapter 2), but involves country or
region-specific reference C stocks and/or stock change factors and possibly more disaggregated land-use activity
and environmental data.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Tier 3: Tier 3 approaches will involve more detailed and country-specific models and/or measurement-based
approaches along with highly disaggregated land-use and management data. It is good practice that Tier 3
approaches estimating soil C change from land-use conversions to forests, employ models, monitoring networks
and/or data sets that are capable of representing transitions over time from other land uses, including grasslands,
croplands, and possibly settlements or other land uses. It is important that models be evaluated with independent
observations from country or region-specific field locations that are representative of the interactions of climate,
soil and forest type/management on post-conversion change in soil C stocks.
52
53
54
55
56
O rganic So ils
Tier 1 and Tier 2: Land Converted to Forest land on organic soils within the inventory time period is treated the
same as Forest land Remaining Forest land on organic soils. C losses for the newly converted Forest land are
computed using Equation 2.26 (Chapter 2) if the soils are drained. Additional guidance on the Tier 1 and 2
approaches are given in Section 4.3.3.1.
C HOICE
OF
M ETHOD
4.37
1
2
3
Tier 3: Similar to mineral soils, a Tier 3 approach will involve country-specific models and/or measurementbased approaches along with highly disaggregated land-use and management data (see mineral soils above for
additional discussion).
4.3.3.2
C HOICE
OF
E MISSION F ACTORS
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Minera l So ils
Tier 1: For native unmanaged land, as well as for managed forests, settlements and nominally managed
grasslands with low disturbance regimes, soil C stocks are assumed equal to the reference values (i.e., land use,
disturbance (forests only), management and input factors equal 1), but it will be necessary to apply the
appropriate stock change factors to represent other systems which may be converted to forest, such as improved
and degraded grasslands, as well as all cropland systems. See the appropriate land-use section for default stock
change factors (Cropland in Section 5.2.3.2, Grassland in 6.2.3.2, Forests in 4.2.3.2, Settlements in 8.2.3.2, and
Other Land in 9.3.3.2). Default reference C stocks are found in Table 2.3 (Chapter 2).
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Tier 2: Estimation of country-specific stock change factors is probably the most important development
associated with the Tier 2 approach. Differences in soil organic C stocks among land uses are computed relative
to a reference condition. If default reference C stocks are used, the reference condition is native vegetation that
is neither degraded nor improved through land-use and management practices. Stock change factors for land-use
conversion to native forests will be equal to 1 if the forest represents the reference condition. However, stock
change factors will need to be derived for Land Converted to Forest land that do not represent the reference
condition, accounting for the influence of disturbance (FD), input (FI) and management (FMG), which are then
used to further refine the C stocks of the new forest system. See the appropriate section for specific information
regarding the derivation of stock change factors for other land-use sectors (Grassland in Section 6.2.3.2,
Croplands in 5.2.3.2, Settlements in 8.2.3.2, and Other Land in 9.3.3.2).
23
24
25
Reference C stocks can also be derived from country-specific data in a Tier 2 approach. However, reference
values should be consistent across the land uses (i.e., cropland, grassland, forests, settlements, other land), and
thus must be coordinated among the various teams conducting soil C inventories for AFOLU.
26
27
more accurately capture land-use and management effects. See Section 2.3.3.1 (Chapter 2) for further discussion.
28
29
30
31
32
O rganic So ils
same as Forest land Remaining Forest land on organic soils, i.e., they have a constant emission factor applied to
them, based on climate regime. Tier 1 emission factors are given in Table 4.6 (Section 4.5), while Tier 2
emission factors are derived from country or region-specific data.
33
34
accurately capture land-use and management effects. See Section 2.3.3.1 in Chapter 2 for further discussion.
35
4.3.3.3
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Minera l So ils
Tier 1 and Tier 2: For purposes of estimating soil carbon stock change, area estimates of Land Converted to
Forest land should be stratified according to major climate regions and soil types. This can be based on overlays
with suitable climate and soil maps and spatially-explicit data of the location of land conversions. Detailed
descriptions of the default climate and soil classification schemes are provided in Chapter 3. Specific
information is provided in the each of the land-use sections regarding treatment of land-use/management activity
data ((Cropland in Section 5.2.3.3, Grassland in 6.2.3.3, Forests in 4.2.3.3, Settlements in 8.2.3.3, and Other
Land in 9.3.3.3).
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
One critical issue in evaluating the impact of Land Converted to Forest land on soil organic C stocks is the type
of land-use and management activity data. Activity data gathered using Approach 2 or 3 (see Chapter 3 for
discussion about Approaches) provide the underlying basis for determining the previous land use for Land
Converted to Forest land. In contrast, aggregate data (Approach 1, Chapter 3) only provide the total amount of
area in each land use and do not form a basis for determining specific transitions. Therefore the previous land
use before conversion to Forest land will be unknown. Fortunately, this is not problematic using Tier 1 or 2
methods because the calculation is not dynamic and assumes a step change from one equilibrium state to another.
Therefore, with aggregate data (Approach 1), changes in soil organic C stocks may be computed separately for
each land-use sector and then combined to obtain the total stock change. Some of the stock changes will result
from less or more land area in a particular sector, but such changes in the land base will be counter-balanced by a
concomitant increase or decrease in land area for another sector. Using this approach, it will be necessary for
4.38
C HOICE
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA

1
2
coordination among each sector to ensure the total land base is remaining constant over time, given that some
land area will be lost and gained within individual sectors during each inventory year due to land-use change.
3
4
5
Tier 1 or 2 methods, but the exact requirements will be dependent on the model or measurement design.
6
7
8
O rganic So ils
same as Forest land Remaining Forest land on organic soils; see Section 4.2.3.3.
9
10
11
Tier 3: Similar to mineral soils, Tier 3 approaches will likely require more detailed data on the combinations of
climate, soil, topographic and management data are needed, relative to Tier 1 or 2 methods, but the exact
requirements will be dependent on the model or measurement design.
12
4.3.3.4
13
14
15
Minera l So ils
The steps for estimating SOC0 and SOC(0-T) and net soil C stock change per ha of land converted to forest are as
follows:
16
17
18
Step 1: Determine the land-use and management by mineral soil types and climate regions for land at the
beginning of the inventory period, which can vary depending on the time step of the activity data (0-T; e.g., 5, 10
or 20 years ago).
19
20
21
22
Step 2: Select the native reference C stock value (SOCREF), based on climate and soil type from Table 2.3, for
each area of land being inventoried. The reference C stocks are the same for all land-use categories to ensure
that erroneous changes in the C stocks are not computed due to differences in reference stock values among
sectors.
23
24
25
26
Step 3: Select the land-use factor (FLU), management factor (FMG) and C input levels (FI) representing the landuse and management system present before conversion to forest. Values for FLU, FMG and FI are given in the
respective section for the land-use sector (Cropland in Chapter 5, Grassland in Chapter 6, Settlements in Chapter
8, and Other land in Chapter 9).
27
28
Step 4: Multiply these values by the reference soil C stock to estimate of initial soil organic C stock (SOC(0-T))
for the inventory time period.
29
30
31
32
Step 5: Estimate SOC0 by repeating step 1 to 4 using the same native reference C stock (SOCREF), but with landuse, management and input factors that represent conditions in the last (year 0) inventory year. For Tier 1, all
stock change factors are assumed equal to 1 for Forest land (although for Tier 2, different values for these factors
under newly converted Forest lands should be used, based on country-specific data).
33
34
Step 6: Estimate the average annual change in soil C stock for the area over the inventory time period
(CCCMineral) (see Equation 2.25 in Chapter 2).
35
Step 7: Repeat steps 1 to 6 if there are additional inventory time periods (e.g., 1990 to 2000, 2001 to 2010, etc.).
36
A numerical example is given below for afforestation of cropland soil.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
C ALCULATION S TEPS
FOR
T IER 1
Example: An area of 100,000 ha of cropland was planted to forest. The soil type is an Ultisol in a
tropical moist climate, which has a native reference stock, SOCRef (0-30 cm), of 47 tonnes C ha-1
(Table 2.3). The previous land use was annual row crops, with conventional tillage, no fertilization
and where crop residues are removed, so that the soil carbon stock at the beginning of the
inventory time period (In this example, 5 yrs earlier in 1995) was (SOCRef FLU FMG FI) = 47
tonnes C ha-1 0.48 1 0.92 = 20.8 tonnes C ha-1 (see Table 5.5, Chapter 5, for stock change
factor for cropland). Under Tier 1, managed forest is assumed to have the same soil C stock as the
reference condition (i.e. all stock change factors are equal to 1). Thus the average annual change in
soil C stock for the area over the inventory time period is estimated as (47 tonnes C ha-1 20.8
tonnes C ha-1) / 20 yrs = 1.3 tonnes C ha-1 yr-1. For the area reforested there is an increase of
131,000 tonnes C yr-1. (Note: 20 years is the time dependence of the stock change factor, i.e.,
factor represents annual rate of change over 20 years)
49
50
51
O rganic So ils
4.39
1
Calculation steps are the same as described in Section 4.2.3.4 above.
4.3.3.5
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Uncertainty analyses for land converted to Forest land are fundamentally the same as Forest land remaining
Forest land. Three broad sources of uncertainty exists: 1) uncertainties in land-use and management activity and
environmental data; 2) uncertainties in reference soil C stocks if using Tier 1 or 2 approaches (mineral soils
only); and 3) uncertainties in the stock change/emission factors for Tier 1 or 2 approaches, model
associated with a Tier 3 measurement-based inventories. See the uncertainty section in Forest land remaining
Forest land for additional discussion (Section 4.2.3.5).
10
4.3.4
11
Non-CO 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from biomass

burning
12
13
The guidance to estimate non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning or fire on Land converted to
Forest land is discussed in Section 4.2.4. General guidance is also provided in Chapter 2 Section 2.4.
14
Guidance for estimating N2O emissions from forest soils is provided in Chapter 11.
15
17
4.4 COMPLETENESS, TIME SERIES, QA/QC, AND

REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION
18
4.4.1
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Completeness is a requirement for greenhouse gas inventories, and it is good practice to address all forest carbon
gains and losses including harvested wood products. Greenhouse gas inventory for forestland should include all
land under forest and all land categories converted to forests. For completeness, it is good practice to include all
the carbon pools and non-CO2 greenhouse gases. Chapter 11, Section 11.2 provides advice on N2O emission
from drained organic soils. The forest area used for calculation for different carbon pools should be the same.
Emissions from organic soils and emissions or removals attributed to land-use change on mineral soils should be
estimated. Higher tiers include additional impacts of management and natural disturbance regimes on mineral
soil C stocks or emissions from organic soils, by incorporating country-specific information. A complete
accounting of emissions and removals of CO2 associated with Forest land remaining Forest lands and land
converted to Forest land, or from the effects of biomass burning in managed (and unmanaged, when applicable)
Forest land is necessary. It is good practice that all losses from biomass carbon pools that result in transfers to
dead organic matter pools are first accounted as changes to biomass carbon stocks. It is good practice that
countries using Tier 1 estimation methods do not account for carbon emissions from DOM pools during fire or
other disturbances because all DOM pool additions are assumed to have been released in the year of addition.
Consequently, Tier 1 methods also preclude the accounting of DOM pool increases following natural
disturbances.
35
4.4.2
36
37
38
39
40
It is good practice to develop a consistent time series of inventories of anthropogenic emissions and removals of
greenhouse gases for all AFOLU categories using the guidance in Volume 1 Chapter 5. Because activity data
may only be available every few years, achieving time series consistency may require interpolation or
extrapolation from longer time series or trends, possibly using information on changes in forest policies and
incentive schemes where drivers are needed.
41
42
43
44
45
46
Consistent accounting over time of land areas included in biomass and soil C emissions and removals inventory
requires that activity data for all land-use categories be stratified by a common definition of climate and soil
types. Thus, areas subject to land-use change will not be lost or double-counted due to accounting errors
resulting from inconsistent definitions for climate and forest types and soil strata within other land-use categories.
To estimate emissions and removals of greenhouse gases, whether by Tier 1, 2 or 3, ideally the same protocol
(sampling strategy, method, etc.) should be applied consistently every year in the time series, at the same level of
16
4.40
Completeness

1
2
disaggregation, and, where country-specific data are used, it is good practice to use the same coefficients and
methods for equivalent calculations at all points in the time series.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
However, as inventory capacity and information and data sources availability improve over time, new sources
and sink categories should be included, or moving to higher tier, the methods and data used to calculate
estimates can be updated and refined. In these circumstances, consistent recalculation of historical emissions and
removals is a good practice. In some cases, if some historical data are missing, then they may need to be
estimated from other data sources. For example, the 2006 IPCC Guidelines now require estimation of emissions
of CO2 and non-CO2 from forests, which were not included under the 1966 Guidelines (refer to Chapter 1). The
level of knowledge and detail of emission estimates for soils will also improve over time, necessitating
recalculation of historic inventories to take account of new data and/or methods. Often, changes in forest soils
cannot be detected at time scale finer than a decade; it will be necessary to interpolate between measurements in
order to obtain annual estimates of emissions and removals. Changes in forest types, practices and disturbances
need to be tracked for long time periods determined for example by soil carbon dynamics or forest rotation periods
where these are specifically tracked in detailed model calculations.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Where countries use Tier 1 methods, estimates of DOM stock changes are only provided in the case of land-use
change to or from forest. It is good practice to recalculate the entire time series of data if either the default values
for litter and dead wood carbon pools or the lengths of the transition periods are changed. It is also good practice to
recalculate the entire time series of estimates if revisions to activity data, such as the rate of land-use change, have
occurred. As more ground plot and other sample data on dead wood and litter carbon stocks become available in the
future, countries are likely to improve the models used in higher Tier estimation procedures. It is good practice to
use the same model parameter values (such as litterfall rates, decay rates, disturbance impacts) for the entire time
series and to recalculate the entire time series if one or more of the model parameters have changed. Failure to do so
may result in artificial sources or sinks, for example as a result of decay rate modifications.
24
4.4.3
25
26
27
28
29
The characteristics of the greenhouse gas inventory estimate of forest can have different level of precision,
accuracy and levels of bias. Moreover, the estimates are influenced by the quality and consistency of data and
information available in a country, as well as gaps in knowledge. In addition, depending on the tier level used by
a country, estimates can be affected by different sources of errors, such as sampling errors, assessment errors,
classification errors in remote sensing imagery, and modeling errors that can propagate to the total estimation.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
It is good practice to execute quality control checks through Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC)
procedures, and expert review of the emission estimation procedures. Additional quality control checks as
outlined in Tier 2 procedures in Volume 1 Chapter 6, and quality assurance procedures may also be applicable,
particularly if higher Tier methods are used to estimate emissions. It is good practice to supplement the general
QA/QC related to data processing, handling, and reporting and documenting, with source-specific category
procedures. QA/QC procedures should be documented separately for Forest land remaining Forest land and for
Land converted to Forest land.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Agencies which collect data are responsible for reviewing the data collection methods, checking the data to
ensure that they are collected and aggregated or disaggregated correctly, and cross-checking the data with other
data sources and with previous years to ensure that the data are realistic, complete and consistent over time. FAO
data needs to cross checked with other national sources for accuracy and consistency. The basis for the estimates
(e.g., statistical surveys or desk estimates) must be reviewed and described as part of the QC process.
Documentation is a crucial component of the review process because it enables reviewers to identify inaccuracy,
gaps and suggest improvements. Documentation and transparency in reporting is most important for highly
uncertain source categories and to give reasons for divergences between country-specific factors and default or
factors used by other countries. Countries with similar (ecological) conditions are encouraged to collaborate in
the refinements of methods, emissions factors and uncertainty assessment.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Activity data check: The inventory agency should, where possible, check data comprising of all managed land
areas, using independent sources and compare them. For many countries FAO database could be the main source
and in such a case the data must be cross-checked with other sources. Any differences in area records should be
documented for the purposes of review. Activity data area totals should be summed across all land-use
categories to ensure that total area involved in the inventory and its stratification across climate and soil types
remains constant over time. This ensures that Forest land areas are neither created nor lost over time, which
would result in major errors in the inventory. When using country-specific data (such as data on standing
biomass and biomass growth rates, carbon fraction in above-ground biomass and biomass expansion factors, and
synthetic fertilizer consumption estimates) the inventory agency should compare them to the IPCC default values
or the Emission Factor database and note the differences.
4.41
1
2
3
4
The country-specific parameters should be of high quality, preferably peer-reviewed experimental data,
adequately described, and documented. The agencies performing the inventory are encouraged to ensure that
good practice methods have been used and the results peer-reviewed. Assessments on test areas can be used to
validate the reliability of figures reported.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Internal and external review: The review processes as set out in Volume 1, Chapter 8 should be undertaken by
experts preferably not directly involved in the inventory development. The inventory agency should utilize
experts in greenhouse gas removals and emissions in AFOLU to conduct expert peer-review of the methods and
data used. Given the complexity and uniqueness of the parameters used in calculating country-specific factors
for some categories, selected specialists in the field should be involved in such reviews. If soil factors are based
on direct measurements, the inventory agency should review the measurements to ensure that they are
representative of the actual range of environmental and soil management conditions, and inter-annual climatic
variability, and were developed according to recognized standards. The QA/QC protocol in effect at the sites
should also be reviewed and the resulting estimates compared between sites and with default-based estimates.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
It is good practice that countries using Tier 1 methods review and, if necessary, revise the default assumptions
for carbon stocks in litter and dead wood pools which are required for estimation of carbon losses following
deforestation. Countries that use higher tier methods are encouraged to calculate intermediate indicators of the
models used to develop estimates of DOM stock changes. For example, QA/QC procedures could compare
estimates of stock sizes, litterfall inputs, decay losses etc. against literature values and other peer-reviewed
publications. Where possible, it is also good practice to compare model estimates against field measurements
and other data sources. One QA/QC check that is easily implemented in modelling systems is to calculate an
internal mass balance to ensure that the model neither produces nor loses carbon that is not reported as a source
or a sink. For example, conservation of mass requirements include that losses from biomass pools are either
accounted as input to the DOM pools, are transferred outside of the forest ecosystem or released to the
atmosphere (in case of fire). Further, harvest data can be used to check transfer (stop loss) estimates produced by
models. A second QA/QC procedure that can be implemented in countries that use higher Tier estimation
methods is to establish upper and lower bounds for DOM pools stratified by regions, forest type, and soil type
(organic vs. mineral soils). Any values, reported in inventories or estimated by models that fall outside these
bounds can be investigated further.
29
4.4.4
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
General requirements for reporting and documentation are set out in Volume 1, Chapter 8. In general it is good
practice to archive and document all data and information (such as figures, statistics, sources of assumptions,
modeling approaches, uncertainty analyses validation studies, inventory methods, research experiments,
measurements arising from field site studies, associated protocols, and other basic data) applied to produce the
national emissions/removals inventory. Elaborations on carbon pool definitions should be reported, and
definitions relevant to determining the extent of the managed land included in the inventory, together with
evidence that these definitions have been applied consistently over time provided.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Documentation is needed for demonstrating completeness, consistency of time series data and methods for
interpolating between samples, methods and years, and for recalculating and avoidance of double counting as
well as for performing QA/QC. As inventory compilers decide to progress through higher tier levels, whose
calculation methods and data are not described in the present volume or characterized by more disaggregated
approaches, additional documentation is required to support the use of more advanced and accurate
methodologies, country-defined parameters, and high resolution maps and data sets. However, at all tier levels,
explanation is needed for decisions regarding choice of methodology, coefficients, and activity data. The aim is
to facilitate reconstruction of estimates by independent third parties, but it may prove impractical to include all
documentation necessary in national inventory report. The inventory should therefore include summaries of
approaches and methods used, and references to source of data such that the reported emissions estimates are
transparent and steps adopted in their calculation may be retraced.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Emission factors: Sources of the emission or removal factors that were used (specific IPCC default values or
otherwise) have to be quoted. If country- or region- or forest type specific emission factors were used, and if new
methods (other than the default IPCC methods) were used, the scientific basis of these emission factors and
methods should be completely described and documented. This includes defining the input parameters and
describing the process by which these emission factors and methods are derived, as well as describing sources
and magnitudes of uncertainties. Inventory agencies using country-specific emission factors should provide
information on the basis of selection of a different factor, describe how it was derived, compare it to other
published emission factors, explain any significant differences, and attempt to place bounds on uncertainty.
56
57
Activity data: Sources of all activity data, such as areas, soil types and characteristics and vegetation covers,
used in the calculations should be provided (i.e. complete citations for statistical databases from which data were
4.42

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
drawn). Reference to the metadata for the databases are useful, including information on dates and frequency of
data collection, sampling procedures, analytical procedures used to obtain soil characteristics and minimum
detectable change in organic carbon, and estimates of accuracy and precision. When activity data were not
obtained directly from databases, the information and assumptions that were used to derive the activity data
should be provided, as well as estimates of the uncertainty associated to the derived activity data. This applies in
particular when scaling up procedures are used to derive large-scale estimates; in these cases the statistical
procedures should be described along with the associated uncertainty.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Results of model simulations: If inventory agencies used data output from models in their estimation
procedures, the rationale for model selection and use should be provided. It is a good practice to provide
complete citations of peer-reviewed publications in which the model is described, and modelling results are
interpreted and validated. Detailed information should be provided to enable reviewers to assess the models
validity, including the general modeling approach, key model assumptions, input and output data, parameter
values and parameterization procedures, confidence intervals of model outputs, and the outcome of any
sensitivity analysis conducted on the output. In addition, computer source code for models should be
permanently archived for future reference, along with all the input and output files.
16
17
18
19
Analysis of emissions: Significant fluctuations in emissions between years should be explained. A distinction
should be made between changes in activity levels and changes in emission coefficients from year to year, and
the reasons for these changes documented. If different emission factors are used for different years, the reasons
for this should be explained and documented.
20
4.43
Volume 4. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
1
4.5 TABLES
2
TABLE 4.1
CLIMATE DOMAINS (FAO, 2001), CLIMATE REGIONS (CHAPTER 2), AND ECOLOGICAL ZONES (FAO 2001)
Climate Domain
Domain
Domain
Criteria
Region
Tropical wet
Tropical
Sub
tropical
Temperate
Boreal
Polar
all months
without frost;
in marine
areas,
temperature
>18C
8 months at
a temperature
>10C
4-8 months at
a temperature
>10C
3 months at
a temperature
>10C
all months
<10C
Ecological Zone
Climate
Zone
Code
Zone Criteria
Tropical rain forest
TAr
TAwa
Tropical dry forest
TAWb
Tropical shrubland
Tropical desert
TBSh
TBWh
Tropical montane
TM
Warm temperate
moist
SCf
humid: no dry season
Warm temperate
dry

Subtropical steppe
Subtropical desert
SCs
SBSh
SBWh
seasonally dry: winter rains, dry summer

semi-arid: evaporation >precipitation
arid: all months dry
Warm temperate
moist or dry
SM
altitudes approximately 800 m-1000 m
TeDo
TeDc
Cool temperate
dry
Cool temperate
moist or dry
Boreal moist
Boreal dry
Boreal moist or dry
Temperate steppe
Temperate desert
TeBSk
TeBWk
oceanic climate: coldest month >0C

continental climate:
coldest month <0C
semi-arid: evaporation > precipitation
arid: All months dry
TeM
altitudes approximately >800 m

Ba
Bb
BM
coniferous dense forest dominant

Woodland and sparse forest dominant
altitudes approximately >600 m
Polar moist or dry
Polar
all months <10C
Tropical moist
Tropical dry
Cool temperate
moist
wet: 3 months dry, during winter

mainly wet: 3-5 months dry, during
winter
mainly dry: 5-8 months dry, during
winter
semi-arid: evaporation > precipitation
arid: all months dry
altitudes approximately >1000 m, with
local variations
Climate Domain: Area of relatively homogenous temperature regime, equivalent to the Kppen-Trewartha climate groups (Kppen 1931)
Climate Region: Areas of similar climate defined in Chapter 2 for reporting across different carbon pools
Ecological Zone: Area with broad, yet relatively homogeneous natural vegetation formations that are similar, but not necessarily identical,
in physiognomy
Dry Month: A month in which total precipitation (mm) 2 x mean temperature (C)
4.44
Chapter 4: Forest land

1
TABLE 4.2
FOREST AND LAND COVER CLASSES
Forest or Land Cover Class
Forest
Definition
Land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5 meters
and a canopy cover of more than 10 percent, or trees able to reach
these thresholds in situ. It does not include land that is predominantly
under agricultural or urban land use.
Forest is determined both by the presence of trees and the absence of
other predominant land uses. The trees should be able to reach a
minimum height of 5 meters (m) in situ. Areas under reforestation that
have not yet reached but are expected to reach a canopy cover of 10
percent and tree height of 5 m are included, as are temporarily
unstocked areas, resulting from human intervention or natural causes,
which are expected to regenerate.
Includes: areas with bamboo and palms provided that height and
canopy cover criteria are met; forest roads, firebreaks and other small
open areas; forest in national parks, nature reserves and other
protected areas such as those of specific scientific, historical, cultural
or spiritual interest; windbreaks, shelterbelts and corridors of trees
with an area of more than 0.5 ha and width of more than 20 m;
plantations primarily used for forestry or protective purposes, such as
rubber-wood plantations and cork oak stands.
Excludes: tree stands in agricultural production systems, for example
in fruit plantations and agroforestry systems. The term also excludes
trees in urban parks and gardens.
Other wooded Land
Land not classified as Forest, spanning more than 0.5 hectares; with
trees higher than 5 m and a canopy cover of 5-10 percent, or trees able
to reach these thresholds in situ; or with a combined cover of shrubs,
bushes and trees above 10 percent. It does not include land that is
predominantly under agricultural or urban land use.
Other land
All land that is not classified as forest or other Wooded Land.

Includes: agricultural land, meadows and pastures, built-up areas,
barren land, etc; areas classified under the subcategory other land
with tree cover.
Other land with tree cover
Land classified as other land, spanning more than 0.5 hectares with a
canopy cover of more than 10 percent of trees able to reach a height
of 5 meters at maturity.
Includes: groups of trees and scattered trees in agricultural landscapes,
parks, gardens and around buildings, provided that the area, height
and canopy cover criteria is met; tree plantations established mainly
for other purposes than wood, such as fruit orchards and palm
plantations
Source: FAO. 2006. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 progress towards sustainable forest management.
FAO Forestry Paper No. 147. Rome.
2
3
4
4.45
Domain
default
value
Tropical
and
Subtropical
Temperate
and Boreal
TABLE 4.3
CARBON FRACTION OF ABOVEGROUND FOREST BIOMASS
-1
TONNES C (TONNES DRY MATTER)
Part of Tree
Carbon Fraction (CF)
all
0.47
all
0.47 (0.44-0.49)
wood
wood, tree d < 10 cm
wood, tree d 10 cm
foliage
foliage, tree d < 10 cm
foliage, tree d 10 cm
0.49
0.46
0.49
0.47
0.43
0.46
all
0.47 (0.47-0.49)
broad-leaved
0.48 (0.46-0.50)
conifers
0.51 (0.47-0.55)
References
McGroddy et al. 2004

Andreae and Merlet 2001,
Chambers et al. 2001,
McGroddy et al. 2004,
Lasco and Pulhin 2003
Feldpausch et al. 2004
Hughes et al. 2000
Hughes et al. 2000
Hughes et al. 2000
Hughes et al. 2000
Andreae and Merlet 2001,
Gayoso et al. 2002,
Matthews 1993,
McGroddy et al. 2004
Lamlom and Savidge 2003
Lamlom and Savidge 2003
4.46

1
TABLE 4.4
RATIO OF BELOW-GROUND BIOMASS TO ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS (R); TONNES ROOT DRY MATTER (TONNES SHOOT
-1
DRY MATTER )
Domain
Ecological Zone
Tropical rainforest
Tropical
Tropical dry forest
0.37
aboveground biomass
<125 t ha-1
aboveground biomass
>125 t ha-1
aboveground biomass
<20 t ha-1
aboveground biomass
>20 t ha-1
Tropical shrubland
Subtropical
aboveground biomass
<125 t ha-1
aboveground biomass
>125 t ha-1
aboveground biomass
<20 t ha-1
aboveground biomass
>20 t ha-1
References
Fittkau and Klinge 1973
0.20 (0.09-0.25)
Mokany et al. 2006
0.24 (0.22-0.33)
Mokany et al. 2006
0.56 (0.28-0.68)
Mokany et al. 2006
0.28 (0.27-0.28)
Mokany et al. 2006
0.40
0.27 (0.27-0.28)
Poupon 1980
Singh et al. 1994
0.20 (0.09-0.25)
Mokany et al. 2006
0.24 (0.22-0.33)
Mokany et al. 2006
0.56 (0.28-0.68)
Mokany et al. 2006
0.28 (0.27-0.28)
Mokany et al. 2006
Subtropical steppe
Boreal
0.32 (0.26-0.71) Mokany et al. 2006

noestimateavailable
Mokany et al. 2006
conifers aboveground
0.40 (0.21-1.06)
biomass
< 50 t ha-1
Mokany et al. 2006
0.29 (0.24-0.50)
biomass50-150 t ha-1
Mokany et al. 2006
0.20 (0.12-0.49)
biomass > 150 t ha-1
Quercus spp.
aboveground biomass 0.30 (0.20-1.16) Mokany et al. 2006
>70 t ha-1
Eucalyptus spp.
aboveground biomass < 0.44 (0.29-0.81) Mokany et al. 2006
50 t ha-1
Temperate oceanic forest,
Eucalyptus spp.
Temperate continental forest,
aboveground biomass 0.28 (0.15-0.81) Mokany et al. 2006
50-150 t ha-1
Eucalyptus spp.
aboveground biomass > 0.20 (0.10-0.33) Mokany et al. 2006
150 t ha-1
Mokany et al. 2006
other broadleaf
aboveground biomass < 0.46 (0.12-0.93)
-1
75 t ha
Mokany et al. 2006
other broadleaf
aboveground biomass 0.23 (0.13-0.37
-1
75-150 t ha
Mokany et al. 2006
other broadleaf
aboveground biomass 0.24 (0.17-0.44)
-1
>150 t ha
aboveground biomass
0.39 (0.23-0.96) Li et al. 2003, Mokany et al. 2006
Boreal coniferous forest, Boreal
<75 t ha-1
tundra woodland, Boreal
aboveground biomass
mountain systems
0.24 (0.15-0.37) Li et al. 2003, Mokany et al. 2006
>75 t ha-1
2
3
4
5
4.47
TABLE 4.5
DEFAULT BIOMASS CONVERSION AND EXPANSION FACTORS (BCEF), TONNES BIOMASS (M3
OF WOOD VOLUME)
-1
BCEF for expansion of merchantable growing stock volume to aboveground biomass (BCEFS), for conversion of net annual increment (BCEFI) and for conversion of wood and fuelwood removal volume to
aboveground biomass removal (BCEFR)
Climatic Zone
Forest type
Boreal
pines
larch
firs and spruces
hardwoods
4.48
Growing Stock Level (m3)
BCEF
<20
21-50
51-100
>100
BCEFS
1.2 (0.85-1.3)
0.68 (0.5-0.72)
0.57 (0.52-065)
0.5 (0.45-0.58)
BCEFI
0.47
0.46
0.46
0.463
BCEFR
1.33
0.75
0.63
0.55
BCEFS
1.22 (0..9-1.5
0.78 (0.7-0.8
0.77 (0.7-0.85
0.77 (0.7-0.85
BCEFI
0.9
0.75
0.77
0.77
BCEFR
1.35
0.87
0.85
0.85
BCEFS
1.6 (0.8-1.5)
0.66 (0.55-0.75)
0.58 (0.5-0.65)
0.53 (0.45-0.605)
BCEFI
0.55
0.47
0.47
0.464
BCEFR
1.78
0.73
0.64
0.59
BCEFS
0.9 (0.7-1.2)
0.7 (0.6-0.75)
0.62 (0.53-0.7)
0.55 (0.5-0.65)
BCEFI
0.65
0.54
0.52
0.505
BCEFR
1.0
0.77
0.69
0.61

1
OF WOOD VOLUME)
-1
Climatic Zone
Forest type
Temperate
hardwoods
pines
other conifers
Mediterranean, dry
tropical, subtropical
hardwoods
conifers
BCEF
<20
21-40
41-100
100 -200
>200
BCEFS
3 (0.8-4.5)
1.7 (0.8-2.6)
1.4 (0.7-1.9)
1.05 (0.6-1.4)
0.8 (0.55-1.1)
BCEFI
1.5
1.3
0.9
0.6
0.48
BCEFR
3.33
1.89
1.55
1.17
0.89
BCEFS
1.8 (0.6 -2.4)
1.0 (0.65 -1.5)
0.75 (0.6-1.0)
0.7 (0.4-1)
0.7 (0.4-1)
BCEFI
1.5
0.75
0.6
0.67
0.69
BCEFR
2.0
1.11
0.83
0.77
0.77
BCEFS
3 (0.7-4)
1.4 (0.5-2.5)
1.0 (0.5-1.4)
0.75 (0.4-1.2)
0.7 (0.35-0.9)
BCEFI
1.0
0.83
0.57
0.53
0.60
BCEFR
3.33
1.55
1.11
0.83
0.77
<20
21-40
41-80
>80
BCEFS
5 (2-8)
1.9 (1-2.6)
0.8 (0.6-1.4)
0.66 (0.4-0.9)
BCEFI
1.5
0.5
0.55
0.66
BCEFR
5.55
2.11
0.89
0.73
BCEFS
6 (3-8)
1.2 (0.5-2)
0.6 (0.4-0.9)
0.55 (0.4-0.7
BCEFI
1.5
0.4
0.45
0.54
BCEFR
6.67
1.33
0.67
0.61
4.49
1
OF WOOD VOLUME)
-1
Climatic Zone
Forest type
Humid tropical
conifers
natural forests
BCEF
<10
11-20
21-40
41-60
61-80
80-120
120-200
>200
BCEFS
4 (3-6)
1.75 (1.4-2.4)
1.25 (1-1.5)
1 (0.8-1.2)
0.8 (0.7-1..2)
0.76 (0.6-1)
0.7 (0.6-0.9)
0.7 (0.6-0.9)
BCEFI
2.5
0.95
0.65
0.55
0.53
0.58
0.66
0.70
BCEFR
4.44
1.94
1.39
1.11
0.89
0.84
0.77
0.77
BCEFS
9 (4-12)
4 (2.5-4.5)
2.8 (1.4-3.4)
2.05 (1.2-2.5)
1.7 (1.2-2.2)
1.5 (1-1.8)
1.3(0.9-1.6)
0.95 (0.7-1.1)
BCEFI
4.5
1.6
1.1
0.93
0.9
0.87
0.86
0.85
BCEFR
10.0
4.44
3.11
2.28
1.89
1.67
1.44
1.05
Note: Lower values of the ranges for BCEFS apply if growing stock definition includes branches, stem tops and cull trees; upper values apply if branches and tops are not part of growing stock, minimum top
diameters in the definition of growing stock are large, inventoried volume falls near the lower category limit or basic wood densities are relatively high. Continuous graphs, functional forms and updates with
new studies can be found at the forest- and climatechange website at
http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/forestry2/index.jsp?siteId=3284&sitetreeId=9830&langId=1&geoId=0
Average BCEF for inhomogeneous forests should be derived as far as possible as weighted averages. It is good practice to justify the factors chosen. To apply BCEFI, an estimate of the current average
growing stock is necessary. It can be derived from FRA 2005 at http://www.fao.org/forestry/index.jsp
BCEFR values are derived by dividing BCEFS by 0.9

Sources: Boreal forests: Alexeyev, V.A. and R.A.Birdseye.1998; Fang,J. and Z.M. Wang.2001; temperate forests: Fang,J. et al. 2001;Fukuda, M. et.al.2003; Schroeder, P. et al. 1997; Snowdon, P. et.al.
2000;Smith,J. et. al. 2002;Brown.S.1999; Schoene,D. and A.Schulte.1999; Smith,J. et al.2004; Mediterranean forests: Vayreda et.al.2002; Gracia et.al.2002; tropical forests: Brown,S. et al. 1989; Brown.S.
and A. Lugo.1992; Brown,S. 2002; Fang, J.Y. 2001.
2
3
4
4.50

1
TABLE 4.6
EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS IN MANAGED FORESTS
Climate
Emissions factors (tonnes C ha-1 yr-1)

Values
Ranges
Tropical
1.36
0.82 3.82
Temperate
0.68
0.41 1.91
Boreal
0.16
0.08 1.09
2
3
4.51
1
Domain
TABLE 4.7
ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN FORESTS
(TONNES DRY MATTER HA-1)
AboveEcological Zone
Continent
ground
Biomass
Tropical
Tropical dry forest
Tropical shrubland

Subtropical
Subtropical steppe
Temperate

Boreal
References
Africa
310 (130-510)
North and South America
300 (120-400)
Asia (continental)
Asia (insular)
Africa
Asia (continental)
Asia (insular)
Africa
Asia (continental)
Asia (insular)
Africa
Asia (continental)
Asia (insular)
Africa
Asia (continental)
Asia (insular)
Asia (continental)
Asia (insular)
Africa
Asia (continental)
Asia (insular)
Africa
Asia (continental)
Asia (insular)
Africa
Asia (continental)
Asia (insular)
Europe
280 (120-680)
350 (280-520)
260 (160-430)
220 (210-280)
180 (10-560)
290
120 (120-130)
210 (200-410)
130 (100-160)
160
70 (20-200)
80 (40-90)
60
70
40-190
60-230
50-220
50-360
220 (210-280)
180 (10-560)
290
140
210 (200-410)
130 (100-160)
160
70 (20-200)
80 (40-90)
60
70
50
60-230
50-220
50-360
120
North America
660 (80-1200)
New Zealand
360 (210-430)
South America
180 (90-310)
Asia, Europe (20 y)

Asia, Europe (>20 y)
(20 y)
(>20 y)
Asia, Europe (20 y)
Asia, Europe (>20 y)
(20 y)
(>20 y)
Asia, Europe, North
America
Asia, Europe, North
America (20 y)
Asia, Europe, North
America (>20 y)
Asia, Europe, North
America (20 y)
Asia, Europe, North
America (>20 y)
20
120 (20-320)
IPCC 2003
Baker et al. 2004a,
Hughes et al. 1999
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
Sebei et al. 2001
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
Monts et al. 2002
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
Hessl et al. 2004,
Smithwick et al. 2002
Hall et al. 2001
Gayoso and Schlegel 2003,
Battles et al 2002
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
60 (10-130)
IPCC 2003
130 (50-200)
IPCC 2003
100 (20-180)
130 (20-600)
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
50 (20-110)
IPCC 2003
130 (40-280)
IPCC 2003
10-90
Gower et al. 2001
3-4
IPCC 2003
15-20
IPCC 2003
12-15
IPCC 2003
40-50
IPCC 2003
4.52

Domain
TABLE 4.8
ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN FOREST PLANTATIONS
AboveEcological Zone
Continent
ground
Biomass
Tropical
Tropical dry forest
Tropical shrubland
Subtropical
Subtropical steppe
Africa broadleaf > 20 y

Africa broadleaf 20 y
Africa Pinus sp. > 20 y
Africa Pinus sp. 20 y
Americas Eucalyptus sp.
Americas Pinus sp.
Americas Tectona grandis
Americas other broadleaf
Asia broadleaf
Asia other
Americas Pinus sp.
Asia broadleaf
Asia other
Americas Pinus sp.
Asia broadleaf
Asia other
Africa broadleaf
Americas Pinus sp.
Asia broadleaf
Asia other
Americas Pinus sp.
Asia broadleaf
Asia other
Americas Pinus sp.
Asia broadleaf
Asia other
Americas Pinus sp.
Asia broadleaf
Asia other
Africa broadleaf
300
100
200
60
200
300
240
150
220
130
150
80
120
40
90
270
120
100
180
100
70
30
60
20
90
110
90
60
90
60
20
20
15
60
60
50
30
40
30
60-150
40-100
30-100
10-40
30-120
60-170
30-130
30-80
40-150
25-80
140
270
120
100
180
100
70
30
60
20
110
110
90
60
90
60
20
20
References
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
Kraenzel et al. 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
Stape et al. 2004
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
Stape et al. 2004
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
4.53
TABLE 4.8
ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN FOREST PLANTATIONS
Temperate

and mountain systems
Boreal coniferous forest and

mountain systems
Boreal

Americas Pinus sp.
Asia broadleaf > 20 y
Asia broadleaf 20 y
Asia coniferous > 20 y
Asia coniferous 20 y
Americas Pinus sp.
Asia broadleaf
Asia other
Asia, Europe,
broadleaf > 20 y
Asia, Europe,
broadleaf 20 y
Asia, Europe,
coniferous > 20 y
Asia, Europe,
coniferous 20 y
North America
15
60
60
50
30
80
10
20
100-120
60-150
40-100
30-100
10-40
30-120
60-170
30-130
30-80
40-150
25-80
New Zealand
150-350
South America
Asia, Europe,
broadleaf > 20 y
Asia, Europe,
broadleaf 20 y
Asia, Europe,
coniferous > 20 y
Asia, Europe,
coniferous 20 y
North America
South America
Asia, Europe > 20 y
Asia, Europe 20 y
North America
Asia, Europe > 20 y
Asia, Europe 20 y
North America
200
30
150-250
40
50-300
90-120
200
15
150-200
25-30
50-300
90-120
40
5
40-50
25
5
25
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
Hinds and Reid 1957, Hall
and Hollinger 1997, Hall
2001
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
1
2
4.54

Domain
TABLE 4.9
ABOVE-GROUND NET BIOMASS GROWTH IN NATURAL FORESTS
(TONNES DRY MATTER HA-1 Y-1)
Aboveground
Ecological Zone
Continent
Biomass
Growth
Tropical
Tropical dry forest
Tropical shrubland
Sub tropical
Africa (20 y)
Africa (>20 y)
10
3.1 (2.3-3.8)
North America
0.9-18
South America (20 y)

South America (>20 y)
Asia (continental 20 y)
Asia (continental >20 y)
Asia (insular 20 y)
Asia (insular >20 y)
Africa (20 y)
Africa (>20 y)
(20 y)
(>20 y)
Asia (insular 20 y)
Africa (20 y)
Africa (>20 y)
(20 y)
(>20 y)
Asia (insular 20 y)
Africa (20 y)
Africa (>20 y)
(20 y)
(>20 y)
Asia (insular 20 y)
Africa (20 y)
Africa (>20 y)
(20 y)
(>20 y)
Asia (insular 20 y)
(20 y)
(>20 y)
Asia (insular 20 y)
Africa (20 y)
Africa (>20 y)
(20 y)
(>20 y)
11
3.1 (1.5-5.5)
7.0 (3.0-11.0)
2.2 (1.3-3.0)
13
3.4
5
1.3
7.0
Reference
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
Clark et al. 2003,
Hughes et al. 1999
Malhi et al. 2004
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
Harmand et al. 2004
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
2.0
IPCC 2003
9.0
2.0
11
3.0
2.4 (2.3-2.5)
1.8 (0.6-3.0)
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
4.0
IPCC 2003
1.0
6.0
1.5
7.0
2.0
0.2-0.7
0.9 (0.2-1.6)
4.0
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
Nygrd et al. 2004
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
1.0
IPCC 2003
5.0
1.3 (1.0-2.2)
2.0
1.0
2.0-5.0
1.0-1.5
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
1.8-5.0
IPCC 2003
0.4-1.4
IPCC 2003
1.0-5.0
0.5-1.0
3.0-12
1.0-3.0
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
7.0
IPCC 2003
2.0
IPCC 2003
9.0
2.0
11
3.0
2.4 (2.3-2.5)
1.8 (0.6-3.0)
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
4.0
IPCC 2003
1.0
IPCC 2003
6.0
IPCC 2003
4.55
Domain
TABLE 4.9
ABOVE-GROUND NET BIOMASS GROWTH IN NATURAL FORESTS
Aboveground
Ecological Zone
Continent
Biomass
Growth
Subtropical steppe
Temperate
Boreal

Asia (insular 20 y)
Africa (20 y)
Africa (>20 y)
(20 y)
(>20 y)
Asia (insular 20 y)
Africa (20 y)
Africa (>20 y)
(20 y)
(>20 y)
Asia (insular 20 y)
Europe
North America
New Zealand
South America
Asia, Europe, North
America (20 y)
Asia, Europe, North
America (>20 y)
Asia, Europe, North
America
Asia, Europe, North
America
Asia, Europe, North
America
Asia, Europe, North
America (20 y)
Asia, Europe, North
America (>20 y)
Reference
1.5
7.0
2.0
1.2 (0.8-1.5)
0.9 (0.2-1.6)
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
4.0
IPCC 2003
1.0
IPCC 2003
5.0
1.3 (1.0-2.2)
2.0
1.0
2.0-5.0
1.0-1.5
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
1.8-5.0
IPCC 2003
0.4-1.4
IPCC 2003
1.0-5.0
0.5-1.0
3.0-12
1.0-3.0
2.3
15 (1.2-105)
3.5 (3.2-3.8)
2.4-8.9
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
Hessl et al. 2004
Coomes et al. 2002
Echevarria and Lara 2004
4.0 (0.5-8.0)
IPCC 2003
4.0 (0.5-7.5)
IPCC 2003
3.0 (0.5-6.0)
IPCC 2003
0.1-2.1
Gower et al. 2001
0.4 (0.2-0.5)
IPCC 2003
1.0-1.1
IPCC 2003
1.1-1.5
IPCC 2003
1
2
4.56

1
TABLE 4.10
ABOVE-GROUND NET BIOMASS GROWTH IN TROPICAL AND SUB-TROPICAL FOREST PLANTATIONS
Aboveground
Domain
Ecological Zone
Continent
References
Biomass
Growth
Tropical
Tropical dry forest
Tropical shrubland
Subtropical
Subtropical steppe

Africa other 20 y
Americas Pinus sp.
Asia Eucalyptus sp.
Asia other
Africa Eucalyptus sp. >20 y
Africa Eucalyptus sp. 20 y
Africa other 20 y
Americas Pinus sp.
Asia
Africa other 20 y
Americas Pinus sp.
Asia Eucalyptus sp.
Asia other
Africa other > 20 y
Africa other 20 y
Americas Pinus sp.
Asia
Africa
Americas Pinus sp.
Asia Eucalyptus sp.
Asia other
Americas Pinus sp.
Asia
Africa other 20 y
Americas Pinus sp.
Asia Eucalyptus sp.
Asia other
Africa other > 20 y
20
6 (5-8)
20 (6-40)
20
15
20 (5-35)
5 (4-8)
5 (2-8)
25
20
15
10
9 (3-15)
16
7 (4-10)
8 (4-12)
6-20
8
13
10
8
10 (4-20)
20 (6-30)
7 (4-10)
8 (4-12)
10 (3-12)
15 (5-25)
7 (2-13)
8 (5-14)
5 (3-7)
2.5
3 (0.5-6)
10
15
20
5
6 (1-12)
10
10 (8-18)
10
2
4
3
5 (1-10)
20 (6-32)
7 (4-10)
8 (4-12)
10 (3-12)
8
13
10
8
10 (4-20)
20 (6-30)
7 (4-10)
8 (4-12)
10 (3-12)
15 (5-25)
7 (2-13)
8 (5-14)
5 (3-7)
2.5
3 (0.5-6)
10
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
Stape et al. 2004
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
Lugo et al. 1990
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
4.57
TABLE 4.10
ABOVE-GROUND NET BIOMASS GROWTH IN TROPICAL AND SUB-TROPICAL FOREST PLANTATIONS
Aboveground
Domain
Ecological Zone
Continent
References
Biomass
Growth
Africa other 20 y
Americas Pinus sp.
Asia
Africa
Americas Pinus sp.
Asia Eucalyptus sp.
Asia other
15
20
5
6 (1-12)
10
10 (8-18)
10
2
4
3
5 (1-10)
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
IPCC 2003
1
2
TABLE 4.11A
ABOVE-GROUND NET VOLUME GROWTH OF SELECTED
FOREST PLANTATION SPECIES
(M3 HA-1 Y-1)
(UGALDE AND PEREZ 2001)

Acacia auriculiformis
Acacia mearnsii
Araucaria angustifolia
Araucaria cunninghamii
Casuarina equisetifolia
Casuarina junghuhniana
Cordia alliadora
Cupressus lusitanica
Dalbergia sissoo
Eucalyptus camaldulensis
Eucalyptus deglupta
Eucalyptus globulus
Eucalyptus grandis
Eucalyptus robusta
Eucalyptus saligna
Eucalyptus urophylla
Gmelina arborea
Leucaena leucocephala
Pinus caribaea v. caribaea
Pinus caribaea v. hondurensis
Pinus oocarpa
Pinus patula
Pinus radiata
Swietenia macrophylla
Tectona grandis
Terminalia ivorensis
Terminalia superba
6-20
14-25
8-24
10-18
6-20
7-11
10-20
8-40
5-8
15-30
14-50
10-40
15-50
10-40
10-55
20-60
12-50
30-55
10-28
20-50
10-40
8-40
10-50
7-30
6-18
8-17
10-14
4.58

1
TABLE 4.11B
MEAN ANNUAL INCREMENT (GROWTH OF MERCHANTABLE VOLUME)
Planted Forest
Type/Region
Tree species
FOR SOME FOREST PLANTATION SPECIES
Mean annual increment (MAI) over rotation in

(m3 ha-1 yr-1)
MAI min
MAI max
2.2
15
1.4
2
6.6
5
15
12
8.5
2.5
21
4
20
2.6
6
9.4
7.5
24
14
12
3.5
43
4
7.3
3
15
15
20
10
10
25
10
15
15
17.3
8.8
30
30
70
20
25
40
30
35
4
1.9
12.5
1.1
1.8
1.2
1.5
1.2
1.5
0.9
6.1
3.5
20
2.4
3.2
3.7
2.4
1.5
1.7
1
2
13
1.4
1.9
6
4
14
10
7
5
6
21
2.8
4.3
12
8
20
14
16
8
Productive Plantations
Africa
Asia
Acacia mellifera
Acacia nilotica
Acacia senegal
Acacia seyal
Ailanthus excelsa
Bamboo Bamboo
Cupressus spp.
Eucalyptus spp.
Khaya spp.
Tectona grandis
Eucalyptus camaldulensis
Pinus spp.
Tectona grandis
South America
Xylia xylocapa
Acacia spp.
Araucaria angustifolia
Eucalyptus spp.
Hevea brasiliensis
Mimosa scabrella
Pinus spp.
Populus spp.
Tectona grandis
Productive, semi-natural forests
Acacia albida
Africa
Acacia mellifera
Acacia nilotica
Acacia senegal
Acacia seyal
Acacia tortilis
Acacia tortilis var siprocarpa
Balanites aegyptiaca
Sclerocarya birrea
Ziziphus mauritiana
Protective Plantations
Acacia mellifera
Africa
Acacia nilotica
Acacia senegal
Acacia seyal
Ailanthus spp.
Bamboo Bamboo
Cupressus spp.
Eucalyptus spp.
Khaya spp.
Tectona grandis
4.59
1
TABLE 4.11B (CONTINUED)
MEAN ANNUAL INCREMENT (GROWTH OF MERCHANTABLE VOLUME)
Planted Forest
Type/Region
Tree species
FOR SOME FOREST PLANTATION SPECIES
Mean annual increment (MAI) over rotation in

cubic meters / yr
MAI min
MAI max
4
1.7
12
1.1
1.8
1.3
1.6
1.2
1.5
0.9
6.2
3.2
15
2.4
3.3
3.5
2.4
1.5
1.7
1
Protective Semi-natural plantations

Acacia albida
Africa
Acacia mellifera
Acacia nilotica
Acacia senegal
Acacia seyal
Acacia tortilis
Acacia tortilis var siprocarpa
Sclerocarya birrea
Ziziphus mauritiana
Source: FAO at http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/forestry2
2
3
4
TABLE 4.12
TIER 1 ESTIMATED BIOMASS VALUES FROM TABLES 4.74.11 (EXCEPT TABLE 4.11B)
(VALUES ARE APPROXIMATE. USE ONLY FOR TIER 1)
Climate
Domain
Tropical
Sub
tropical
Temperate
Boreal
Ecological Zone

Tropical dry forest
Tropical shrubland
Subtropical steppe
Aboveground
biomass in
natural
forests
(tonnes dry
matter ha-1)
Aboveground
biomass in
forest
plantations
(tonnes dry
matter ha-1)
Aboveground
net biomass
growth in
natural
forests
(tonnes dry
matter ha-1 y1
)
Aboveground
net biomass
growth in
forest
plantations
(tonnes dry
matter ha-1 y1
)
300
180
130
70
140
220
130
70
140
180
120
100
50
15
30
150
120
60
30
90
140
60
30
90
160
100
100
40
15
30
7
5
2.4
1
1
5
2.4
1
1
4.4
4
3
1
0.4
1
15
10
8
5
5
10
8
5
5
4.4
4
3
1
0.4
1
5
6
4.60

TABLE 4.13 BASIC WOOD DENSITY (D) OF TROPICAL TREE

-3
SPECIES (OVEN-DRY TONNES (MOIST M ))

-3
1 = Baker et al. 2004b, 2 = Barbosa and Fearnside 2004,

3 = CTFT 1989, 4 = Fearnside 1997, 5 = Reyes et al. 1992
species
density continent reference
Adina cordifolia
0.58-0.59
Asia
5
Aegle marmelo
0.75
Asia
5
Afzelia bipidensis
0.67-0.79
Africa
3
Agathis sp.
0.44
Asia
5
Aglaia llanosiana
0.89
Asia
5
Agonandra brasiliensis
0.74
Americas
4
Aidia ochroleuca
0.78
Africa
5
Alangium longiflorum
0.65
Asia
5
Albizia sp.
0.52
Americas
5
Albizzia amara
0.70
Asia
5
Albizzia falcataria
0.25
Asia
5
Alcornea sp.
0.34
Americas
5
Aldina heterophylla
0.73
Americas
4
Aleurites trisperma
0.43
Asia
5
Alexa grandiflora
0.59
Americas
4
Alexa imperatricis
0.52
Americas
4
Allophyllus africanus
0.45
Africa
5
Alnus ferruginea
0.38
Americas
5
Alnus japonica
0.43
Asia
5
Alphitonia zizyphoides
0.50
Asia
5
Alphonsea arborea
0.69
Asia
5
Alseodaphne longipes
0.49
Asia
5
Alstonia congensis
0.33
Africa
5
Amburana cearensis
0.43
Americas
1
Amoora sp.
0.60
Asia
5
Amphimas
0.63
Africa
5
pterocarpoides
Anacardium excelsum
0.41
Americas
4
Anacardium giganteum
0.44
Americas
4
Anadenanthera
0.86
Americas
4
macrocarpa
Andira inermis
0.64
Americas
4
Andira parviflora
0.69
Americas
4
Andira retusa
0.67
Americas
5
Aniba amazonica
0.52-0.56
Americas
1
Aniba canelilla
0.92
Americas
4
Aningeria robusta
0.44-0.53
Africa
3
Anisophyllea
0.63
Africa
5
obtusifolia
Anisophyllea zeylanica
0.46
Asia
5
Anisoptera sp.
0.54
Asia
5
Annonidium mannii
0.29
Africa
5
Anogeissus latifolia
0.78-0.79
Asia
5
Anopyxis klaineana
0.74
Africa
5
Anthocephalus
0.33-0.36
Asia
5
chinensis
Anthocleista keniensis
0.50
Africa
5
Anthonotha
0.78
Africa
5
macrophylla
Anthostemma
0.32
Africa
5
aubryanum
Antiaris africana
0.38
Americas
5
Antiaris sp.
0.38
Africa
5
Antidesma pleuricum
0.59
Asia
5
Antrocaryon
0.50
Africa
5
klaineanum
Apeiba aspera
0.28
Americas
1
Apeiba echinata
0.36
Americas
5
Apeiba peiouma
0.20
Americas
4
Aphanamiris
0.52
Asia
5
perrottetiana
Apuleia leiocarpa
0.7
Americas
1
Apuleia molaris
0.76
Americas
4
Araucaria bidwillii
0.43
Asia
5
Ardisia cubana
0.62
Americas
1
Artocarpus comunis
0.70
Americas
5
Artocarpus sp.
0.58
Asia
5
Aspidosperma album
0.76
Americas
4

species
Aspidosperma
0.67
Americas
1
macrocarpon
Aspidosperma
0.86
Americas
4
obscurinervium
Astronium gracile
0.73
Americas
4
Astronium graveolens
0.75
Americas
4
Astronium lecointei
0.73
Americas
5
Astronium ulei
0.71
Americas
4
Astronium urundeuva
1.21
Americas
4
Aucoumea klaineana
0.31-0.48
Africa
3
Autranella congolensis
0.78
Africa
5
Azadirachta sp.
0.52
Asia
5
Bagassa guianensis
0.69
Americas
4
Baillonella toxisperma
0.70
Africa
3
0.63
Africa
5
Balanocarpus sp.
0.76
Asia
5
Banara guianensis
0.61
Americas
5
Baphia kirkii
0.93
Africa
5
Barringtonia edulis
0.48
Asia
5
Basiloxylon exelsum
0.58
Americas
5
Bauhinia sp.
0.67
Asia
5
Beilschmiedia louisii
0.70
Africa
5
Beilschmiedia nitida
0.50
Africa
5
Beilschmiedia sp.
0.61
Americas
5
Beilschmiedia tawa
0.58
Asia
5
Berlinia sp.
0.58
Africa
5
Berrya cordifolia
0.78
Asia
5
Bertholletia excelsa
0.62
Americas
4
Bischofia javanica
0.54-0.62
Asia
5
Bixa arborea
0.32
Americas
4
Bleasdalea vitiensis
0.43
Asia
5
Blighia welwitschii
0.74
Africa
5
Bocoa sp.
0.42
Americas
1
Bombacopsis quinata
0.39
Americas
1
Bombacopsis sepium
0.39
Americas
5
Bombax costatum
0.35
Africa
3
Bombax paraense
0.39
Americas
1
Borojoa patinoi
0.52
Americas
5
Boswellia serrata
0.50
Asia
5
Bowdichia
0.39
Americas
2
coccolobifolia
Bowdichia crassifolia
0.39
Americas
2
Bowdichia nitida
0.79
Americas
4
Bowdichia virgilioides
0.52
Americas
2
Brachystegia sp.
0.52
Africa
5
Bridelia micrantha
0.47
Africa
5
Bridelia squamosa
0.5
Asia
5
Brosimum acutifolium
0.55
Americas
4
Brosimum alicastrum
0.69
Americas
4
Brosimum guianense
0.96
Americas
4
Brosimum lactescens
0.70
Americas
1
Brosimum
0.58
Americas
4
parinarioides
Brosimum potabile
0.53
Americas
4
Brosimum rubescens
0.87
Americas
4
Brosimum utile
0.40-0.49
Americas
1
Brysenia adenophylla
0.54
Americas
5
Buchenavia capitata
0.63
Americas
4
Buchenavia huberi
0.79
Americas
4
Buchenavia latifolia
0.45
Asia
5
Buchenavia oxycarpa
0.72
Americas
4
Buchenavia viridiflora
0.88
Americas
1
Bucida buceras
0.93
Americas
5
Bursera serrata
0.59
Asia
5
Bursera simaruba
0.29-0.34
Americas
5
Butea monosperma
0.48
Asia
5
Byrsonima coriacea
0.64
Americas
5
Byrsonima spicata
0.61
Americas
4
4.61
-3

-3

species
Byrsonima
0.33
Americas
2
verbascifolia
Cabralea canjerana
0.55
Americas
4
Caesalpinia sp.
1.05
Americas
5
Calophyllum
0.53
Americas
4
brasiliense
Calophyllum sp.
0.46
Americas
1
Calophyllum sp.
0.53
Asia
5
Calpocalyx klainei
0.63
Africa
5
Calycarpa arborea
0.53
Asia
5
Calycophyllum
0.74
Americas
1
spruceanum
Campnosperma
0.37
Americas
1
panamensis
Cananga odorata
0.29
Asia
5
Canarium sp.
0.44
Asia
5
Canthium monstrosum
0.42
Asia
5
Canthium
0.63
Africa
5
rubrocostratum
Carallia calycina
0.66
Asia
5
Carapa guianensis
0.55
Americas
4
Carapa procera
0.59
Africa
5
Cariniana integrifolia
0.49
Americas
4
Cariniana micrantha
0.64
Americas
4
Caryocar glabrum
0.65
Americas
1
Caryocar villosum
0.72
Americas
4
Casearia battiscombei
0.5
Africa
5
Casearia sp.
0.62
Americas
5
Cassia javanica
0.69
Asia
5
Cassia moschata
0.71
Americas
5
Cassia scleroxylon
1.01
Americas
4
Cassipourea euryoides
0.70
Africa
5
Cassipourea malosana
0.59
Africa
5
Castanopsis
0.51
Asia
5
philippensis
0.81
Americas
5
0.83
Asia
5
Casuarina nodiflora
0.85
Asia
5
Catostemma commune
0.5
Americas
1
Cecropia sp.
0.36
Americas
5
Cedrela odorata
0.42
Americas
1
Cedrela odorata
0.38
Asia
5
Cedrela sp.
0.40-0.46
Americas
5
Cedrela toona
0.43
Asia
5
Cedrelinga
0.45
Americas
1
catenaeformis
Ceiba pentandra
0.18-0.39
Africa
3
Ceiba pentandra
0.28
Americas
4
Ceiba pentandra
0.23
Asia
5
Ceiba samauma
0.57
Americas
1
Celtis luzonica
0.49
Asia
5
Celtis schippii
0.59
Americas
1
Celtis sp.
0.59
Africa
5
Centrolobium sp.
0.65
Americas
5
Cespedesia
0.63
Americas
5
macrophylla
Cespedesia spathulata
0.54
Americas
1
Chaetocarpus
0.80
Americas
5
schomburgkianus
Chisocheton pentandrus
0.52
Asia
5
Chlorophora excelsa
0.48-0.66
Africa
3
Chlorophora tinctoria
0.73
Americas
4
Chloroxylon swietenia
0.76-0.80
Asia
5
Chorisia integrifolia
0.28
Americas
1
Chrysophyllum
0.56
Africa
5
albidum
Chukrassia tabularis
0.57
Asia
5
Citrus grandis
0.59
Asia
5
Clarisia racemosa
0.59
Americas
4

species
Cleidion speciflorum
0.50
Asia
5
Cleistanthus eollinus
0.88
Asia
5
Cleistanthus
0.87
Africa
5
mildbraedii
Cleistocalyx sp.
0.76
Asia
5
Cleistopholis patens
0.36
Africa
5
Clusia rosea
0.67
Americas
5
Cochlospermum
0.27
Asia
5
gossypium
Cochlospermum
0.26
Americas
5
orinocensis
Cocos nucifera
0.50
Asia
5
Coda edulis
0.78
Africa
5
Coelocaryon preussii
0.56
Africa
5
Cola sp.
0.70
Africa
5
Colona serratifolia
0.33
Asia
5
Combretodendron
0.57
Asia
5
quadrialatum
Conopharyngia holstii
0.50
Africa
5
Copaifera officinalis
0.61
Americas
1
Copaifera pubifora
0.56
Americas
1
Copaifera religiosa
0.50
Africa
5
Copaifera reticulata
0.63
Americas
4
Cordia alliodora
0.48
Americas
5
Cordia bicolor
0.49
Americas
4
Cordia gerascanthus
0.74
Americas
5
Cordia goeldiana
0.48
Americas
4
Cordia millenii
0.34
Africa
5
Cordia platythyrsa
0.36
Africa
5
Cordia sagotii
0.50
Americas
4
Cordia sp.
0.53
Asia
5
Corynanthe pachyceras
0.63
Africa
5
Corythophora rimosa
0.84
Americas
4
Cotylelobium sp.
0.69
Asia
5
Couepia sp.
0.70
Americas
5
Couma macrocarpa
0.50
Americas
4
Couratari guianensis
0.54
Americas
4
Couratari multiflora
0.47
Americas
4
Couratari oblongifolia
0.49
Americas
4
Couratari stellata
0.63
Americas
4
Crataeva religiosa
0.53
Asia
5
Cratoxylon arborescens
0.40
Asia
5
Croton megalocarpus
0.57
Africa
5
Croton xanthochloros
0.48
Americas
5
Cryptocarya sp.
0.59
Asia
5
Cryptosepalum staudtii
0.70
Africa
5
Ctenolophon
0.78
Africa
5
englerianus
Cubilia cubili
0.49
Asia
5
Cullenia excelsa
0.53
Asia
5
Cupressus lusitanica
0.43-0.44
Americas
5
Curatella americana
0.41
Americas
2
Cylicodiscus
0.80
Africa
5
gabonensis
Cynometra alexandri
0.74
Africa
5
Cynometra sp.
0.80
Asia
5
Cyrilla racemiflora
0.53
Americas
5
Dacrycarpus imbricatus
0.45-0.47
Asia
5
Dacrydium sp.
0.46
Asia
5
Dacryodes buttneri
0.44-0.57
Africa
3
Dacryodes excelsa
0.52-0.53
Americas
5
Dacryodes sp.
0.61
Asia
5
Dactyodes colombiana
0.51
Americas
5
Dalbergia paniculata
0.64
Asia
5
Dalbergia retusa.
0.89
Americas
5
Dalbergia stevensonii
0.82
Americas
5
Daniellia oliveri
0.53
Africa
3
Declinanona calycina
0.47
Americas
5
Decussocarpus vitiensis
0.37
Asia
5
4.62


-3

-3

species
Degeneria vitiensis
0.35
Asia
5
Dehaasia triandra
0.64
Asia
5
Dendropanax arboreum
0.40
Americas
4
Desbordesia pierreana
0.87
Africa
5
Detarium senegalensis
0.63
Africa
5
Dialium excelsum
0.78
Africa
5
Dialium guianense
0.88
Americas
4
Dialium sp.
0.80
Asia
5
Dialyanthera sp.
0.36-0.48
Americas
5
Diclinanona calycina
0.47
Americas
4
Dicorynia ghuianensis
0.65
Americas
4
Dicorynia paraensis
0.60
Americas
5
Didelotia africana
0.78
Africa
5
Didelotia letouzeyi
0.50
Africa
5
Didymopanax sp.
0.74
Americas
5
Dillenia sp.
0.59
Asia
5
Dimorphandra mora
0.99
Americas
5
Dinizia excelsa
0.86
Americas
4
Diospyros sp.
0.82
Africa
5
Diospyros sp.
0.47
Americas
1
Diospyros sp.
0.70
Asia
5
Diplodiscus paniculatus
0.63
Asia
5
Diploon cuspidatum
0.85
Americas
4
Diplotropis martiusii
0.74
Americas
1
Diplotropis purpurea
0.78
Americas
4
Dipterocarpus caudatus
0.61
Asia
5
Dipterocarpus
0.56
Asia
5
eurynchus
Dipterocarpus gracilis
0.61
Asia
5
Dipterocarpus
0.62
Asia
5
grandiflorus
Dipterocarpus kerrii
0.56
Asia
5
Dipterocarpus
0.57
Asia
5
kunstlerii
Dipterocarpus sp.
0.61
Asia
5
Dipterocarpus
0.52
Asia
5
warburgii
Dipteryx odorata
0.93
Americas
4
Dipteryx polyphylla
0.87
Americas
4
Discoglypremna
0.32
Africa
5
caloneura
Distemonanthus
0.58
Africa
5
benthamianus
Dracontomelon sp.
0.50
Asia
5
Dryobalanops sp.
0.61
Asia
5
Drypetes sp.
0.63
Africa
5
Drypetes variabilis
0.71
Americas
4
Dtypetes bordenii
0.75
Asia
5
Durio sp.
0.53
Asia
5
Dussia lehmannii
0.59
Americas
5
Dyera costulata
0.36
Asia
5
Dysoxylum
0.49
Asia
5
quercifolium
Ecclinusa bacuri
0.59
Americas
4
Ecclinusa guianensis
0.63
Americas
5
Ehretia acuminata
0.51
Africa
5
Elaeocarpus serratus
0.40
Asia
5
Emblica officinalis
0.80
Asia
5
Enantia chlorantha
0.42
Africa
5
Endiandra laxiflora
0.54
Asia
5
Endlicheria sp.
0.50
Americas
1
Endodesmia
0.66
Africa
5
calophylloides
Endopleura uchi
0.78
Americas
4
Endospermum sp.
0.38
Asia
5
Entandrophragma utile
0.53-0.62
Africa
3
Enterolobium
0.34
Americas
4
cyclocarpum

species
Enterolobium
0.35
Asia
5
cyclocarpum
Enterolobium
0.4
Americas
4
maximum
Enterolobium
0.78
Americas
4
schomburgkii
Eperua falcata
0.78
Americas
4
Epicharis cumingiana
0.73
Asia
5
Eribroma oblongum
0.6
Africa
5
Eriocoelum
0.5
Africa
5
microspermum
Eriotheca
0.45
Americas
4
longipedicellata
Erisma uncinatum
0.47
Americas
1
Erismadelphus ensul
0.56
Africa
5
Erythrina sp.
0.23
Americas
5
Erythrina subumbrans
0.24
Asia
5
Erythrina vogelii
0.25
Africa
5
Erythrophleum
0.70-0.88
Africa
3
ivorense
Erythrophloeum
0.65
Asia
5
densiflorum
Eschweilera amazonica
0.9
Americas
4
Eschweilera coriacea
0.78
Americas
4
Eschweilera ovata
0.81
Americas
4
Eschweilera sagotiana
0.79
Americas
4
Eucalyptus citriodora
0.64
Asia
5
Eucalyptus deglupta
0.34
Asia
5
Eucalyptus robusta
0.51
Americas
5
Eugenia sp.
0.65
Asia
5
Eugenia stahlii
0.73
Americas
5
Euxylophora paraensis
0.7
Americas
4
Fagara macrophylla
0.69
Africa
5
Fagara sp.
0.69
Americas
5
Fagraea sp.
0.73
Asia
5
Ficus benjamina
0.65
Asia
5
Ficus insipida
0.5
Americas
1
Ficus iteophylla
0.4
Africa
5
Fumtumia latifolia
0.45
Africa
5
Gallesia integrifolia
0.51
Americas
1
Gambeya sp.
0.56
Africa
5
Ganua obovatifolia
0.59
Asia
5
Garcinia myrtifolia
0.65
Asia
5
Garcinia punctata
0.78
Africa
5
Garcinia sp.
0.75
Asia
5
Gardenia turgida
0.64
Asia
5
Garuga pinnata
0.51
Asia
5
Genipa americana
0.51
Americas
4
Gilletiodendron
0.87
Africa
5
mildbraedii
Gluta sp.
0.63
Asia
5
Glycydendron
0.66
Americas
4
amazonicum
Gmelina arborea
0.41-0.45
Asia
5
Gmelina vitiensis
0.54
Asia
5
Gonocaryum
0.64
Asia
5
calleryanum
Gonystylus punctatus
0.57
Asia
5
Gossweilerodendron
0.4
Africa
5
balsamiferum
Goupia glabra
0.68
Americas
1
Grewia tiliaefolia
0.68
Asia
5
Guarea cedrata
0.48-0.57
Africa
3
Guarea chalde
0.52
Americas
5
Guarea guidonia
0.68
Americas
4
Guarea kunthiana
0.60
Americas
1
Guatteria decurrens
0.52
Americas
1
Guatteria olivacea
0.51
Americas
4
Guatteria procera
0.65
Americas
4
4.63
-3

-3

species
Guazuma ulmifolia
0.50-0.52
Americas
5
Guibourtia demeusii
0.70-0.84
Africa
3
Guillielma gasipae
0.95-1.25
Americas
5
Gustavia speciosa
0.34
Americas
1
Hannoa klaineana
0.28
Africa
5
Hardwickia binata
0.73
Asia
5
Harpullia arborea
0.62
Asia
5
Harungana
0.45
Africa
5
madagascariensis
Helicostylis tomentosa
0.72
Americas
4
Heritiera sp.
0.56
Asia
5
Hernandia Sonora
0.29
Americas
5
Hevea brasiliensis
0.49
Americas
4
Hevea brasiliensis
0.53
Asia
5
Hexalobus crispiflorus
0.48
Africa
5
Hibiscus tiliaceus
0.57
Asia
5
Hieronyma chocoensis
0.59-0.62
Americas
1
Hieronyma laxiflora
0.55
Americas
1
Himatanthus articulatus
0.38
Americas
2
Hirtella davisii
0.74
Americas
5
Holoptelea grandis
0.59
Africa
5
Homalanthus
0.38
Asia
5
populneus
Homalium sp.
0.7
Africa
5
Homalium sp.
0.76
Asia
5
Hopea acuminata
0.62
Asia
5
Hopea sp.
0.64
Asia
5
Huberodendron patinoi
0.5
Americas
1
Humiria balsamifera
0.66
Americas
4
Humiriastrum excelsum
0.75
Americas
4
Humiriastrum procera
0.7
Americas
5
Hura crepitans
0.36
Americas
4
Hyeronima
0.64
Americas
4
alchorneoides
Hyeronima laxiflora
0.59
Americas
5
Hylodendron
0.78
Africa
5
gabonense
Hymenaea courbaril
0.77
Americas
1
Hymenaea davisii
0.67
Americas
5
Hymenaea oblongifolia
0.62
Americas
1
Hymenaea parvifolia
0.95
Americas
4
Hymenolobium
0.64
Americas
4
excelsum
Hymenolobium
0.65
Americas
4
modestum
Hymenolobium
0.67
Americas
4
pulcherrimum
Hymenostegia
0.78
Africa
5
pellegrini
Inga alba
0.62
Americas
4
Inga edulis
0.51
Americas
1
Inga paraensis
0.82
Americas
4
Intsia palembanica
0.68
Asia
5
Irvingia grandifolia
0.78
Africa
5
Iryanthera grandis
0.55
Americas
4
Iryanthera sagotiana
0.57
Americas
4
Iryanthera trocornis
0.72
Americas
4
Jacaranda copaia
0.33
Americas
4
Joannesia heveoides
0.39
Americas
4
Julbernardia globiflora
0.78
Africa
5
Kayea garciae
0.53
Asia
5
Khaya ivorensis
0.40-0.48
Africa
3
Kingiodendron
0.48
Asia
5
alternifolium
Klainedoxa gabonensis
0.87
Africa
5
Kleinhovia hospita
0.36
Asia
5
Knema sp.
0.53
Asia
5
Koompassia excelsa
0.63
Asia
5

species
Koordersiodendron
0.65-0.69
Asia
5
pinnatum
Kydia calycina
0.72
Asia
5
Lachmellea speciosa
0.73
Americas
5
Laetia procera
0.63
Americas
1
Lagerstroemia sp.
0.55
Asia
5
Lannea grandis
0.50
Asia
5
Lecomtedoxa klainenna
0.78
Africa
5
Lecythis idatimon
0.77
Americas
4
Lecythis lurida
0.83
Americas
4
Lecythis pisonis
0.84
Americas
4
Lecythis poltequi
0.81
Americas
4
Lecythis zabucaja
0.86
Americas
4
Letestua durissima
0.87
Africa
5
Leucaena leucocephala
0.64
Asia
5
Licania macrophylla
0.76
Americas
4
Licania oblongifolia
0.88
Americas
4
Licania octandra
0.77
Americas
4
Licania unguiculata
0.88
Americas
1
Licaria aritu
0.8
Americas
4
Licaria cannella
1.04
Americas
4
Licaria rigida
0.73
Americas
4
Lindackeria sp.
0.41
Americas
5
Linociera domingensis
0.81
Americas
5
Lithocarpus soleriana
0.63
Asia
5
Litsea sp.
0.40
Asia
5
Lonchocarpus sp.
0.69
Americas
5
Lophira alata
0.84-0.97
Africa
3
Lophopetalum sp.
0.46
Asia
5
Lovoa trichilioides
0.45
Africa
5
Loxopterygium sagotii
0.56
Americas
5
Lucuma sp.
0.79
Americas
5
Luehea sp.
0.50
Americas
5
Lueheopsis duckeana
0.62
Americas
4
Mabea piriri
0.59
Americas
5
Macaranga denticulata
0.53
Asia
5
Machaerium sp.
0.70
Americas
5
Maclura tinctoria
0.71
Americas
1
Macoubea guianensis
0.40
Americas
5
Madhuca oblongifolia
0.53
Asia
5
Maesopsis eminii
0.41
Africa
5
Magnolia sp.
0.52
Americas
5
Maguira sclerophylla
0.57
Americas
5
Malacantha sp.
0.45
Africa
5
Mallotus philippinensis
0.64
Asia
5
Malouetia duckei
0.57
Americas
4
Mammea africana
0.62
Africa
5
Mammea americana
0.62
Americas
5
Mangifera indica
0.55
Americas
5
Mangifera sp.
0.52
Asia
5
Manilkara amazonica
0.85
Americas
4
Manilkara bidentata
0.87
Americas
1
Manilkara huberi
0.93
Americas
4
Manilkara lacera
0.78
Africa
5
Maniltoa minor
0.76
Asia
5
Maquira sclerophylla
0.57
Americas
4
Marila sp.
0.63
Americas
5
Markhamia platycalyx
0.45
Africa
5
Marmaroxylon
0.81
Americas
4
racemosum
Mastixia philippinensis
0.47
Asia
5
Matayba domingensis
0.70
Americas
5
Matisia hirta
0.61
Americas
5
Mauria sp.
0.31
Americas
1
Maytenus sp.
0.71
Americas
5
Melanorrhea sp.
0.63
Asia
5
Melia dubia
0.4
Asia
5
Melicope triphylla
0.37
Asia
5
Meliosma macrophylla
0.27
Asia
5
4.64


-3

-3

species
Melochia umbellata
0.25
Asia
5
Memecylon
0.77
Africa
5
capitellatum
Metrosideros collina
0.70-0.76
Asia
5
Mezilaurus itauba
0.70
Americas
4
Mezilaurus lindaviana
0.68
Americas
4
Michelia sp.
0.43
Asia
5
Michropholis sp.
0.61
Americas
5
Microberlinia
0.70
Africa
5
brazzavillensis
Microcos coriaceus
0.42
Africa
5
Microcos stylocarpa
0.40
Asia
5
Micromelum
0.64
Asia
5
compressum
Micropholi guyanensis
0.65
Americas
4
Micropholi venulosa
0.67
Americas
4
Milletia sp.
0.72
Africa
5
Milliusa velutina
0.63
Asia
5
Mimusops elengi
0.72
Asia
5
Minquartia guianensis
0.76
Americas
1
Mitragyna parviflora
0.56
Asia
5
Mitragyna stipulosa
0.47
Africa
5
Monopetalanthus
0.44-0.53
Africa
3
heitzii
Mora excelsa
0.80
Americas
4
Mora gonggrijpii
0.78
Americas
1
Mora megistosperma
0.63
Americas
1
Mouriri barinensis
0.78
Americas
1
Mouriria sideroxylon
0.88
Americas
5
Musanga cecropioides
0.23
Africa
5
Myrciaria floribunda
0.73
Americas
5
Myristica platysperma
0.55
Americas
4
Myristica sp.
0.53
Asia
5
Myroxylon balsamum
0.78
Americas
1
Myroxylon peruiferum
0.78
Americas
1
Nauclea diderrichii
0.63
Africa
5
Nealchornea yapurensis
0.61
Americas
1
Nectandra rubra
0.57
Americas
5
Neesia sp.
0.53
Asia
5
Neonauclea bernardoi
0.62
Asia
5
Neopoutonia
0.32
Africa
5
macrocalyx
Neotrewia cumingii
0.55
Asia
5
Nesogordonia
0.65
Africa
5
papaverifera
Ochna foxworthyi
0.86
Asia
5
Ochroma pyramidale
0.30
Asia
5
Ochtocosmus africanus
0.78
Africa
5
Ocotea guianensis
0.63
Americas
4
Ocotea neesiana
0.63
Americas
4
Octomeles sumatrana
0.27-0.32
Asia
5
Odyendea sp.
0.32
Africa
5
Oldfieldia africana
0.78
Africa
5
Ongokea gore
0.72
Africa
5
Onychopetalum
0.61
Americas
4
amazonicum
Ormosia coccinea
0.61
Americas
1
Ormosia paraensis
0.67
Americas
4
Ormosia schunkei
0.57
Americas
1
Oroxylon indicum
0.32
Asia
5
Otoba gracilipes
0.32
Americas
1
Ougenia dalbergiodes
0.70
Asia
5
Ouratea sp.
0.66
Americas
5
Oxystigma oxyphyllum
0.53
Africa
5
Pachira acuatica
0.43
Americas
5
Pachyelasma
0.70
Africa
5
tessmannii
Pachypodanthium
0.58
Africa
5
staudtii

species
Palaquium sp.
0.55
Asia
5
Pangium edule
0.50
Asia
5
Paraberlinia bifoliolata
0.56
Africa
5
Parashorea stellata
0.59
Asia
5
Paratecoma peroba
0.60
Americas
5
Paratrophis glabra
0.77
Asia
5
Parinari excelsa
0.68
Americas
4
Parinari glabra
0.87
Africa
5
Parinari montana
0.71
Americas
4
Parinari rodolphii
0.71
Americas
4
Parinari sp.
0.68
Asia
5
Parkia multijuga
0.38
Americas
4
Parkia nitada
0.40
Americas
4
Parkia paraensis
0.44
Americas
4
Parkia pendula
0.55
Americas
4
Parkia roxburghii
0.34
Asia
5
Parkia ulei
0.40
Americas
4
Pausandra trianae
0.59
Americas
1
Pausinystalia
0.56
Africa
5
brachythyrsa
Pausinystalia sp.
0.56
Africa
5
Payena sp.
0.55
Asia
5
Peltogyne paniculata
0.89
Americas
4
Peltogyne paradoxa
0.91
Americas
4
Peltogyne
0.89
Americas
1
porphyrocardia
Peltophorum
0.62
Asia
5
pterocarpum
Pentace sp.
0.56
Asia
5
Pentaclethra macroloba
0.43
Americas
1
Pentaclethra
0.78
Africa
5
macrophylla
Pentadesma butyracea
0.78
Africa
5
Persea sp.
0.40-0.52
Americas
5
Peru glabrata
0.65
Americas
5
Peru schomburgkiana
0.59
Americas
5
Petitia domingensis
0.66
Americas
5
Phaeanthus
0.56
Asia
5
ebracteolatus
Phyllanthus discoideus
0.76
Africa
5
Phyllocladus
0.53
Asia
5
hypophyllus
Phyllostylon
0.77
Americas
4
brasiliensis
Pierreodendron
0.70
Africa
5
africanum
Pinus caribaea
0.51
Americas
5
Pinus caribaea
0.48
Asia
5
Pinus insularis
0.47-0.48
Asia
5
Pinus merkusii
0.54
Asia
5
Pinus oocarpa
0.55
Americas
5
Pinus patula
0.45
Americas
5
Piptadenia communis
0.68
Americas
4
Piptadenia grata
0.86
Americas
1
Piptadenia suaveolens
0.75
Americas
4
Piptadeniastrum
0.56
Africa
5
africanum
Piratinera guianensis
0.96
Americas
5
Pisonia umbellifera
0.21
Asia
5
Pithecellobium
0.56
Americas
5
guachapele
Pithecellobium
0.36
Americas
1
latifolium
Pithecellobium saman
0.49
Americas
1
Pittosporum
0.51
Asia
5
pentandrum
Plagiostyles africana
0.70
Africa
5
Planchonia sp.
0.59
Asia
5
Platonia insignis
0.70
Americas
5
4.65
-3

-3

species
Platymiscium sp.
0.71-0.84
Americas
5
Podocarpus oleifolius
0.44
Americas
1
Podocarpus rospigliosii
0.57
Americas
1
Podocarpus sp.
0.43
Asia
5
Poga oleosa
0.36
Africa
5
Polyalthia flava
0.51
Asia
5
Polyalthia suaveolens
0.66
Africa
5
Polyscias nodosa
0.38
Asia
5
Pometia sp.
0.54
Asia
5
Poulsenia armata
0.37-0.44
Americas
1
Pourouma sp.
0.32
Americas
5
Pouteria anibifolia
0.66
Americas
1
Pouteria anomala
0.81
Americas
4
Pouteria caimito
0.87
Americas
4
Pouteria guianensis
0.90
Americas
4
Pouteria manaosensis
0.64
Americas
4
Pouteria oppositifolia
0.65
Americas
4
Pouteria villamilii
0.47
Asia
5
Premna angolensis
0.63
Africa
5
Premna tomentosa
0.96
Asia
5
Prioria copaifera
0.40-0.41
Americas
5
Protium heptaphyllum
0.54
Americas
4
Protium tenuifolium
0.65
Americas
4
Pseudolmedia laevigata
0.62-0.63
Americas
1
Pseudolmedia laevis
0.71
Americas
1
Pteleopsis hylodendron
0.63
Africa
5
Pterocarpus marsupium
0.67
Asia
5
Pterocarpus soyauxii
0.62-0.79
Africa
3
Pterocarpus vernalis
0.57
Americas
1
Pterogyne nitens
0.66
Americas
4
Pterygota sp.
0.52
Africa
5
Pterygota sp.
0.62
Americas
1
Pycnanthus angolensis
0.40-0.53
Africa
3
Qualea albiflora
0.50
Americas
5
Qualea brevipedicellata
0.69
Americas
4
Qualea dinizii
0.58
Americas
5
Qualea lancifolia
0.58
Americas
4
Qualea paraensis
0.67
Americas
4
Quararibea asterolepis
0.45
Americas
1
Quararibea bicolor
0.52-0.53
Americas
1
Quararibea cordata
0.43
Americas
1
Quassia simarouba
0.37
Americas
4
Quercus alata
0.71
Americas
5
Quercus costaricensis
0.61
Americas
5
Quercus eugeniaefolia
0.67
Americas
5
Quercus sp.
0.70
Asia
5
Radermachera pinnata
0.51
Asia
5
Randia cladantha
0.78
Africa
5
Raputia sp.
0.55
Americas
5
Rauwolfia macrophylla
0.47
Africa
5
Rheedia sp.
0.60
Americas
1
Rhizophora mangle
0.89
Americas
4
Ricinodendron
0.20
Africa
5
heudelotii
Rollinia exsucca
0.52
Americas
4
Roupala moniana
0.77
Americas
4
Ruizierania albiflora
0.57
Americas
4
Saccoglottis gabonensis
0.74
Africa
5
Saccoglottis guianensis
0.77
Americas
4
Salmalia malabarica
0.32-0.33
Asia
5
Samanea saman
0.45-0.46
Asia
5
Sandoricum vidalii
0.43
Asia
5
Santiria trimera
0.53
Africa
5
Sapindus saponaria
0.58
Asia
5
Sapium ellipticum
0.50
Africa
5
Sapium luzontcum
0.40
Asia
5
Sapium marmieri
0.40
Americas
1
Schefflera morototoni
0.36
Americas
1
Schizolobium parahyba
0.40
Americas
1

species
Schleichera oleosa
0.96
Asia
5
Schrebera arborea
0.63
Africa
5
Schrebera swietenoides
0.82
Asia
5
Sclerolobium
0.62
Americas
4
chrysopyllum
Sclerolobium paraense
0.64
Americas
4
Sclerolobium
0.65
Americas
4
peoppigianum
Scleronema
0.61
Americas
4
micranthum
Sclorodophloeus
0.68
Africa
5
zenkeri
Scottellia coriacea
0.56
Africa
5
Scyphocephalium
0.48
Africa
5
ochocoa
Scytopetalum tieghemii
0.56
Africa
5
Semicarpus anacardium
0.64
Asia
5
Serialbizia acle
0.57
Asia
5
Serianthes melanesica
0.48
Asia
5
Sesbania grandiflora
0.40
Asia
5
Shorea assamica forma
0.41
Asia
5
philippinensis
Shorea astylosa
0.73
Asia
5
Shorea ciliata
0.75
Asia
5
Shorea contorta
0.44
Asia
5
Shorea palosapis
0.39
Asia
5
Shorea plagata
0.70
Asia
5
Shorea polita
0.47
Asia
5
Shorea robusta
0.72
Asia
5
Shorea sp. (balau)
0.70
Asia
5
Shorea sp. (dark red
0.55
Asia
5
meranti)
Shorea sp. (light red
0.40
Asia
5
meranti)
Sickingia sp.
0.52
Americas
5
Simaba multiflora
0.51
Americas
5
Simarouba amara
0.36
Americas
1
Simira sp.
0.65
Americas
1
Sindoropsis letestui
0.56
Africa
5
Sloanea guianensis
0.79
Americas
5
Sloanea javanica
0.53
Asia
5
Sloanea nitida
1.01
Americas
4
Soymida febrifuga
0.97
Asia
5
Spathodea campanulata
0.25
Asia
5
Spondias lutea
0.38
Americas
4
Spondias mombin
0.31-0.35
Americas
1
Spondias purpurea
0.4
Americas
4
Staudtia stipitata
0.75
Africa
5
Stemonurus luzoniensis
0.37
Asia
5
Sterculia apetala
0.33
Americas
4
Sterculia pruriens
0.46
Americas
4
Sterculia rhinopetala
0.64
Africa
5
Sterculia speciosa
0.51
Americas
4
Sterculia vitiensis
0.31
Asia
5
Stereospermum
0.62
Asia
5
suaveolens
Strephonema
0.56
Africa
5
pseudocola
Strombosia
0.71
Asia
5
philippinensis
Strombosiopsis
0.63
Africa
5
tetrandra
Strychnos potatorum
0.88
Asia
5
Stylogyne sp.
0.69
Americas
5
Swartzia fistuloides
0.82
Africa
5
Swartzia laevicarpa
0.61
Americas
1
Swartzia panacoco
0.97
Americas
4
0.43
Americas
1
0.49-0.53
Asia
5
4.66


-3

-3

species
Swintonia foxworthyi
0.62
Asia
5
Swintonia sp.
0.61
Asia
5
Sycopsis dunni
0.63
Asia
5
Symphonia globulifera
0.58
Africa
5
Symphonia globulifera
0.58
Americas
1
Syzygium cordatum
0.59
Africa
5
Syzygium sp.
0.69-0.76
Asia
5
Tabebuia rosea
0.54
Americas
1
Tabebuia serratifolia
0.92
Americas
1
Tabebuia stenocalyx
0.55-0.57
Americas
5
Tachigalia
0.53
Americas
4
myrmecophylla
Talisia sp.
0.84
Americas
5
Tamarindus indica
0.75
Asia
5
Tapirira guianensis
0.50
Americas
4
Taralea oppositifolia
0.80
Americas
1
Tectona grandis
0.50-0.55
Asia
5
Terminalia amazonica
0.65
Americas
1
Terminalia citrina
0.71
Asia
5
Terminalia copelandii
0.46
Asia
5
Terminalia ivorensis
0.40-0.59
Africa
3
Terminalia microcarpa
0.53
Asia
5
Terminalia nitens
0.58
Asia
5
Terminalia oblonga
0.73
Americas
1
Terminalia pterocarpa
0.48
Asia
5
Terminalia superba
0.40-0.66
Africa
3
Terminalia tomentosa
0.73-0.77
Asia
5
Ternstroemia
0.53
Asia
5
megacarpa
Tessmania africana
0.85
Africa
5
Testulea gabonensis
0.60
Africa
5
Tetragastris altissima
0.74
Americas
4
Tetragastris panamensis
0.76
Americas
4
Tetrameles nudiflora
0.30
Asia
5
Tetramerista glabra
0.61
Asia
5
Tetrapleura tetraptera
0.50
Africa
5
Thespesia populnea
0.52
Asia
5
Thyrsodium guianensis
0.63
Americas
4
Tieghemella africana
0.53-0.66
Africa
3
Toluifera balsamum
0.74
Americas
5
Torrubia sp.
0.52
Americas
5
Toulicia pulvinata
0.63
Americas
5
Tovomita guianensis
0.60
Americas
5
Trattinickia sp.
0.38
Americas
5
Trema orientalis
0.31
Asia
5
Trema sp.
0.40
Africa
5
Trichilia lecointei
0.90
Americas
4
Trichilia prieureana
0.63
Africa
5
Trichilia propingua
0.58
Americas
5
Trichoscypha arborea
0.59
Africa
5
Trichosperma
0.41
Americas
5
mexicanum
Trichospermum richii
0.32
Asia
5
Triplaris cumingiana
0.53
Americas
5
Triplochiton
0.28-0.44
Africa
3
scleroxylon.
Tristania sp.
0.80
Asia
5
Trophis sp.
0.44
Americas
1
Turpinia ovalifolia
0.36
Asia
5
Vantanea parviflora
0.86
Americas
4
Vatairea guianensis
0.70
Americas
4
Vatairea paraensis
0.78
Americas
4
Vatairea sericea
0.64
Americas
4
Vateria indica
0.47
Asia
5
Vatica sp.
0.69
Asia
5
Vepris undulata
0.70
Africa
5
Virola michelii
0.50
Americas
4
Virola reidii
0.35
Americas
1
Virola sebifera
0.37
Americas
1

species
Vismia sp.
0.41
Americas
5
Vitex doniana
0.40
Africa
5
Vitex sp.
0.52-0.57
Americas
5
Vitex sp.
0.65
Asia
5
Vitex stahelii
0.60
Americas
5
Vochysia densiflora
0.29
Americas
1
Vochysia ferruginea
0.37
Americas
1
Vochysia guianensis
0.53
Americas
4
Vochysia lanceolata
0.49
Americas
1
Vochysia macrophylla
0.36
Americas
1
Vochysia maxima
0.47
Americas
4
Vochysia melinonii
0.51
Americas
4
Vochysia obidensis
0.5
Americas
4
Vochysia surinamensis
0.66
Americas
4
Vouacapoua americana
0.79
Americas
4
Warszewicsia coccinea
0.56
Americas
5
Wrightia tinctorea
0.75
Asia
5
Xanthophyllum
0.63
Asia
5
excelsum
Xanthoxylum
0.46
Americas
5
martinicensis
Xanthoxylum sp.
0.44
Americas
5
Xylia xylocarpa
0.73-0.81
Asia
5
Xylopia frutescens
0.64
Americas
5
Xylopia nitida
0.57
Americas
4
Xylopia staudtii
0.36
Africa
5
Zanthoxylum rhetsa
0.33
Asia
5
Zizyphus sp.
0.76
Asia
5
4.67
1
TABLE 4.14
BASIC WOOD DENSITY (D) OF SELECTED
TEMPERATE AND BOREAL TREE TAXA
(OVEN-DRY TONNES (MOIST M-3))
Taxon
Source
Abies spp.
0.40
Acer spp.
0.52
2
2
Alnus spp.
0.45
Betula spp.
0.51
Fagus sylvatica
0.58
Fraxinus spp.
0.57
Larix decidua
0.46
Picea abies
0.40
Picea sitchensis
0.40
Pinus pinaster
0.44
Pinus radiata
0.38 (0.33-0.45)
Pinus strobus
0.32
1
2
Pinus sylvestris
0.42
Populus spp.
0.35
Prunus spp.
0.49
Pseudotsuga menziesii
0.45
Quercus spp.
0.58
Salix spp.
0.45
Tilia spp.
0.43
1 = Beets et al. 2001

2 = Dietz 1975
3 = Knigge and Shulz 1966
4 = Rijsdijk and Laming 1994
4.68

Annex 4A.1 GLOSSARY FOR FOREST LAND
2
Terminology for stocks and changes in forests as defined in this volume
component
state
increase
decrease from harvest
growing stock
net annual increment
removals
growing stock biomass
increment biomass
removals biomass
total above-ground
biomass
above-ground biomass
growth
removals
total below-ground
biomass
below-ground biomass
below-ground biomass
growth
below-ground biomass1
removals
total above-and belowground biomass
total biomass
total biomass growth
biomass removals
merchantable volume
biomass in the
merchantable volume
carbon in
carbon
(in any of the compartments above, e.g. carbon in growing stock or biomass removals), or in
litter, deadwood and soil organic matter
3
4
5
ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS
All living biomass above the soil including stem, stump, branches, bark, seeds and foliage.
7
8
Where the forest understorey is a relatively small component of the above-ground biomass, it is acceptable to
exclude it, provided this is done in a consistent manner throughout the inventory time series.
ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS GROWTH
10
11
12
Oven-dry weight of net annual increment (s.b) of a tree, stand or forest plus oven-dry weight of annual growth of
branches, twigs, foliage, top and stump. The term growth is used here instead of increment , since the latter
term tends to be understood in terms of merchantable volume.
13
AFFORESTATION2
14
15
The direct human-induced conversion of land that has not been forested for a period of at least 50 years to
forested land through planting, seeding and/or the human-induced promotion of natural seed sources.
16
AGROFORESTRY
17
18
19
A land-use system that involves deliberate retention, introduction, or mixture of trees or other woody perennials
in crop and animal production systems to take advantage of economic or ecological interactions among the
components. (Dictionary of Forestry, helms, 1998, Society of American Foresters).
20
ASSISTED NATURAL REGENERATION
21
22
23
24
25
26
Natural regeneration of forest/other wooded land with deliberate human intervention aimed at enhancing the
ability of desired species to regenerate. Interventions may include removal of external pressures, such as weeds
and biotic interference; the application of controlled disturbances to trigger germination of native species such as
mosaic and or ecological burns; or the preparation of the germination site e.g. through scarification. The source
of seed or vegetative reproduction is limited to the site and its immediate surroundings and may comprise both
native and introduced species.
27
1
2
Occurs in some cases, e.g. where root stocks (walnut) or entire root systems are removed (biomass harvesting)
In the context of the Kyoto Protocol, as stipulated by the Marrakesh Accords, cf. paragraph 1 of the Annex to draft decision
-/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p.58.
4.69
1
BASIC WOOD DENSITY
Ratio between oven dry mass and fresh stem-wood volume without bark.
BELOW-GROUND BIOMASS
4
5
6
7
8
All biomass of live roots. Includes the below-ground part of the stump. The country may use another threshold
value than 2 mm for fine roots, but in such a case the threshold value used must be documented. Fine roots of
less than 2 mm diameter are excluded, because these often cannot be distinguished empirically from soil organic
matter or litter. Fine roots of less than (suggested) 2mm diameter are sometimes excluded because these often
cannot be distinguished empirically from soil organic matter or litter.
BIOMASS CONVERSION AND EXPANSION FACTOR (BCEF)
10
11
12
13
14
A multiplication factor that coverts merchantable volume of growing stock, merchantable volume of net annual
increment or merchantable volume of wood-and fuelwood removals to above-ground biomass, above-ground
biomass growth or biomass removals, repectively. Biomass conversion and expansion factors for growing stock
( BCEFS), for net annual increment (BCEFI) and for wood- and fuelwood removal (BCEFR) usually differ. As
used in these guidelines, they account for above-ground components only. For more detail see Box 4.2.
15
B I O M A S S E X P A N S I O N F A C T O R (BEF)
16
17
18
19
20
21
A multiplication factor that expands the dry-weight of growing stock biomass, increment biomass, and biomass
of wood- or fuelwood removals to account for non-merchantable or non-commercial biomass components, such
as stump, branches, twigs, foliage, and, sometimes, non-commercial trees. Biomass ecpansion factors usually
differ for growing stock (BEFS), net annual increment (BEFI) and wood- and fuelwood removals (BEFR). As
used in these guidelines, biomass expansion factors account for above-ground components only. For more detail
see Box 4.2.
22
BIOMASS REMOVALS
23
24
Biomass of wood- and firewood removals (s.b.) plus oven-dry weight of branches, twigs, foliage of the trees or
stands removed.
25
BURNING/FIRE COMPLETENESS
26
27
The share of the total amount of biomass in a given unit or area which burns in a fire. Often used in combination
with combustion efficiency.
28
CANOPY COVER
29
See crown cover
30
CARBON CONTENT
31
Absolute amount of carbon in a pool or parts of it.
32
CARBON FRACTION
33
Tons of carbon per ton of biomass dry matter.
34
CARBON IN
35
36
See table above; absolute amount in tonnes, obtained by multiplying amount of biomass in respective
component by the applicable carbon fraction, usually 50%.
37
CARBON STOCK
38
The quantity of carbon in a pool.
39
CARBON STOCK CHANGE
40
41
The carbon stock in a pool changes due to gains and losses. When losses exceed gains, the stock decreases, and
the pool acts as a source; when gains exceed losses , the pools acts as a sink.
42
CLOSED FOREST
43
Formations where trees in the various stories and the undergrowth cover a high proportion of the ground (>40%)
44
CONVERSION
45
Change of one land use to another.
4.70

CONVERSION FACTOR
2
3
Multiplier that transforms the measurement units of an item without affecting its size or amount. For example,
basic wood density is a conversion factor that transforms green volume of wood into dry weight.
CROWN COVER
5
6
The percentage of the ground covered by a vertical projection of the outermost perimeter of the natural spread of
the foliage . Cannot exceed 100%.
C U R R E N T A N N U A L I N C R E M E N T (CAI)
8
9
10
Increment in terms of merchantable volume observed in a tree, stand or forest in a specific one-year period.
Usually not directly measurable in practice; instead an average periodic value, net annual increment (s.b.) is
measured and used.
11
DEAD WOOD
12
13
14
Includes volume of all non-living wood not contained in the litter, either standing, lying on the ground, or in the
soil. Dead wood includes wood lying on the surface, dead roots, and stumps larger than or equal to 10 cm in
diameter or any other diameter used by the country. . Includes dead roots to usually 2mm diameter.
15
DEAD WOOD BIOMASS
16
17
18
All non-living woody biomass not contained in the litter, either standing, lying on the ground, or in the soil.
Dead wood includes wood lying on the surface, dead roots down to a diameter of 2mm, and stumps larger than
or equal to 10 cm in diameter or any other diameter used by the country.
19
DEFORESTATION3
20
The direct human-induced conversion of forested land to non-forested land.
21
DISTURBANCE
22
23
24
25
A disturbance is defined as an environmental fluctuation and destructive event that disturb forest health,
structure, and/or change resources or physical environment at any given spatial or temporal scale. Disturbances
that affect health and vitality, include biotic agents such as insects and diseases and abiotic agents such as fire,
pollution and extreme weather conditions (see also below, mortality and other disturbance).
26
DISTURBANCE BY DISEASES
27
Disturbances caused by diseases attributable to pathogens, such as bacteria, fungi, phytoplasma or virus.
28
DISTURBANCE BY FIRE
29
30
Disturbance caused by wildfire, regardless of whether it broke out inside or outside the Forest. A wildfire is any
unplanned and uncontrolled wildland fire which, regardless of ignition source, may require suppression response.
31
DISTURBANCE BY INSECTS
32
Disturbance caused by insect pests that are detrimental to tree health.
33
DRY (FOREST)
34
35
36
Moisture regimes for boreal and temperate zones are defined by the ratio of mean annual precipitation (MAP)
and potential evapotranspiration (PET): Dry (MAP/PET < 1) and Wet (MAP/PET > 1); and for tropical zones by
precipitation alone: Dry (MAP < 1,000 mm), Moist (MAP: 1,000-2,000 mm) and Wet (MAP > 2,000 mm).
37
D R Y M A T T E R ( D.M. )
38
Dry matter refers to biomass that has been dried to an oven-dry state, often at 70C.
39
EXTENSIVE FOREST MANAGEMENT
40
A regime of minimum intervention in forests.
41
FELLINGS
42
43
Volume (over bark) of all trees, living or dead, above a 10cm diameter at breast height felled annually in forests
or other wooded land. It includes volume of all felled trees whether or not they are removed. It includes
3
4.71
1
2
silvicultural and pre-commercial thinning and cleanings of trees of more than 10cm diameter left in the forest,
and natural losses that are recovered.
3
4
Note: In these guidelines, only the terms wood removal and fuelwood removal are used, consistent with
GFRA 2005. Removals are generally a subset of fellings.
FOREST4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Forest is a minimum area of land of 0.05 1.0 hectares with tree crown cover (or equivalent stocking level) of
more than 10 30 per cent with trees with the potential to reach a minimum height of 2 5 metres at maturity in
situ. A forest may consist either of closed forest formations where trees of various storeys and undergrowth
cover a high portion of the ground or open forest. Young natural stands and all plantations which have yet to
reach a crown density of 10 30 per cent or tree height of 2 5 metres are included under forest, as are areas
normally forming part of the forest area which are temporarily unstocked as a result of human intervention such
as harvesting or natural causes but which are expected to revert to forest.
13
FOREST DEGRADATION
14
15
Changes within the forest which negatively affect the structure or function of the stand or site, and thereby lower
the capacity to supply products and/or services.
16
FOREST INVENTORY
17
System for measuring the extent, quantity and condition of a forest, usually by sampling.
18
19
1.
A set of objective sampling methods designed to quantify the spatial distribution, composition, and rates of
change of forest parameters within specified levels of precision for the purpose of management
20
21
2.
the listing of data from such a survey. May be made of all forest resources including trees and other
vegetation, fish, insects, and wildlife, as well as street trees and urban forest trees.
22
FOREST IMPROVEMENT
23
24
Changes within the forest which positively affect the structure or function of the stand or site, and thereby
increase the capacity to supply products and/or services.
25
FOREST LAND
26
27
28
29
This category includes all land with woody vegetation consistent with thresholds used to define forest land in the
national GHG inventory, sub-divided at the national level into managed and unmanaged and also by ecosystem
type as specified in the IPCC Guidelines. It also includes systems with vegetation that currently falls below, but
is expected to exceed, the threshold of the forest land category.
30
FOREST MANAGEMENT5
31
32
A system of practices for stewardship and use of forest land aimed at fulfilling relevant ecological (including
biological diversity), economic and social functions of the forest in a sustainable manner.
33
FOREST PLANTATION
34
35
36
Forest stands established by planting or/and seeding in the process of afforestation or reforestation. They are
either of introduced species (all planted stands), or intensively managed stands of indigenous species, which
meet all the following criteria: one or two species at planting, even age class, regular spacing.
37
FUELWOOD REMOVAL
38
39
40
41
42
The wood removed for energy production purposes, regardless of whether for industrial, commercial or domestic
use. Fuel wood includes wood collected or removed directly from forest or other wooded land for energy
purposes only and excludes fuelwood which is produced as a by-product or residual matter from the industrial
processing of round wood. Includes removal from fellings in an earlier period and from trees killed or damaged
by natural causes. Includes removal by local people or owners for their own use.
Forest management has particular meaning under the Marrakesh Accords, which may require subdivision of the managed
forest as described in Chapter 4.
4.72

GROSS ANNUAL INCREMENT
2
3
4
The average annual increment of merchantable volume over the reference period of all trees measured to a
specified minimum diameter at breast height (varies by country). Includes increment of trees which have been
felled or die due to mortality (s.a.).
GROWING STOCK
6
7
8
9
10
11
Volume over bark of all living trees more than X cm in diameter at breast height. Includes the stem from ground
level or stump height up to a top diameter of Y cm, and may also include branches to a minimum diameter of W
cm.Countries indicate the three thresholds (X, Y, W in cm) and the parts of the tree that are not included in the
volume. Countries also indicate whether the reported figures refer to volume above ground or above stump. The
diameter is measured at 30 cm above the end of the buttresses if these are higher than 1 meter. Includes
windfallen living trees. Excludes: Smaller branches, twigs, foliage, flowers, seeds, and roots.
12
GROWING STOCK BIOMASS
13
Oven-dry weight of the growing stock (s.a.).
14
HARVEST LOSS
15
16
Difference between assessed merchantable volume of growing stock and the actual volume of the harvested
timber. Due to different measurement rules for standing and felled timber, losses from bucking, breakage, defect.
17
H U M U S H O R I ZO N (H)
18
19
20
Horizon consisting by far of finely distributed organic matter (but still on top of the mineral soil horizons).
Macroscopically recognisable parts of plants remain, but occur to much lesser extent than the finely distributed
organic matter. The horizon can contain mineral soil particles.
21
INCREMENT BIOMASS
22
Oven-dry weight of (merchantable) net annual increment of a tree, stand or forest.
23
INTENSIVE FOREST MANAGEMENT
24
25
A regime of forest management, where silvicultural practices define the structure and composition of forest
stands. A formal or informal forest management plan exists.
26
27
A forest is not under intensive management, if mainly natural ecological processes define the structure and
composition of stands.
28
INTRODUCED SPECIES
29
A species introduced outside of its normal past and current distribution.
30
LFH L AYERS
31
Soil horizons. For details see individual definitions under litter horizon, fermented horizon and humus horizon.
32
LITTER
33
34
35
36
Includes all non-living biomass with a diameter less than a minimum diameter chosen by the country (for
example 10 cm), lying dead, in various states of decomposition above the mineral or organic soil. This includes
litter, fumic, and humic layers. Live fine roots (of less than the suggested diameter limit for below-ground
biomass) are included in litter where they cannot be distinguished from it empirically.
37
L I T T E R H O R I ZO N (L)
38
39
A horizon consisting of relatively fresh dead plant material, it may be colourised, but does not contain
excrements from soil fauna. It is not or only partly fragmented.
40
L O W A C T I V I T Y C L A Y (LAC) S O I L S
41
42
Soils with low activity clay (LAC) minerals are highly weathered soils dominated by 1:1 clay mineral and
amorphous iron and aluminium oxides (in FAO classification included: Acrisols, Nitosols, Ferrasols).
43
MANAGED FOREST
44
A managed forest is a forest subject to forest management (s.a.)
4.73
1
MERCHANTABLE VOLUME
2
3
Defined by the same variables and limits as growing stock (s.a.); can be applied to growing stock, net annual
increment, and wood removals.
MOIST (FOREST)
5
6
7
MORTALITY
9
10
Trees dying naturally from competition in the stem-exclusion stage of a stand or forest. AS used here, mortality
does not include losses due to disturbances (s.a.)
11
NATIVE SPECIES
12
13
A native species is one which naturally exists at a given location or in a particular ecosystem, i.e. it has not been
moved there by humans.
14
(CBD web site: http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/areas/forest/definitions.asp)
15
The term Native species is synonymous with Indigenous species.
16
NATURAL FOREST
17
A forest composed of indigenous trees and not classified as a forest plantation.
18
19
NATURAL REGENERATION
20
21
22
Re-establishment of a forest stand by natural means , i.e. by natural seeding or vegetative regeneration. It may be
assisted by human intervention, e.g. by scarification of the soil or fencing to protect against wildlife or domestic
animal grazing.
23
NET ANNUAL INCREMENT
24
25
Average annual volume of gross increment over the given reference period minus mortality (s.a.), of all trees to a
specified minimum diameter at breast height. As used here, it is not net of losses due to disturbances (s.a.)
26
OPEN FORESTS
27
28
Forests characterised by crown cover below 40%, and above the minimum canopy cover threshold adopted by
the Party.
29
ORGANIC SOILS
30
Soils are organic if they satisfy the requirements 1 and 2, or 1 and 3 below (FAO, 1998):
31
32
1) Thickness of organic horizon greater than or equal to 10 cm. A horizon of less than 20 cm must have
12 percent or more organic carbon when mixed to a depth of 20 cm.
33
34
2) Soils that are never saturated with water for more than a few days must contain more than 20 percent
organic carbon by weight (i.e., about 35 percent organic matter).
35
3) Soils is subject to water saturation episodes and has either
36
37
a.
has no clay; or
38
39
b.
has 60% or more clay; or
40
c.
An intermediate, proportional amount of organic carbon for intermediate amounts of clay.
41
OTHER DISTURBANCE
42
43
Disturbance caused by factors other than fire, insects or diseases.. May include areas affected by drought,
flooding, windfalls, acid rain, etc.
4.74

PEAT SOIL (ALSO HISTOSOL)
2
3
A typical wetland soil with a high water table and an organic layer of at least 40 cm thickness (poorly drained
organic soil).
PERMANENT CROPS
5
6
7
land cultivated with crops that occupy the land for long periods and need not be replanted after each harvest,
such as cocoa, coffee and rubber; this category includes land under flowering shrubs, fruit trees, nut trees and
vines, but excludes land under trees grown for wood or timber.
POOL/CARBON POOL
9
10
A reservoir. A system which has the capacity to accumulate or release carbon. Examples of carbon pools are
forest biomass, wood products, soils and the atmosphere. The units are mass.
11
PRODUCTIVE PLANTATION
12
13
14
15
Forest of introduced species and in some cases native species, established through planting or seeding mainly for
production of wood or non wood goods. Includes all stands of introduced species established for production of
wood or non-wood goods. May include areas of native species characterized by few species, straight tree lines
and/or even-aged stands.
16
PROTECTIVE PLANTATION
17
18
19
Forest of native or introduced species, established through planting or seeding mainly for provision of services.
Includes all stands of introduced species established for provision of environmental services, such as soil and
water protection, pest control and conservation of habitats to biological diversity.
20
Includes areas of native species characterized by few species, straight tree lines and evenaged stands.
21
22
PRIMARY FOREST
23
24
Of native species, where there are no clearly visible indications of human activities and the ecological processes
are not significantly disturbed.
25
26
Includes areas where collection of non-wood forest products occurs, provided the human impact is small. Some
trees may have been removed.
27
REFORESTATION6
28
29
30
31
Direct human-induced conversion of non-forested land to forested land through planting, seeding and/or the
human-induced promotion of natural seed sources, on land that was forested but that has been converted to nonforested land. For the first commitment period, reforestation activities will be limited to reforestation occurring
on those lands that did not contain forest on 31 December 1989.
32
REMOVAL BIOMASS
33
Oven dry weight of wood removals
34
REVEGETATION7
35
36
37
A direct human-induced activity to increase carbon stocks on sites through the establishment of vegetation that
covers a minimum area of 0.05 hectares and does not meet the definitions of afforestation and reforestation
contained here.
38
ROOT-SHOOT RATIO
39
40
Ratio of below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass; applies to above-ground biomass, above-ground

biomass growth, biomass removals and may differ for these components.
4.75
1
ROUNDWOOD
2
3
4
5
6
7
All round wood felled or otherwise harvested and removed,; it comprises all wood obtained from removals, e.g.
quatities removed from forests and from trees outside forests, including wood recovered from natural, felling and
logging losses during a period. In the production statistics it represents the sum of fuelwood, including wood for
charcoal, saw-and veneer logs, pulpwood and other industrial roundwood. In the trade statistics, it represents the
sum of industrial roundwood, and fuelwood, including wood for charcoal. It is reported in cubic meters
excluding bark.
SANDY SOILS
9
10
Includes all soils (regardless of taxonomic classification) having > 70% sand and < 8 % clay (based on standard
textural measurements (in FAO classification include: Arenosols, sandy Regosols)).
11
SAVANNA
12
13
Savannas are tropical and subtropical formations with continuous grass cover, occasionally interrupted by trees
and shrubs. Savannas are found in Africa, Latin America, Asia and Australia.
14
SEASONAL (FOREST)
15
Semi-deciduous forests with a distinct wet and dry season and rainfall between 1,200 and 2,000 mm per year.
16
SECONDARY FOREST
17
18
19
20
Forest Forest regenerated largely through natural processes after significant human or natural disturbance of the
original forest vegetation. The disturbance may have occurred at a single point in time or over an extended
period;the forest may display significant differences in structure and/or canopy species composition in relation to
nearby primary forest on similar sites
21
STANDREPLACING DISTURBANCES
22
23
Major disturbances which kill or remove all the existing trees above the forest floor vegetation. Minor
disturbances leave some of the pre-disturbance trees alive.
24
SHRUB
25
26
27
Woody perennial plants, generally more than 0.5 meters and less than 5 meters in height at maturity and without
definite crown. Height limits for trees and shrubs should be interpreted with flexibility, particularly the minimum
tree and maximum shrub height, which may vary between 5 and 7 meters.
28
SILVICULTURE
29
30
The art and science of controlling the establishment, growth, composition, health and quality of forest and
woodlands to meet the targeted diverse needs and values of landowners and society on a sustainable basis.
31
SOIL CARBON
32
33
34
35
Organic carbon in mineral and organic soils (including peat) to a specified depth chosen by the country and
applied consistently through the time series. Live fine roots of less than 2 mm (or other value chosen by the
country as diameter limit for below-ground biomass) are included with soil organic matter where they cannot be
distinguished from it empirically.
36
SOIL ORGANIC MATTER
37
38
39
40
Includes organic matter in mineral and organic soils (including peat) to a specified depth chosen by the country
and applied consistently through the time series. Live fine roots (of less than the suggested diameter limit for
below-ground biomass) are included with soil organic matter where they cannot be distinguished from it
empirically.
41
SPODIC SOILS
42
Soils exhibiting strong podzolization (in FAO classification includes many Podzolic groups).
43
TOTAL BIOMASS
44
45
46
Growing stock biomass of trees, stands or forests plus biomass of branches, twigs, foliage, seeds, stumps, and
sometimes, non-commercial trees. Differentiated into above-ground biomass and below-ground biomass (s.a.). If
there is no misunderstanding possible also just biomass with the same meaning.
4.76

TOTAL BIOMASS GROWTH
2
3
4
5
6
Biomass of the net annual increment ( s.a) of trees, stands, or forests, plus the biomass of the growth of
branches, twigs, foliage, seeds, stumps, and sometimes, non-commercial trees. Differentiated into above-ground
biomass growth and below-ground biomass growth (s.a.). If there is no misunderstanding possible also just
biomass growth with the same meaning. The term growth is used here instead of increment , since the
latter term tends to be understood in terms of merchantable volume.
TREE
8
9
A woody perennial with a single main stem, or in the case of coppice with several stems, having a more or less
definitive crown. Includes bamboos, palms, and other woody plants meeting the above criteria.
10
UNDERSTOREY
11
All forest vegetation growing under an overstorey. Synonym: undergrowth
12
VOLUME OVERBARK
13
14
15
Growing stock or merchantable wood measured outside, that is including the bark. Bark adds 5-25 % of total
volume, depending on tree diameter and bark thickness of species. The weighted average bark percentage
calculated from the data of TBFRA 2000 is 11 % of the volume outside bark.
16
VOLUME UNDERBARK
17
Growing stock or merchantable wood without the bark. See above.
18
WET (FOREST)
19
20
21
22
WOODY BIOMASS
23
Biomass from trees, bushes and shrubs, for palms, bamboos not strictly correct in the botanical sense
24
WOOD FUEL
25
26
Also wood- based fuels, wood-derived biofuels. All types of biofuels originating directly or indirectly from
woody biomass.
27
WOOD REMOVAL
28
29
30
31
32
33
The wood removed (volume of round wood over bark) for production of goods and services other than energy
production (fuelwood). The term removal differs from fellings as it excludes felled trees left in the forest.
Includes removal from fellings of an earlier period and from trees killed or damaged by natural causes. Includes
removal by local people or owners for their own use. As the term removal is used in the contect of climate
chanhe to indicate sequestration of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, removal in the context of forest
harvesting should always be used as wood- or fuelwood removalto exclude misunderstandings.
34
4.77
1
References
2
3
AGO, 2002. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Land Use Change in Australia: An Integrated Application of the
National Carbon Accounting System (2002). Australian Greenhouse Gas Office.
4
5
Andreae, M.O. and P. Merlet. 2001. Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass burning. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles 15: 955-966.
6
7
8
9
10
11
Baker, T.R., O.L. Phillips, Y. Malhi, S. Almeida, L. Arroyo, A. Di Fiore, T. Erwin, N. Higuchi, T.J. Killeen, S.G.
Laurance, W.F. Laurance, S.L. Lewis, A. Monteagudo, D.A. Neill, P.N. Vargas, N.C.A. Pitman, J.N.M. Silva,
and R.V. Martnez. 2004a. Increasing biomass in Amazonian forest plots. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London B 359: 353-365.
12
13
14
15
Baker, T.R., O.L. Phillips, Y. Malhi, S. Almeida, L. Arroyo, A. Di Fiore, T. Erwin, T.J. Killeen, S.G. Laurance,
W.F. Laurance, S.L. Lewis, J. Lloyd, A. Monteagudo, D.A. Neill, S. Patio, N.C.A. Pitman, J.N.M. Silva,
and R.V. Martnez. 2004b. Variation in wood density determines spatial patterns in Amazonian forest
biomass. Global Change Biology 10: 545-562.
16
17
Barbosa, R.I. and P.M. Fearnside. 2004. Wood density of trees in open savannas of the Brazilian Amazon. Forest
Ecology and Management 199: 115-123.
18
19
20
Battles, J.J., J.J. Armesto, D.R. Vann, D.J. Zarin, J.C. Aravena, C. Prez, and A.H. Johnson. 2002. Vegetation
composition, structure, and biomass of two unpolluted watersheds in the Cordillera de Piuchu, Chilo Island,
Chile. Plant Ecology 158: 5-19.
21
22
Beets, P.N., K. Gilchrist, M.P. Jeffreys. 2001. Wood density of radiata pine: Effect of nitrogen supply. Forest
23
24
25
Bhatti J.S., Apps M.J., and Jiang H. (2001). Examining the carbon stocks of boreal forest ecosystems at stand
and regional scales. In: Lal R. et al. (eds.) Assessment Methods for Soil Carbon, Lewis Publishers, Boca
Raton FL, pp. 513-532.
26
27
Cairns, M.A., S. Brown, E.H. Helmer, and G.A. Baumgardner. 1997. Root biomass allocation in the worlds
upland forests. Oecologia 111: 1-11.
28
Cannell, M.G.R. 1982. World forest biomass and primary production data. Academic Press, New York, NY.
29
30
Centre Technique Forestier Tropical (CTFT). 1989. Memento du Forestier, 3e dition. Ministre Franais de la
Coopration et du Dveloppement, Paris, France.
31
32
33
Chambers J.Q., E.S. Tribuzy, L.C. Toledo, B.F. Crispim, N. Higuchi, J. dos Santos, A.C. Arajo, B. Kruijt, A.D.
Nobre, and S.E. Trumbore. 2004. Respiration from a tropical forest ecosystem: Partitioning of sources and
low carbon use efficiency. Ecological Applications 14: S72-S88.
34
35
Chambers, J.Q., J. dos Santos, R.J. Ribeiro, and N. Higuchi. 2001a. Tree damage, allometric relationships, and
above-ground net primary production in a tropical forest. Forest Ecology and Management 152: 73-84.
36
37
Chambers, J.Q., J.P. Schimel, and A.D. Nobre. 2001b. Respiration from coarse wood litter in Central Amazon
Forests. Biogeochemistry 52: 115-131.
38
39
40
Clark, D.A., S.C. Piper, C.D. Keeling, and D.B. Clark. 2003. Tropical rain forest tree growth and atmospheric
carbon dynamics linked to interannual temperature variation during 1984-2000. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the USA 100: 5852-5857.
41
42
de Groot, W.J., Bothwell, P.M., Carlsson, D.H., and Logan, K.A. 2003.Simulating the effects of future fire
regimes on western Canadian boreal forests. Journal of Vegetation Science 14: 355-364
43
DeWalt, S.J. and J. Chave. 2004. Structure and biomass of four lowland Neotropical forests. Biotropica 36: 7-19.
44
Dietz, P. 1975. Dichte und Rindengehalt von Industrieholz. Holz Roh- Werkstoff 33: 135-141.
45
46
Dixon R.K., Brown S., Houghton R. A., Solomon A. M., Trexler M. C., and Wisniewski J. (1994). Carbon pools
and flux of global forest ecosystems. Science 263(1544): 185-190.
47
48
49
Dong, J., R.K. Kaufmann, R.B. Myneni, C.J. Tucker, P.E. Kauppi, J. Liski, W. Buermann, V. Alexeyev, M.K.
Hughes. 2003. Remote sensing estimates of boreal and temperate forest woody biomass: Carbon pools,
sources, and sinks. Remote Sensing of Environment 84: 393-410.
4.78

1
2
Dub, S., A.P. Plamondon, R.L. Rothwell. 1995. Watering up after clear-cutting on forested wetlands of the St.
Lawrence lowland. Water Resources Research 31 :1741-1750.
3
4
Echeverria, C. and A. Lara. 2004. Growth patterns of secondary Nothofagus obliqua-N. alpina forests in
southern Chile. Forest Ecology and Management 195: 29-43.
5
6
7
Ellert B.H., Janzen H.H., and McConkey B.G. (2001). Measuring and comparing soil carbon storage. In: R. Lal,
J.M. Kimble, R.F. Follett and B.A. Stewart (eds.). Soil Management for Enhancing Carbon Sequestration.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL., pp. 593-610.
8
9
10
Falloon P, and P. Smith (2003) Accounting for changes in soil carbon under the Kyoto Protocol: need for
improved long-term data sets to reduce uncertainty in model projections. Soil Use and Management, 19, 265269.
11
12
Fearnside, P.M. 1997. Wood density for estimating forest biomass in Brazilian Amazonia. Forest Ecology and
Management 90: 59-87.
13
14
Feldpausch, T.R., M.A. Rondon, E.C.M. Fernandes, and S.J. Riha. 2004. Carbon and nutrient accumulation in
secondary forests regenerating on pastures in central Amazonia. Ecological Applications. 14: S164-S176.
15
16
17
Filipchuk et al., 2000 Filipchuk, A.N., Strakhov, V.V., Borisov, B.A. et al. (2000) A Brief National Overview on
Forestry Sector and Wood Products: Russian Federation. UN ECE, FAO. New York, Geneva.
ECE/TIM/SP/18, p. 94 (In Russian).
18
19
Fittkau, E.J. and N.H. Klinge. 1973. On biomass and trophic structure of the central Amazonian rainforest
ecosystem. Biotropica 5: 2-14.
20
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1995
21
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2001. Global forest resources assessment 2000. FAO, Rome, Italy.
22
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). in press. Global forest resources assessment 2005. FAO, Rome, Italy.
23
24
Gayoso, J. and B. Schlegel. 2003. Estudio de lnea de base de carbono: Carbono en bosques nativos, matorrales y
praderas de la Dcima Regin de Chile. Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile.
25
26
Gayoso, J., J. Guerra, and D. Alarcn. 2002. Contenido de carbono y funciones de biomasa en especies natives y
exticas. Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile.
27
28
Gower, S.T., O. Krankina, R.J. Olson, M. Apps, S. Linder, and C. Wang. 2001. Net primary production and
carbon allocation patterns of boreal forest ecosystems. Ecological Applications 11: 1395-1411.
29
30
Hall, G.M.J. 2001. Mitigating an organization's future net carbon emissions by native forest restoration.
Ecological Applications 11: 1622-1633.
31
32
Hall, G.M.J., and D. Y. Hollinger. 1997. Do the indigenous forests affect the net CO2 emission policy of New
Zealand? New Zealand Forestry 41: 24-31.
33
34
Hall, G.M.J., S.K. Wiser, R.B. Allen, P.N. Beets, and C.J. Goulding. 2001. Strategies to estimate national forest
carbon stocks from inventory data: The 1990 New Zealand baseline. Global Change Biology 7: 389-403.
35
36
37
Harmand, J.M., C.F. Njiti, F. Bernhard-Reversat, and H. Puig. 2004. Aboveground and belowground biomass,
productivity and nutrient accumulation in tree improved fallows in the dry tropics of Cameroon. Forest
38
39
40
Harmon M.E. and Marks B. (2002). Effects of silvicultural practices on carbon stores in Douglas-fir-western
hemlock forests in the Pacific Northwest, USA: results from a simulation model. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 32 (5): 863-877.
41
42
43
Harmon, M.E., Franklin, J.F., Swanson, F.J., Sollins, P., Gregory, S.V., Lattin, J.D., Anderson, N.H., Cline, S.P.,
Aumen, N.G., Sedell, J.R., Lienkaemper, G.W., Cromack, J.R. & Cummins, K.W. 1986. Ecology of coarse
woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Advances in Ecological Research 15: 133302.
44
45
Hessl, A.E., C. Milesi, M.A. White, D.L. Peterson, and R. Keane. 2004. Ecophysiological parameters for Pacific
Northwest trees. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, OR.
46
47
Hinds, H.V. and J.S. Reid. 1957. Forest trees and timbers of New Zealand. New Zealand Forest Service Bulletin
12: 1-221.
48
49
Hughes, R.F., J.B. Kauffman, and V.J. Jaramillo. 1999. Biomass, carbon, and nutrient dynamics of secondary
forests in a humid tropical region of Mxico. Ecology 80: 1892-1907.
4.79
1
2
Hughes, R.F., J.B. Kauffman, and V.J. Jaramillo-Luque. 2000. Ecosystem-scale impacts of deforestation and
land use in a humid tropical region of Mxico. Ecological Applications 10: 515-527.
3
4
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1996. Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories. UK Meteorological Office, Bracknell, UK.
5
6
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2003. Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use
Change and Forestry. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Japan.
7
8
9
Jenkins, J.C., D.C. Chojnacky, L.S. Heath, and R.A. Birdsey. 2004. Comprehensive database of diameter-based
biomass regressions for North American tree species. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Newtown Square, PA.
10
11
Jobbagy E.G., and Jackson R.B. (2000). The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate
and vegetation. Ecological Applications 19(2):423-436.
12
13
Johnson D.W., and Curtis P.S. (2001). Effects of forest management on soil C and N storage: meta analysis.
Forest Ecology and Management 140: 227-238.
14
15
Johnson D.W., Knoepp J.D., Swank W.T. (2002). Effects of forest management on soil carbon: results of some
long-term resampling studies. Environment Pollution 116: 201-208.
16
Knigge, W. and H. Schulz, 1966. Grundriss der Forstbenutzung. Verlag Paul Parey, Hamburg, Berlin.
17
Kppen, W. 1931. Grundriss der Klimakunde. Walter deGruyter Co., Berlin, Germany.
18
19
Kraenzel, M., A. Castillo, T. Moore and C. Potvin. 2003. Carbon storage of harvest-age teak (Tectona grandis)
plantations, Panama. Forest Ecology and Management 173: 213-225.
20
21
Kurz W.A., M.J. Apps, E. Banfield and G. Stinson, 2002. Forest carbon accounting at the operational scale. The
Forestry Chronicle 78: 672-679.
22
23
24
Kurz, W.A. and M.J. Apps. In press. Developing Canadas National Forest Carbon Monitoring, Accounting and
Reporting System to meet the reporting requirements of the Kyoto Protocol, Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies for Global Change, in press.
25
26
Kurz, W.A., M.J. Apps, T.M. Webb, and P.J. McNamee. 1992. The carbon budget of the Canadian forest sector:
phase I. Forestry Canada, Northwest Region. Information Report NOF-X-326, 93 pp.
27
28
29
Kurz, W.A., S.J. Beukema and M.J. Apps. 1998. Carbon budget implications of the transition from natural to
managed disturbance regimes in forest landscapes. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
2:405-421.
30
31
Kurz, W.A., S.J. Beukema, and M.J. Apps. 1996. Estimation of root biomass and dynamics for the carbon
budget model of the Canadian forest sector. Can. J. For. Res. 26:1973-1979.
32
33
Lamlom, S.H. and R.A. Savidge. 2003. A reassessment of carbon content in wood: variation within and between
41 North American species. Biomass and Bioenergy 25: 381-388
34
35
Lasco, R.D. and F.B. Pulhin. 2003. Philippine forest ecosystems and climate change: Carbon stocks, rate of
sequestration and the Kyoto Protocol. Annals of Tropical Research 25: 37-51.
36
37
Levy, P.E., S.E. Hale, B.C. Nicoll. 2004. Biomass expansion factors and root : shoot ratios for coniferous tree
species in Great Britain. Forestry 77: 421-430.
38
39
40
Li, C. and Apps, M.J., 2002. Fire Regimes and the Carbon Dynamics of Boreal Forest Ecosystems. In Shaw C.
and Apps MJ (Eds). The role of Boreal Forests and Forestry in the Global Carbon Budget, Northern Forestry
Centre Report Fo42-334/2000E, 107-118.
41
42
43
Li, C., W.A. Kurz, M.J. Apps, and S.J. Beukema. 2003. Belowground biomass dynamics in the Carbon Budget
Model of the Canadian Forest Sector: recent improvements and implications for the estimation of NPP and
NEP. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33: 126-136.
44
45
Liski J., Pussinen A., Pingoud K., Makipaa R., Karjalainen T. (2001). Which rotation length is favourable to
carbon sequestration? Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31: 2004-2013.
46
47
48
Loveland, T.R, B.C. Reed, J.F. Brown, D.O. Ohlen, Z. Zhu, L. Yang, and J.W. Merchant. 2000. Development of
a global land cover characteristics database and IGBP DISCover from 1-km AVHRR data. International
Journal of Remote Sensing 21: 1303-1330.
49
50
Lugo, A.E., D. Wang and F.H. Bormann. 1990. A comparative analysis of biomass production in five tropical
tree species. Forest Ecology and Management 31: 153-166.
4.80

1
2
3
4
5
Malhi, Y., T.R. Baker, O.L. Phillips, S. Almeida, E. Alvarez, L. Arroyo, J. Chave, C.I. Czimczik, A. Di Fiore, N.
Higuchi, T.J. Killeen, S.G. Laurance, W.F. Laurance, S.L. Lewis, L.M.M. Montoya, L.M., A. Monteagudo,
D.A. Neill, P.N. Vargas, S. Patio, N.C.A. Pitman, C.A. Quesada, R. Salomos, J.N.M. Silva, A.T. Lezama,
R.V. Martnez, J. Terborgh, B. Vinceti, and J. Lloyd. 2004. The above-ground coarse wood productivity of
104 Neotropical forest plots. Global Change Biology 10: 563-591.
Matthews, G.A.R. 1993. The carbon content of trees. UK Forestry Commission, Edinburgh, UK.
7
8
McGroddy, M.E., T. Daufresne, and L.O. Hedin. 2004 Scaling of C:N:P stoichiometry in forests worldwide:
Implications of terrestrial Redfield-type ratios. Ecology 85: 2390-2401.
9
10
11
McKenzie N.J., Cresswell H.P., Ryan P.J., and Grundy M. (2000). Opportunities for the 21st century: Expanding
the horizons for soil, plant, and water analysis. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 31: 15531569.
12
13
Mokany, K., J.R. Raison, and A.S. Prokushkin. 2006. Critical analysis of root:shoot ratios in terrestrial biomes.
Global Change Biology 12: 84-96.
14
15
Monte L, L. Hakanson, U. Bergstrom, J. Brittain, and R. Heling (1996) Uncertainty analysis and validation of
environmental models: the empirically based uncertainty analysis. Ecological Modelling 91:139-152.
16
17
18
Monts, N., V. Bertaudire-Montes, W. Badri, E.H. Zaoui, and T. Gauquelin. 2002. Biomass and nutrient
content of a semi-arid mountain ecosystem: the Juniperus thurifera L. woodland of Azzaden Valley
(Morocco). Forest Ecology and Management 166: 35-43.
19
20
Nygrd, R., L. Sawadogo, and B. Elfving. 2004. Wood-fuel yields in short-rotation coppice growth in the north
Sudan savanna in Burkina Faso. Forest Ecology and Management 189: 77-85.
21
22
23
Ogle S.M., Breidt F.J., Eve M.D., and Paustian K. (2003). Uncertainty in estimating land use and management
Biology 9:1521-1542.
24
25
Ogle, S.M., F.J. Breidt and Paustian K. in review. Bias and variance in model results due to spatial scaling of
measurements for parameterization in regional assessments. Global Change Biology.
26
27
Post WM, and K.C. Kwon (2000) Soil carbon sequestration and land-use change: processes and potential. Global
Change Biology 6:317-327.
28
29
Poupon, H. 1980. Structure et dynamique de la strate ligneuse dune steppe Sahlienne au nord du Sngal.
Office de la Recherche Scientifique et Technique Outre-Mer, Paris, France.
30
31
32
Powers, J. S., J. M. Read, J. S. Denslow, and S. M. Guzman (2004) Estimating soil carbon fluxes following landcover change: a test of some critical assumptions for a region in Costa Rica. Global Change Biology 10:170181.
33
Pregitzer K.S. (2003). Woody plants, carbon allocation and fine roots. New Phytologist 158 (3): 421-424.
34
35
Reyes, G., S. Brown, J. Chapman, and A.E. Lugo. 1992. Wood densities of tropical tree species. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, New Orleans, LA.
36
37
Rijsdijk, J.F. and P.B. Laming. 1994. Physical and related properties of 145 timbers. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
38
39
Saldarriaga, J.G., D.C. West, M.L. Tharp, and C. Uhl. 1988. Long term chronosequence of forest succession in
the upper Rio Negro of Colombia and Venezuela. Journal of Ecology 76: 938-958.
40
41
Scott N.A., Tate K.R., Giltrap D.J., et al. (2002). Monitoring land-use change effects on soil carbon in New
Zealand: quantifying baseline soil carbon stocks. Environmental Pollution 116: 167-186.
42
43
44
Sebei, H., A. Albouchi, M. Rapp, and M.H. El Aouni. 2001. valuation de la biomasse arbore et arbustive dans
une squence de dgradation de la suberaie Cytise de Kroumirie (Tunisie). Annals of Forest Science 58:
175-191.
45
46
Siltanen et al. (1997). A soil profile and organic carbon data base for Canadian forest and tundra mineral soils.
Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, Alberta.
47
48
Singh, K. and R. Misra. 1979. Structure and Functioning of Natural, Modified and Silvicultural Ecosystems in
Eastern Uttar Pradesh. Banras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.
49
50
Singh, S.S., B.S. Adhikari, and D.B. Zobel. 1994. Biomass, productivity, leaf longevity, and forest structure in
the central Himalaya. Ecological Monographs 64: 401-421.
4.81
1
2
3
4
Smithwick, E.A.H., M.E. Harmon, S.M. Remillard, S.A. Acker, and J.F. Franklin. 2002. Potential upper bounds
of carbon stores in forests of the Pacific Northwest. Ecological Applications 12: 1303-1317.
5
6
7
Stape, J.L., D. Binkley, and M.G. Ryan. 2004. Eucalyptus production and the supply, use and efficiency of use
of water, light and nitrogen across a geographic gradient in Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management 193: 1731.
8
9
10
11
Stephens, P.; Trotter, C.; Barton, J.; Beets, P.;Goulding, C.;Moore, J.;Lane, P.; Payton, I., 2005: Key elements in
the development of New Zealands carbon monitoring, accounting and reporting system to meet Kyoto
Protocol LULUCF good practice guidance, Poster paper presented at IUFRO World Congress, Brisbane
Australia, August 2005.
12
13
14
Stocks, B.J., Mason, J.A., Todd, J.B., Bosch, E.M., Wotton, B.M., Amiro, B.D., Flannigan, M.D., Hirsch, K.G.,
Logan, K.A., Martell, D.L., and Skinner, W.R.: 2002, Large forest fires in Canada, 1959 1997, Journal of
Geophysical Research, 107, 8149 [printed 108(D1), 2003].
15
16
17
18
19
Trotter, C., Barton, J., Beets, P., Goulding, C., Lane, P., Moore, J., Payton, I., Rys, G., Stephens, P., Tate, K.,
and Wakelin, S. (2005). New Zealands approach to forest inventory under the UNFCCC and Kyoto
Protocol. Proceedings of the International Workshop of Forest Inventory for the Kyoto Protocol (Eds
Matsumoto, M. and Kanomata, H.), pp. 3343, published by: Division of Policy and Economics, Forestry
and Forest Products Research Institute, 1 Matsunosato, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8687, Japan.
20
21
22
Trotter, C.M. 1991. Remotely sensed data as an information source for Geographical Information Systems in
natural resource management. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 5, No. 2, 225240.
23
24
Ugalde, L. and O. Perez. 2001. Mean annual volume increment of selected industrial forest planatation species.
Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.
25
26
27
Webbnet Land Resource Services Pty ltd, (1999)
28
29
Wulder, M., W.A. Kurz, W.A. and M. Gillis, 2004. National level forest monitoring and modeling in Canada,
Progress in Planning, Volume 61:365-381
30
31
Zianis, D., P. Muukkonen, R. Mkip, and M. Mencuccini. 2005. Biomass and stem volume equations for tree
species in Europe. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki, Finland.
32
4.82
Chapter 5: Cropland

2
3
CHAPTER 5
CROPLAND
5.1
1
Authors
2
3
Rodel D. Lasco (Philippines), Stephen M. Ogle (USA), John Raison (Australia), Louis V. Verchot
(ICRAF/USA), Reiner Wassmann (Germany), and Kazuyuki Yagi (Japan)
4
5
6
Sumana Bhattacharya (India), John S. Brenner (USA), Julius P. Daka (Zambia), Sergio P. Gonzalez (Chile),
Thelma Krug (Brazil), Li Yue (China), Daniel L. Martino (Uruguay), Brian G. McKonkey (Canada), Pete Smith
(UK), Stanley C. Tyler (USA), and Washington Zhakata (Zimbabwe)
7
8
9
10
Ronald L. Sass (USA) and Xiaoyuan Yan (China)
5.2
Chapter 5: Cropland

Content
5.1
Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 6
5.2
Cropland Remaining Cropland.................................................................................................................... 7
5.2.1
Biomass ........................................................................................................................................... 7
5.2.1.1
Choice of Methods .......................................................................................................................... 7
5.2.1.2
Choice of Emission Factors............................................................................................................. 8
5.2.1.3
Choice of Activity Data................................................................................................................. 10
5.2.1.4
Calculation Steps for Tier 1 and Tier 2 ......................................................................................... 11
10
5.2.1.5
Uncertainty Assessment ................................................................................................................ 12
11
5.2.2
Dead Organic Matter.................................................................................................................... 12
12
5.2.2.1
Choice of Method.......................................................................................................................... 13
13
5.2.2.2
Choice of Emission/Removal Factors ........................................................................................... 13
14
5.2.2.3
15
5.2.2.4
Calculation Steps for Tiers 1 and 2 ............................................................................................... 14
16
5.2.2.5
17
5.2.3
Soil Carbon .................................................................................................................................. 15
18
5.2.3.1
Choice of Method.......................................................................................................................... 15
19
5.2.3.2
Choice of Stock Change and Emission Factor .............................................................................. 16
20
5.2.3.3
21
5.2.3.4
Calculation Steps for Tier 1 .......................................................................................................... 21
22
5.2.3.5
23
5.2.4
Greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning........................................................................ 23
24
5.2.4.1
Choice of Method.......................................................................................................................... 23
25
5.2.4.2
Choice of Emission Factors........................................................................................................... 23
26
5.2.4.3
27
5.2.4.4 Uncertainty Assessment .................................................................................................................... 24
28
29
5.3
Land Converted to Cropland ..................................................................................................................... 24
5.3.1 Biomass.................................................................................................................................................... 25
30
5.3.1.1
Choice of Methods ........................................................................................................................ 25
31
5.3.1.2
32
5.3.1.3
33
5.3.1.4
34
5.3.1.5
35
5.3.2
36
5.3.2.1
Choice of Method.......................................................................................................................... 30
37
5.3.2.2
38
5.3.2.3
5.3
1
5.3.2.4
5.3.2.5
5.3.3
Soil Carbon .................................................................................................................................. 34
5.3.3.1
Choice of Method.......................................................................................................................... 34
5.3.3.2
Choice of Stock Change and Emission Factors............................................................................. 35
5.3.3.3
5.3.3.4
Calculation Steps for Tier 1 .......................................................................................................... 36
5.3.3.5
5.3.4
Greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning........................................................................ 37
10
5.3.4.1
Choice of Method.......................................................................................................................... 38
11
5.3.4.2
12
5.3.4.3
13
5.3.4.4
14
5.4 Completeness, Time Series, QA/QC, and Reporting ...................................................................................... 39
15
5.4.1
Completeness ............................................................................................................................... 39
16
5.4.2
Developing a Consistent Times Series ......................................................................................... 40
17
5.4.3
Quality Assurance and Quality Control ....................................................................................... 41
18
5.4.4
Reporting and Documentation...................................................................................................... 41
19
5.5
Methane Emissions from Rice cultivation ................................................................................................ 42
20
5.5.1
Choice of method ......................................................................................................................... 43
21
5.5.2
Choice of emission and scaling factors ........................................................................................ 46
22
5.5.3
Choice of activity data.................................................................................................................. 49
23
5.5.4
Uncertainty Assessment ............................................................................................................... 50
24
5.5.5
Completeness, Time Series, QA/QC, and Reporting ................................................................... 50
25
Completeness ................................................................................................................................................ 50
26
Developing a consistent time series .............................................................................................................. 51
27
Reporting and documentation ....................................................................................................................... 51
28
Inventory quality assessment/quality control (QA/QC) ................................................................................ 51
29
30
Annex 5A.1 Estimation of Default Stock Change Factors for Mineral Soil C Emissions/Removals for
Cropland............................................................................................................................................................ 53
31
Equations
32
33
Equation 5.1 CH4 Emissions from Rice Cultivation ...................................................................................43
34
Equation 5.2 Adjusted Daily Emission Factor............................................................................................46
35
Equation 5.3 Adjusted CH4 emission scaling factors for organic amendments ..........................................48
36
37
5.4
Chapter 5: Cropland

Figures
2
3
4
5
6
7
Figure 5.1 Classification scheme for Cropland Systems. In order to classify cropland management
systems, the inventory compiler should start at the top and proceed through the diagram
answering questions (move across branches if answer is yes) until reaching a terminal
point on the diagram. The classification diagram is consistent with default stock change
factors in Table 5.5. C input classes (i.e., Low, Medium, High and High with organic
amendment) are further subdivided by tillage practice. .....................................................20
Figure 5.2 Decision Tree for CH4 Emissions from Rice Production .........................................................45
10
Tables
11
12
Table 5.1 Default coefficients for aboveground woody biomass and harvest cycles in
cropping systems containing perennial species....................................................................9
13
14
Table 5.2 Potential C storage for agroforestry systems in different ecoregions of the world,
in tonnes ha-1 ........................................................................................................................9
15
Table 5.3 Default above ground biomass for various types of perennial croplands (tonnes/ha)...................9
16
Table 5.4 Examples of perennial cropland sub-categories which a country may have..............................10
17
18
Table 5.5 Relative stock change factors (FLU, FMG, and FI) (over 20 years) for different
management activities on cropland ....................................................................................17
19
Table 5.6 Annual emission factors (EF) for cultivated organic soils..........................................................18
20
21
Table 5.7 Example of a simple disturbance matrix (Tier 2) for the impacts of land
conversion activities on carbon pools ................................................................................26
22
Table 5.8 Default biomass carbon stocks removed due to land conversion to Cropland...........................27
23
24
Table 5.9 Default biomass carbon stocks present on land converted to cropland in the
year following conversion..................................................................................................27
25
Table 5.10 Soil stock change factors (FLU, FMG, FI) for land-use conversions to cropland........................35
26
27
28
Table 5.11 Default CH4 Baseline emission Factor Assuming no flooding less than
180 days prior to rice cultivation and continuously flooded during rice
cultivation without organic amendments ...........................................................................47
29
30
Table 5.12 Default CH4 emission scaling factors for water regimes during the
cultivation period relative to continuously flooded fields..................................................47
31
Table 5.13 Default CH4 emission scaling factors for water regimes before the cultivation period ............48
32
Table 5.14 Default conversion factor for different types of organic amendment .......................................49
33
34
Boxes
35
Box 5.1 Relevant carbon pools for cropland.................................................................................................6
36
Box 5.2 Conditions Influencing CH4 Emissions from Rice Cultivation .....................................................44
37
5.5
1
5.1 INTRODUCTION
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
This section provides a tiered methodology for estimating and reporting greenhouse gas emissions from
croplands. Cropland includes arable and tillable land, rice fields, and agro-forestry systems where the vegetation
structure falls below the thresholds used for the Forest land category, and is not expected to exceed those
thresholds at a later time. Cropland includes all annual and perennial crops as well as temporary fallow land (i.e.,
land set at rest for one or several years before being cultivated again). Annual crops include cereals, oils seeds,
vegetables, root crops and forages. Perennial crops include trees and shrubs, in combination with herbaceous
crops (e.g. agroforestry) or as orchards, vineyards and plantations such as cocoa, coffee, tea, oil palm, coconut,
rubber trees, and bananas, except where these lands meet the criteria for categorisation as Forest land. Arable
land which is normally used for cultivation of annual crops but which is temporarily used for forage crops or
grazing as part of an annual crop-pasture rotation (mixed system) is included under cropland.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
The amount of carbon stored in and emitted or removed from permanent cropland depends on crop type,
management practices, and soil and climate variables. For example, annual crops (e.g. cereals, vegetables) are
harvested each year, so there is no long-term storage of carbon in biomass. However, perennial woody
vegetation in orchards, vineyards, and agroforestry systems can store significant carbon in long-lived biomass,
the amount depending on species type and cultivar, density, growth rates, and harvesting and pruning practices.
Carbon stocks in soils can be significant and changes in stocks can occur in conjunction with soil properties and
management practices, including crop type and rotation, tillage, drainage, residue management and organic
amendments. Burning of crop residue produces significant non-CO2 greenhouse gases and the calculation
methods are provided.
21
22
23
24
25
26
There is separate guidance for Cropland remaining Cropland (CC) and land converted to Cropland (LC) because
of the difference in carbon dynamics. Land-use conversions to Cropland from Forest land, Grassland and
Wetlands usually result in a net loss of carbon from biomass and soils as well as N2O to the atmosphere.
However, cropland established on previously sparsely vegetated or highly disturbed lands (e.g. mined lands) can
result in a net gain in both biomass and soil carbon. Some changes, especially those dealing with soil carbon,
may take place in periods of time longer than one year. The guidance covers the carbon pools shown in Box 5.1.
27
28
29
30
The term land-use conversion refers only to lands coming from one type of use into another. In cases where
existing perennial cropland is replanted to the same or different crops, the land use remains Cropland; therefore,
the carbon stock changes should be estimated using the methods for Cropland remaining Cropland, as described
in Section 5.2 below.
31
32
33
BOX 5.1
RELEVANT CARBON POOLS FOR CROPLAND
34
Biomass
35
- Above ground biomass
36
- Below ground biomass

Dead organic matter
37
38
- Deadwood
39
- Litter
Soil carbon
40
41
42
The new features of the 2006 Guidelines relative to 1996 Guidelines are the following:
43
the whole Cropland section is new
44
biomass carbon and soil carbon are in the same section
45
methane emissions from rice are included in the Cropland category
46
47
non-CO2 gas emissions from biomass burning (Cropland remaining Cropland and land converted to
Cropland) are also included in the Cropland chapter
48
default values are provided for biomass on Cropland and agroforestry areas
5.6
Chapter 5: Cropland

5.2 CROPLAND REMAINING CROPLAND
2
3
4
5
This section provides guidelines on greenhouse gas inventory for Croplands that have not undergone any landuse conversion for a period of at least 20 years as a default period1. Section 5.3 provides guidelines on land
converted to Cropland more recently than this. The annual greenhouse gas emissions and removals from
Cropland remaining Cropland include:
Estimates of annual change in C stocks from all C pools and sources
Estimates of annual emission of non CO2 gases from all pools and sources.
The changes in carbon stocks in Cropland remaining Cropland are estimated using Equation 2.3.
5.2.1 Biomass
10
5.2.1.1
11
12
13
14
15
Carbon can be stored in the biomass of croplands that contain perennial woody vegetation, including, but not
limited to, monocultures such as coffee, oil palm, coconut, rubber plantations, fruit and nut orchards, and
polycultures such as agroforestry systems. The default methodology for estimating carbon stock changes in
woody biomass is provided in Chapter 2 Section 2.2.1. This section elaborates this methodology with respect to
estimating changes in carbon stocks in biomass in Cropland remaining Cropland.
16
17
18
The change in biomass is only estimated for perennial woody crops. For annual crops, increase in biomass stocks
in a single year is assumed equal to biomass losses from harvest and mortality in that same year - thus there is no
net accumulation of biomass carbon stocks.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Changes in carbon in cropland biomass (CCCB) may be estimated from either: (a) annual rates of biomass gain
and loss (Chapter 2 Equation 2.7) or (b) carbon stocks at two points in time (Chapter 2 Equation 2.8). The first
approach (gain-loss method) provides the default Tier 1 method and can also be used at Tier 2 or 3 with
refinements described below. The second approach (the stock-difference method) applies either at Tier 2 or Tier
3, but not Tier 1. It is good practice to improve inventories by using the highest feasible tier given national
circumstances. It is good practice for countries to use a Tier 2 or Tier 3 method if carbon emissions and
removals in Cropland remaining Cropland is a key category and if the sub-category of biomass is considered
significant. It is good practice for countries to use the decision tree in Figure 1.2 in Chapter 1 to identify the
appropriate tier to estimate changes in carbon stocks in biomass.
28
Tier 1
29
30
31
32
The default method is to multiply the area of perennial woody cropland by a net estimate of biomass
accumulation from growth and subtract losses associated with harvest or gathering or disturbance (according to
Equation 2.7 in Chapter 2). Losses are estimated by multiplying a carbon stock value by the area of cropland on
which perennial woody crops are harvested.
33
34
35
36
37
38
Default Tier 1 assumptions are: all carbon in perennial woody biomass removed (e.g., biomass cleared and
replanted with a different crop) is emitted in the year of removal; and perennial woody crops accumulate carbon
for an amount of time equal to a nominal harvest/maturity cycle. The latter assumption implies that perennial
woody crops accumulate biomass for a finite period until they are removed through harvest or reach a steady
state where there is no net accumulation of carbon in biomass because growth rates have slowed and incremental
gains from growth are offset by losses from natural mortality, pruning or other losses.
39
Under Tier 1, default factors shown in Table 5.1, are applied to nationally derived estimates of land areas.
40
Tier 2
41
42
43
44
Two methods can be used for Tier 2 estimation of changes in biomass. Method 1 (also called the Gain-Loss
Method) requires the biomass carbon loss to be subtracted from the biomass carbon increment for the reporting
year (Chapter 2 Equation 2.7). Method 2 (also called the Stock-Difference Method) requires biomass carbon
stock inventories for a given land-use area at two points in time (Chapter 2 Equation 2.8).
C HOICE
OF
M ETHODS
Countries using higher tier methods may use different time periods depending on the time taken for carbon stocks to
equilibrate after change in land use.
5.7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A Tier 2 estimate, in contrast, will generally develop estimates for the major woody crop types by climate zones,
using country-specific carbon accumulation rates and stock losses where possible or country-specific estimates
of carbon stocks at two points in time. Under Tier 2, carbon stock changes are estimated for above-ground and
below-ground biomass in perennial woody vegetation and for below-ground biomass of annual crops. Tier 2
methods involve country- or region-specific estimates of biomass stocks by major cropland types and
management system and estimates of stock change as a function of major management system (e.g. dominant
crop, productivity management). To the extent possible, it is good practice for countries to incorporate changes
in perennial crop or tree biomass using country- or region-specific data. Where data are missing, default data
may be used.
10
Tier 3
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
A Tier 3 estimate will use a highly disaggregated Tier 2 approach or a country-specific method involving process
modelling and/or detailed measurement. Tier 3 involves inventory systems using statistically-based sampling of
carbon stocks over time and/or process models, stratified by climate, cropland type and management regime. For
example, validated species specific growth models that incorporate management effects such as harvesting and
fertilization, with corresponding data on management activities, can be used to estimate net changes in cropland
biomass carbon stocks over time. Models, perhaps accompanied by measurements like those in forest
inventories, can be used to estimate stock changes and extrapolate to entire cropland areas, as in Tier 2.
18
19
20
21
Key criteria in selecting appropriate models are that they are capable of representing all of the management
practices that are represented in the activity data. It is critical that the model be validated with independent
observations from country or region-specific field locations that are representative of climate, soil and cropland
management systems in the country.
22
5.2.1.2
23
24
25
Emission and removal factors required to estimate the changes in carbon stocks include (a) annual biomass
accumulation or growth rate and (b) biomass loss factors which are influenced by such as activities as removal
(harvesting), fuelwood gathering and disturbance.
26
Above ground woody biomass growth rate
27
Tier 1
28
29
30
Tables 5.1 to 5.3 provide estimates of biomass stocks and biomass growth rates and losses for major climatic
regions and agricultural systems. However, given the large variation in cropping systems, incorporating trees or
tree crops, it is good practice to seek national data on above ground woody biomass growth rate.
31
Tier 2
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Annual woody biomass growth rate data can be, at a finer or disaggregated scale, based on national data sources
for different cropping and agro-forestry systems. Rates of change in annual woody biomass growth rate should
be estimated in response to changes in specific management/land-use activities (e.g. fertilization, harvesting,
thinning). Results from field research should be compared to estimates of biomass growth from other sources to
verify that they are within documented ranges. It is important, in deriving estimates of biomass accumulation
rates, to recognize that biomass growth rates will occur primarily during the first 20 years following changes in
management, after which time the rates will tend towards a new steady-state level with little or no change
occurring unless further changes in management conditions occur.
40
Tier 3
41
42
43
44
For Tier 3, highly disaggregated factors for biomass accumulation are needed. These may include categorisation
of species, specific for growth models that incorporate management effects such as harvesting and fertilization.
Measurement of above-ground biomass similar to forest inventory with periodic measurement above-ground
biomass accumulation is necessary.
C HOICE
OF
E MISSION F ACTORS
45
5.8
Chapter 5: Cropland

1
TABLE 5.1
DEFAULT COEFFICIENTS FOR ABOVE-GROUND WOODY BIOMASS AND HARVEST CYCLES IN CROPPING SYSTEMS CONTAINING
PERENNIAL SPECIES
Above-ground
biomass carbon
stock at harvest
(tonnes C ha-1)
Harvest
/Maturity
cycle
(yr)
Biomass
accumulation rate
(G)
(tonnes C ha-1 yr-1)
Biomass carbon loss

(L)
(tonnes C ha-1)
Error range1
Temperate (all
moisture regimes)
63
30
2.1
63
+ 75%
Tropical, dry
1.8
+ 75%
Tropical, moist
21
2.6
21
+ 75%
Tropical, wet
50
10.0
50
+ 75%
Climate region
Note: Values are derived from the literature survey and synthesis published by Schroeder (1994).
1
Represents a nominal estimate of error, equivalent to two times standard deviation, as a percentage of the mean.
2
3
TABLE 5.2
POTENTIAL C STORAGE FOR AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS IN DIFFERENT ECOREGIONS OF THE WORLD, IN TONNES HA-1
Africa
S America
S America
SE Asia
SE Asia
Australia
N America
N America
N America
N Asia
Ecoregion
Humid tropical high
Humid tropical low
Dry lowlands
Humid tropical
Dry lowlands
Humid topical
Humid tropical high
Humid tropical low
Dry lowlands
Humid tropical low
System
Agrosilvicultural
Agrosilvicultural
Agrosilvicultural
Agrosilvicultural
Agrosilvicultural
Silvopastoral
Silvopastoral
Silvopastoral
Silvopastoral
Silvopastoral
41
70.5
117
120
75
39.5
143.5
151
132.5
16.5
Range
29- 53
39- 102
39- 195
12-228
68-81
28- 51
133-154
104- 198
90-175
15-18
Source: Albrecht and Kandji, 2003
4
5
TABLE 5.3
DEFAULT ABOVE GROUND BIOMASS FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF PERENNIAL CROPLANDS (TONNES/HA)
Cropland Type
Oil Palm
Mature rubber
Young rubber
Young cinnamon (7 years)
Coconut
Improved fallow
2-year fallow
1-year fallow
6-year fallow (average)
Alley cropping
Multistorey system
Jungle rubber
Gmelina-cacao
Eco-region
SE Asia
SE Asia
SE Asia
SE Asia
SE Asia
Above-ground
biomass
136
178
48
68
196
E Africa
E Africa
SE Asia
SE Asia
35
12
16
2.9
SE Asia
SE Asia
304
116
Range
62-202
Error
78
90
16-80
47
27-44
7-21
4-64
1.5-4.5
40
89
References
Palm et al., 1999
Wasrin et al., 2000
Siregar & Gintings, 2000
Lasco et al., 2002
105
Albrecht and Kandji, 2003

Albrecht and Kandji, 2003
Lasco and Suson, 1999
Lasco et al., 2001
17
53
Tomich et al., 1998

Lasco et al., 2001
5.9
1
Below ground biomass accumulation:
2
3
Tier 1: The default assumption is that there is no change in below ground biomass of perennial trees in
agricultural systems. Default values for below ground biomass for agricultural systems are not available.
4
5
6
7
8
Tier 2: This includes the use of actually measured below ground biomass data from dominant agricultural
systems. Estimating below-ground biomass accumulation is recommended for Tier 2 calculation. Root-to-shoot
ratios show wide ranges in values at both individual species (e.g. Anderson et al., 1972) and community scales
(e.g. Jackson et al., 1996; Cairns et al., 1997). Limited data is available for below ground biomass thus, as far as
possible, empirically-derived root-to-shoot ratios specific to a region or vegetation type should be used.
9
10
Tier 3: This includes the use of data from field studies identical to forest inventories and modelling studies, if
stock difference method is adopted.
11
Biomass losses from removal, fuelwood and disturbance:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Tier 1: The default assumption is that all biomass lost is assumed to be emitted in the same year. Biomass
removal, fuelwood gathering and disturbance loss data from cropland source are not available. FAO provides
total roundwood and fuelwood consumption data, but not separated by source (e.g., Cropland, Forest land, etc.).
It is recognized that statistics on fuelwood are extremely poor and uncertain worldwide. Default removal and
fuelwood gathering statistics (discussed in Chapter 4 Section 4.2) may include biomass coming from cropland
such as when firewood is harvested from home gardens. Thus, it is necessary to ensure no double counting of
losses occurs. If no data are available for roundwood or fuelwood sources from cropland, the default approach
will include losses in Forest land (Section 4.2) and will exclude losses from cropland.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Tiers 2 and 3: National level data at a finer scale, based on inventory studies or production and consumption
studies according to different sources, including agricultural systems, can be used to estimate biomass loss.
These can be obtained through a variety of methods, including estimating density (crown coverage) of woody
vegetation from air photos (or high resolution satellite imagery) and ground-based measurement plots. Species
composition, density and above- vs. below-ground biomass can vary widely for different cropland types and
conditions and thus it may be most efficient to stratify sampling and survey plots by cropland types. General
guidance on survey and sampling techniques for biomass inventories is given in Chapter 3 Annex 3A.3.
27
5.2.1.3
28
29
30
31
32
Activity data in this section refer to estimates of land areas of growing stock and harvested land with perennial
woody crops. The area data are estimated using the approaches described in Chapter 3. They should be regarded
as strata within the total cropland area (to keep land-use data consistent) and should be disaggregated depending
on the tier used and availability of growth and loss factors. Examples of cropland sub-categories are given in
Table 5.4.
C HOICE
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA
33
TABLE 5.4
EXAMPLES OF PERENNIAL CROPLAND SUB-CATEGORIES WHICH A COUNTRY MAY HAVE
Broad sub-categories
Specific Sub-categories
Fruit orchards
Mango, Citrus, Apple
Plantation crops
Rubber, Coconut, Oil, palm, Coffee, Cacao
Agroforestry systems
Hedgerow cropping (alley cropping), Improved fallow,

Multi-storey systems, Home gardens, Boundary
planting, Windbreaks
34
35
Tier 1
36
37
38
39
40
41
Under Tier 1, annual or periodic surveys are used in conjunction with the approaches outlined in Chapter 3 to
estimate the average annual area of established perennial woody crops and the average annual area of perennial
woody crops that are harvested or removed. The area estimates are further sub-divided into general climate
regions or soil types to match the default biomass gain and loss values. Under Tier 1 calculations, international
statistics such as FAO databases, and other sources can be used to estimate the area of land under perennial
woody crops.
42
5.10
Chapter 5: Cropland

Tier 2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Under Tier 2, more detailed annual or periodic surveys are used to estimate the areas of land in different classes
of perennial woody biomass crops. Areas are further classified into relevant sub categories such that all major
combinations of perennial woody crop types and climatic regions are represented with each area estimate. These
area estimates must match any country-specific biomass carbon increment and loss values developed for the Tier
2 method. If country-specific finer resolution data are only partially available, countries are encouraged to
extrapolate to the entire land base of perennial woody crops using sound assumptions from best available
knowledge.
Tier 3
10
11
12
13
14
Tier 3 requires high-resolution activity data disaggregated at sub-national to fine grid scales. Similar to Tier 2,
land area is classified into specific types of perennial woody crops by major climate and soil categories and other
potentially important regional variables (e.g., regional patterns of management practices). Furthermore, it is good
practice to relate spatially explicit area estimates with local estimates of biomass increment, loss rates, and
management practices to improve the accuracy of estimates.
15
5.2.1.4
16
17
18
Summary of steps for estimating change in carbon stocks in biomass in Cropland

Remaining Cropland (C B ) using the Tier 1 and Tier 2 methods
19
20
Using the worksheets for Cropland (see Annex 1 Worksheets), calculate the change in biomass carbon stocks of
Croplands remaining Cropland:
21
Step 1: Enter the sub-categories of croplands for the reporting year
22
23
24
Typically, there are various types of croplands with woody perennial cover in a country with varying biomass
and stocks and increments. Examples of these are: fruit orchards (e.g. mango, citrus), agricultural plantations (e.g.
coconut, rubber) and agroforestry farms.
25
26
Enter the sub- categories of croplands for the reporting year. Examples of sub-categories are rubber plantation,
mango orchard, and agroforestry farms
27
Step 2: For each sub-category, enter the annual area of cropland with perennial woody biomass
28
29
30
The area (A) in hectares of each sub-category of cropland can usually be obtained from national land-use
agencies, ministry of agriculture, and ministry of natural resources. Possible sources of data include; satellite
images, aerial photography and land-based surveys and FAO database.
31
32
Step 3: For each sub-category, enter the mean annual carbon stocks in the biomass accumulation (in
tonnes C ha yr-1) of perennial woody biomass
33
34
The annual growth rates (CG) for each sub-category of cropland, from the biomass accumulation rates G in
Table 5.1, are entered in the appropriate column of worksheets.
35
Step 4: For each sub-category, enter the annual carbon stocks in biomass losses (in tonnes C ha yr-1)
36
37
38
If there is harvesting, the amount of carbon stocks from the biomass harvested (CL) is entered in the appropriate
column. This can be estimated by multiplying the default above woody above ground biomass for various
croplands in Table 4.3 (in Chapter 4) by the default carbon density of 0.5 tonne C/tonne biomass.
39
Step 5: Calculate the annual change of carbon stocks in biomass for each sub-category
40
The annual change of carbon stocks in biomass (CB) is calculated using Equation 2.7 in Chapter 2.
41
42
Step 6: Calculate the total change in carbon stocks (CB) by adding up all the values of the subcategory
estimates.
C ALCULATION S TEPS
FOR
T IER 1
AND
T IER 2
43
5.11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Example 1: In the inventory year, 90,000 hectares of perennial woody crops are cultivated in a
tropical moist environment, while 10,000 ha are subjected to harvesting. The immature perennial
woody cropland area accumulates carbon at a rate of approximately 2.6 tonnes of above ground C
ha-1 yr-1. The area harvested looses all carbon in biomass stocks in the year of removal. Default
carbon stock losses for a tropical moist perennial woody cropland are 21 tonnes C ha-1 yr-1. From
these values, an estimated 234,000 tonnes C accumulates per year and 210,000 tonnes C are lost.
Using Equation 2.7 in Chapter 2, the net change in carbon stocks (above-ground) in the tropical
moist environment are 24,000 tonnes C yr-1.
9
10
5.2.1.5
11
12
The following discussion provides guidance on approaches for assessing uncertainty associated with estimates of
biomass carbon for each tier method.
13
Tier 1
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The sources of uncertainty when using the Tier 1 method include the degree of accuracy in land area estimates
(see Chapter 3) and in the default biomass carbon increment and loss rates. Uncertainty is likely to be low (<10%)
for estimates of area under different cropping systems since most countries annually estimate cropland area using
reliable methods. A published compilation of research on carbon stocks in agroforestry systems was used to
derive the default data provided in Table 5.1 (Schroeder, 1994). While defaults were derived from multiple
studies, their associated uncertainty ranges were not included in the publication. Therefore, a default uncertainty
level of +/- 75% of the parameter value has been assigned based on expert judgement. This information can be
used, with a measure of uncertainty in area estimates from Chapter 3 of this Report, to assess the uncertainty in
estimates of carbon emissions and removals in cropland biomass using the Tier 1 methodology. Guidance on
uncertainty analysis is given in Volume 1 Chapter 3.
24
Tier 2
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
The Tier 2 method will reduce overall uncertainty because country-specific emission and removal factors rates
should provide more accurate estimates of carbon increment and loss for crop systems and climatic regions
within national boundaries. It is good practice to calculate error estimates (i.e., standard deviations, standard
error, or ranges) for country-specific carbon increment rates and to use these variables in a basic uncertainty
assessment. It is good practice for countries to assess error ranges in country-specific coefficients and compare
them to those of default carbon accumulation coefficients. If country-specific rates have equal or greater error
ranges than default coefficients, then it is good practice to use a Tier 1 approach and to further refine countryspecific rates with more field measurements.
33
34
35
36
37
Tier 2 approaches may also use finer resolution activity data, such as area estimates for different climatic regions
or for specific cropping systems within national boundaries. The finer-resolution data will further reduce
uncertainty levels when associated with biomass carbon increment factors defined for those finer-scale land
bases (e.g., when area of coffee plantations is multiplied by a coffee plantation coefficient, rather than by a
generic agroforestry default).
38
Tier 3
39
40
41
42
43
Tier 3 approaches will provide the greatest level of certainty relative to Tier 1 and 2 approaches. It is good
practice to calculate standard deviations, standard errors, or ranges for all country-defined biomass increment
and loss rates. It is good practice for countries to develop probability density functions for model parameters to
use in Monte Carlo simulations. The uncertainty, particularly with respect to area estimates, is likely to be less or
absent for cropping systems.
44
5.2.2
45
46
47
Methods for estimating carbon stock changes associated with dead organic matter pools are presented in this
section for Cropland remaining Cropland (CC). Methods are provided for two types of dead organic matter pools:
1) dead wood and 2) litter. Chapter 1of this report provides detailed definitions of these pools.
48
49
50
51
Dead wood is a diverse pool with many practical problems for measuring in the field and associated uncertainties
about rates of transfer to litter, soil, or emissions to the atmosphere. Carbon in dead wood is highly variable
between stands across the landscape. Amounts of dead wood depend on the time of last disturbance, the amount
of input (mortality) at the time of the disturbance, natural mortality rates, decay rates, and management.
5.12
Dead Organic Matter
Chapter 5: Cropland

1
2
3
4
5
Litter accumulation is a function of the annual amount of litterfall, which includes all leaves, twigs and small
branches, hay, fruits, flowers, and bark, minus the annual rate of decomposition. The litter mass is also
influenced by the time since the last disturbance, and the type of disturbance. Management such as wood and
grass harvesting, burning, and grazing dramatically alter litter properties, but there are few studies clearly
documenting the effects of management on litter carbon.
6
7
8
In general, croplands will have little or no dead wood, crop residues or litter, with the exception of agroforestry
systems which may be accounted under either Cropland or Forest land, depending upon definitions adopted by
countries for reporting.
5.2.2.1
C HOICE
OF
M ETHOD
10
11
12
The decision tree in Chapter 1, Figure 1.2 provides assistance in the selection of the appropriate tier level for the
implementation of estimation procedures. Estimation of changes in carbon stocks in DOM requires an estimate
of changes in stocks of dead wood and changes in litter stocks (refer to Equation 2.17 in Chapter 2).
13
14
Each of the DOM pools (deadwood and litter) is to be treated separately, but the method for determining changes
in each pool is the same.
15
16
17
Tier 1: The Tier 1 method assumes that the dead wood and litter stocks are not present in croplands or are at
equilibrium as in agro-forestry systems and orchards. Thus there is no need to estimate the carbon stock changes
for these pools.
18
19
Tiers 2 and 3: Tiers 2 and 3 allow for calculation of changes in dead wood and litter carbon due to management
practices. Two methods are suggested for estimating the carbon stock change in DOM.
20
21
22
23
24
25
Method 1 (Also called the Gain-Loss Method - Equation 2.18 in Chapter 2): Method 1 involves estimating the
area of cropland management categories and the average annual transfer into and out of dead wood and litter
stocks. This requires an estimate of area under Cropland remaining Cropland according to different climate or
cropland types, management regime, or other factors significantly affecting dead wood and litter carbon pools
and the quantity of biomass transferred into dead wood and litter stocks as well as the quantity of biomass
transferred out of the dead wood and litter stocks on per hectare basis according to different cropland types.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Method 2 (Also called the Stock-Difference Method Equation 2.19 in Chapter 2):
Method 2 involves
estimating the area of cropland and the dead wood and litter stocks at two periods of time, t1 and t2. The
deadwood and litter stock changes for the inventory year are obtained by dividing the stock changes by the
period (years) between two measurements. Method 2 is feasible for countries, which have periodic inventories.
This method is more suitable for countries adopting Tier 3 methods. Tier 3 methods are used where countries
have country-specific emission factors, and national data. Country-defined methodology may be based on
detailed inventories of permanent sample plots for their croplands and/or models.
33
5.2.2.2
34
35
Carbon fraction: The carbon fraction of deadwood and litter is variable and depends on the stage of
decomposition. Wood is much less variable than litter and a value of 0.50 can be used for the carbon fraction.
36
37
38
39
40
Tier 1: The assumption in Tier 1 is that the DOM carbon stocks in all Croplands remaining Croplands are
insignificant or are not changing and therefore no emission/removal factors and activity data are needed.
Countries experiencing significant changes in cropland management or disturbances that are likely to affect
DOM pools are encouraged to develop domestic data to quantify this impact and report it under Tier 2 or 3
methodologies.
41
42
43
44
45
46
Tier 2: It is good practice to use country level data on DOM for different cropland categories, in combination
with default values if country or regional values are not available for some cropland categories. Country-specific
values for transfer of carbon from live trees that are harvested to harvest residues and decomposition rates, in the
case of Method 1, or the net change in DOM pools, in the case of Method 2, can be derived from countryspecific data, taking into account the cropland type, the rate of biomass utilization, harvesting practices and the
amount of damaged vegetation during harvesting operations.
47
48
49
Tier 3: For Tier 3, countries should develop their own methodologies and parameters for estimating changes in
DOM. These methodologies may be derived from Methods 1 or 2 specified above, or may be based on other
approaches. The method used needs to be clearly documented.
50
51
National level disaggregated DOM carbon estimates should be determined as part of a national croplands
inventory, national level models, or from a dedicated greenhouse gas inventory programme, with periodic
C HOICE
OF
5.13
1
2
sampling according to the principles set out in Chapter 3 Annex 3A.3. Inventory data can be coupled with
modelling studies to capture the dynamics of all cropland carbon pools.
5.2.2.3
4
5
6
7
Activity data consist of areas of Cropland remaining Cropland summarised by major cropland types and
management practices. Total cropland areas should be consistent with those reported under other sections of this
chapter, notably under the biomass section of Cropland remaining Cropland. Tying this information to national
soils, climate, vegetation, and other geophysical data makes it easier to assess changes in DOM.
5.2.2.4
The following summarizes steps for estimating change in DOM carbon stocks
C HOICE
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA
C ALCULATION S TEPS
FOR
T IERS 1
AND
10
11
Tier 1
12
13
14
Tier 2 (Gain-Loss Method) Equation 2.18 in Chapter 2
15
16
S t e p 1 . Determine the categories or cropland types and management systems to be used in this assessment and
the representative area. Area data should be obtained using the methods described in Chapter 3.
17
18
19
20
S t e p 2 . Determine the net change in DOM stocks for each category. Identify values from inventories or
scientific studies for the average inputs and outputs of dead wood or litter for each category. Countries should
use locally available data for inputs and outputs from these pools. Calculate the net change in the DOM pools by
subtracting the outputs from the inputs. Negative values indicate a net decrease in the stock.
21
22
23
24
S t e p 3 . Determine the net change in DOM carbon stocks for each category based on Step 2. Multiply the
change in DOM stocks by the carbon fraction of the dead wood and litter to determine the net change in dead
wood carbon stocks. The default value is 0.50 tonnes of C per tonne of deadwood (dry weight) and 0.40 tonnes
of C per tonne of litter (dry weight).
25
26
S t e p 4 . Determine the total change in the DOM carbon pools for each category by multiplying the
representative area of each category by the net change in DOM carbon stocks for that category.
27
28
S t e p 5 . Determine the total change in carbon stocks in DOM by taking the sum of the total changes in DOM
across all categories.
29
30
Tier 2 (Stock-Difference Method) Equation 2.19in Chapter 2
31
32
S t e p 1 . Determine the categories to be used in this assessment and the representative area as described for
Method 1.
33
34
35
36
37
S t e p 2 . Determine the net change in DOM stocks for each category. From the inventory data, identify the
inventory time interval, the average stock of DOM at the initial inventory (t1), and the average stock of DOM at
the final inventory (t2). Use these figures to calculate the net annual change in DOM stocks by subtracting the
DOM stock at t1 from the DOM stock at t2 and dividing this difference by the time interval. A negative value
indicates a decrease in the DOM stock.
38
39
40
41
42
S t e p 3 . Determine the net change in DOM carbon stocks for each category. Determine the net change in
DOM carbon stocks by multiplying the net change in DOM stocks for each category by the carbon fraction of
the DOM. The default value is 0.50 tonnes of C per tonne of dead wood (dry weight) and 0.40 tonnes of C per
tonne of litter (dry weight). A Tier 3 approach requires country- or ecosystem-specific expansion factors. A
Tier 2 approach can use national level default expansion factors.
43
44
S t e p 4 . Determine the total change in the DOM carbon pool for each activity category by multiplying the
representative area of each activity category by the net change in DOM carbon stocks for that category.
45
46
across all activity categories.
Activity data are not needed as the DOM pool is assumed to be stable.
Each of the DOM pools (deadwood and litter) is to be treated separately, but the method for each pool is the
same.
Each of the DOM pools is to be treated separately, but the method for each pool is the same.
5.14
Chapter 5: Cropland

5.2.2.5
2
3
4
Uncertainty estimation is not required at Tier 1 since the DOM stocks are assumed to be stable. For Tiers 2 and
3, area data and estimates of uncertainty should be obtained using the methods in Chapter 3. Carbon
accumulation and loss factors should be assessed locally.
5.2.3
Soil Carbon
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Cropland management modifies soil C stocks to varying degrees depending on how specific practices influence
C input and output from the soil system (Paustian et al., 1997; Bruce et al., 1999; Ogle et al., 2005). The main
management practices that affect soil C stocks in croplands are the type of residue management, tillage
management, fertilizer management (both mineral fertilizers and organic amendments), choice of crop and
intensity of cropping management (e.g., continuous cropping versus cropping rotations with periods of bare
fallow), irrigation management, and mixed systems with cropping and pasture or hay in rotating sequences. In
addition, drainage and cultivation of organic soils reduces soil C stocks (Armentano and Menges, 1986).
13
14
15
16
17
18
General information and guidance for estimating changes in soil C stocks are found in Section 2.3.3 of Chapter 2
(including equations). That section should be read before proceeding with specific guidelines dealing with
cropland soil C stocks. The total change in soil C stocks for cropland is estimated using Equation 2.24 (Chapter
2), which combines the change in soil organic C stocks for mineral soils and organic soils; and stock changes
associated with soil inorganic C pools (Tier 3 only). This section provides specific guidance for estimating soil
organic C stock changes; soil inorganic C is fully covered by Section 2.3.3.1.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
To account for changes in soil C stocks associated with Cropland Remaining Cropland, countries need at a
minimum, estimates of the cropland area at the beginning and end of the inventory time period. If land-use and
management data are limited, aggregate data, such as FAO statistics on cropland, can be used as a starting point,
along with expert knowledge about the approximate distribution of land management systems (e.g., medium, low
and high input cropping systems etc.). Cropland management classes must be stratified according to climate
regions and major soil types, which can either be based on default or country-specific classifications. This can
be accomplished with overlays of land use on suitable climate and soil maps.
26
5.2.3.1
27
28
29
30
31
32
Inventories can be developed using a Tier 1, 2 or 3 approach, with each successive Tier requiring more detail and
resources than the previous one. It is also possible that countries will use different tiers to prepare estimates for
the separate sub-categories of soil C (i.e., soil organic C stocks changes in mineral soils and organic soils, and
stock changes associated with soil inorganic C pools). Decision trees are provided for mineral (Figure 2.4) and
organic soils (Figure 2.5) in Section 2.3.3.1 (Chapter 2) to assist inventory compilers with selection of the
appropriate tier for their soil C inventory.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Mineral Soils
Tier 1: For mineral soils, the estimation method is based on changes in soil organic C stocks over a finite period
following changes in management that impact soil organic C. Equation 2.25 (Chapter 2) is used to estimate
change in soil organic C stocks in mineral soils by subtracting the C stock in the last year of an inventory time
period (SOC0) from the C stock at the beginning of the inventory time period (SOC(0 T)) and dividing by the
time dependence of the stock change factors (D). In practice, country-specific data on land use and management
must be obtained and classified into appropriate land management systems (e.g., high, medium and low input
cropping), including tillage management, and then stratified by IPCC climate regions and soil types. Soil
organic C stocks (SOC) are estimated for the beginning and end of the inventory time period using default
reference carbon stocks (SOCref) and default stock change factors (FLU, FMG, FI ).
43
44
45
Tier 2: For Tier 2, the same basic equations are used as in Tier 1 (Equation 2.25), but country-specific
information is incorporated to specify better the stock change factors, reference C stocks, climate regions, soil
types, and/or the land management classification system.
46
47
48
49
50
51
Tier 3: Tier 3 approaches may use dynamic models and/or detailed soil C inventory measurements as the basis
for estimating annual stock changes. Estimates from models are computed using coupled equations that estimate
the net change of soil C. A variety of models exist (for example, see reviews by McGill et al., 1996; and Smith et
al., 1997). Key criteria in selecting an appropriate model include its capability of representing all of the relevant
management practices/systems for croplands; model inputs (i.e. driving variables) are compatible with the
availability of country-wide input data; and verification against experimental data.
C HOICE
OF
M ETHOD
5.15
1
2
3
4
A Tier 3 approach may also be developed using a measurement-based approach in which a monitoring network
is sampled periodically to estimate soil organic C stock changes. A much higher density of benchmark sites will
likely be needed than with models to represent adequately the combination of land-use and management systems,
climate and soil types. Additional guidance is provided in Section 2.3.3.1 of Chapter 2.
5
6
7
8
9
Tier 1: Equation 2.26 (Chapter 2) is used to estimate C stock change in organic soils (e.g., peat-derived,
histosols). The basic methodology is to stratify cultivated organic soils by climate region and assign a climatespecific annual C loss rate. Land areas are multiplied by the emission factor and then summed up to estimate
annual C emissions.
10
11
12
Tier 2: For Tier 2, the same basic equations are used as in Tier 1 (Equation 2.26), but country-specific
information is incorporated to better specify emission factors, climate regions, and/or a land management
classification system.
13
14
Tier 3: Tier 3 approaches for organic soils use dynamic models and/or measurement networks, as described
above for mineral soils.
15
5.2.3.2
16
17
18
19
20
21
Mineral Soils
Tier 1: Table 5.5 provides Tier 1 approach default stock change factors for land use (FLU), input (FI) and
management (FMG). The method and studies that were used to derive the default stock change factors are
provided in Annex 5A.1. The default time period for stock changes (D) is 20 years and management practice is
assumed to influence stocks to a depth of 30 cm, which is also the depth for the reference soil C stocks in Table
2.3 (Chapter 2).
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Tier 2: A Tier 2 approach entails the estimation of country-specific stock change factors. Derivation of input (FI)
and management factors (FMG) are based on comparisons to medium input and intensive tillage, respectively,
because they are considered the nominal practices in the IPCC default management classification (see Choice of
Activity Data). It is good practice to derive values for a higher resolution classification of management, climate
and soil types if there are significant differences in the stock change factors among more disaggregated
categories based on an empirical analysis. Reference C stocks can also be derived from country-specific data in
a Tier 2 approach. Additional guidance is provided in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3.1.
29
30
more accurately capture land-use and management effects. See Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3.1 for further discussion.
31
32
33
34
35
36
Organic Soils
Organic Soils
C HOICE
OF
S TOCK C HANGE
AND
E MISSION F ACTOR
Tier 1: Default emission factors are provided in Table 5.6 for cultivated organic soils. Assignment of emission
factors for perennial tree systems, such as fruit trees that are classified as cropland, may be based on the factors
for cultivated organic soils in Table 5.6 or forest management of organic soils (see Chapter 4). Shallower
drainage will lead to emissions more similar to forest management, while deeper drainage of perennial tree
systems will generate emissions more similar to annual cropping systems.
37
5.16
Chapter 5: Cropland

TABLE 5.5
RELATIVE STOCK CHANGE FACTORS (FLU, FMG, AND FI) (OVER 20 YEARS) FOR DIFFERENT MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ON CROPLAND
Factor
value
type
Level
Temperature
regime
Temperate/
Boreal
Land
use
(FLU)
Land
use
(FLU)
Land
use
(FLU)
Land
use
(FLU)
Tillage
(FMG)
Longterm
cultivated
Paddy
rice
Perennial/
Tree Crop
Set aside
(< 20 yrs)
Full
Tropical
(FMG)
Reduced
(FMG)
No-till
(FI)
Input
(FI)
Input
(FI)
Low
Medium
High
without
manure
(FI)
High
with
manure
0.80
+ 9%
Moist
0.69
+ 12%
Dry
0.58
+ 61%
Represents area that has been continuously managed for >20 yrs,
to predominantly annual crops. Input and tillage factors are also
applied to estimate carbon stock changes. Land-use factor was
estimated relative to use of full tillage and nominal (medium)
carbon input levels.
+ 46%
n/a
0.64
+ 50
All
Dry and
Moist/Wet
1.1
+ 5090%
Long-term (> 20 year) annual cropping of wetlands (paddy rice).

Can include double-cropping with non-flooded crops. For paddy
rice, tillage and input factors are not used.
All
Dry and
Moist/Wet
1.0
+ 5090%
Long-term perennial tree crops such as fruit and nut trees, coffee
and cacao.
Dry
0.93
+ 11%
Moist/Wet
0.82
+ 17%
Tropical
Montane4
n/a
0.88
+ 50
All
Dry and
Moist/Wet
1.0
NA
+ 6%
Temperate/
Boreal and
Tropical
Dry
1.02
Moist
1.08
+ 5%
Tropical
Dry
Moist/Wet
1.09
1.15
+ 9%
+ 8%
Tropical
Montane4
n/a
1.09
+ 50
+ 5%
Dry
1.10
Moist
1.15
+ 4%
Tropical
Dry
Moist/Wet
1.17
1.22
+ 8%
+ 7%
Tropical
Montane4
n/a
1.16
+ 50
Dry
0.95
+ 13%
Moist
0.92
+ 14%
Tropical
Dry
Moist/Wet
0.95
0.92
+ 13%
+ 14%
Tropical
Montane4
n/a
0.94
+ 50
All
Dry and
Moist/Wet
1.0
NA
Dry
1.04
+ 13%
Moist/Wet
1.11
+ 10%
n/a
1.08
+ 50
Dry
1.37
+ 12%
Moist/Wet
1.44
+ 13%
n/a
1.41
+ 50
Temperate/
Boreal and
Tropical
Tropical
Montane4
Input
Dry
Description
0.48
Temperate/
Boreal
Input
Error2,3
Moist/Wet
Temperate/
Boreal
Tillage
IPCC
Defaults
Tropical
Montane4
Temperate/
Boreal
Tillage
Moisture
Regime1
Temperate/
Boreal and
Tropical
Tropical
Montane4
Represents temporary set aside of annually cropland (e.g.,

conservation reserves) or other idle cropland that has been
revegetated with perennial grasses.
Substantial soil disturbance with full inversion and/or frequent
(within year) tillage operations. At planting time, little (e.g.
<30%) of the surface is covered by residues.
Primary and/or secondary tillage but with reduced soil disturbance

(usually shallow and without full soil inversion). Normally leaves
surface with >30% coverage by residues at planting.
Direct seeding without primary tillage, with only minimal soil

disturbance in the seeding zone. Herbicides are typically used for
weed control.
Low residue return occurs when there is due to removal of

residues (via collection or burning), frequent bare-fallowing,
production of crops yielding low residues (e.g. vegetables,
tobacco, cotton), no mineral fertilization or N-fixing crops.
Representative for annual cropping with cereals where all crop

residues are returned to the field. If residues are removed then
supplemental organic matter (e.g. manure) is added. Also
requires mineral fertilization or N-fixing crop in rotation
Represents significantly greater crop residue inputs over medium
C input cropping systems due to additional practices, such as
production of high residue yielding crops, use of green manures,
cover crops, improved vegetated fallows, irrigation, frequent use
of perennial grasses in annual crop rotations, but without manure
applied (see row below)
Represents significantly higher C input over medium C input

cropping systems due to an additional practice of regular addition
of animal manure.
5.17
1
Where data were sufficient, separate values were determined for temperate and tropical temperature regimes and dry, moist and wet moisture
regimes. Temperate and tropical zones correspond to those defined in Chapter 3; wet moisture regime corresponds to the combined moist and wet
zones in the tropics and moist zone in temperate regions.
+ two standard deviations, expressed as a percent of the mean; where sufficient studies were not available for a statistical analysis to derive a
default, uncertainty was assumed to be + 590% based on expert opinion. NA denotes Not Applicable, where factor values constitute defined
reference values, and the uncertainties are reflected in the reference C stocks and stock change factors for land use.
This error range does not include potential systematic error due to small sample sizes that may not be representative of the true impact for all
regions of the world.
4 There were not enough studies to estimate stock change factors for mineral soils in the tropical montane climate region. As an approximation, the
average stock change between the temperate and tropical regions was used to approximate the stock change for the tropical montane climate.
Note: See Annex 5A.1 for the estimation of default stock change factors for mineral soil C emissions/removals for Cropland.
1
2
TABLE 5.6
ANNUAL EMISSION FACTORS (EF) FOR CULTIVATED ORGANIC SOILS
Climatic temperature regime1
IPCC default
Error 2
Boreal/Cool Temperate
5.0
+ 90%
Warm Temperate
10.0
+ 90%
Tropical/Sub-Tropical
20.0
+ 90%
Climate classification is provided in Chapter 3.
Represents a nominal estimate of error, equivalent to two times standard deviation, as a percentage of the mean. Estimates
based on Glenn et al. 1993, Kasimir-Klemedtsson et al. 1997, Freibauer and Kaltschmitt 2001, Leifeld et al. 2005, Augustin
et al. 1996, Nyknen et al. 1995, Maljanen et al. 2001, 2004, Lohila et al. 2004, Ogle et al. 2003, Armentano and Menges
1986.
3
4
5
6
7
Tier 2: Emission factors are derived from country-specific experimental data in a Tier 2 approach. It is good
practice for emission factors to be derived for specific land management categories of cropland on organic soils
and/or a finer classification of climate regions, assuming the new categories capture significant differences in C
loss rates. Additional guidance is given in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3.1.
8
9
accurately capture land-use and management effects.
10
5.2.3.3
C HOICE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Mineral Soils
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Each of the annual cropping systems (low input, medium input, high input, and high input w/organic amendment)
are further subdivided based on tillage management. Tillage practices are divided into no-till (Direct seeding
without primary tillage and only minimal soil disturbance in the seeding zone; herbicides are typically used for
weed control), reduced tillage (Primary and/or secondary tillage but with reduced soil disturbance that is usually
shallow and without full soil inversion; normally leaves surface with >30% coverage by residues at planting) and
full tillage (Substantial soil disturbance with full inversion and/or frequent, within year tillage operations, while
leaving <30% of the surface covered by residues at the time of planting). It is good practice only to consider
reduced and no-till if they are used continuously (every year) because even an occasional pass with a full tillage
implement will significantly reduce the soil organic C storage expected under the reduced or no-till regimes
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA
Tier 1: The default management classification system is provided in Figure 5.1. Inventory compilers should use
this classification to categorize management systems in a manner consistent with the default Tier 1 stock change
factors. This classification may be further developed for Tier 2 and 3 approaches. Cropland systems are
classified by practices that influence soil C storage (see Figure 4.1 in Chapter 4). In general, practices that are
known to increase C storage, such as irrigation, mineral fertilization, organic amendments, cover crops and high
residue yielding crops, have higher inputs, while practices that decrease C storage, such as residue
burning/removal, bare fallow, and low residue crop varieties, have lower inputs. These practices are used to
categorize management systems and then estimate the change in soil organic C stocks. Practices should not be
considered that are used in less than 1/3 of a given cropping sequence (i.e. crop rotation), which is consistent
with the classification of experimental data used to estimate the default stock change factors. Rice production,
perennial croplands, and set-aside lands (i.e. lands removed from production) are considered unique management
systems (see below).
5.18
Chapter 5: Cropland

1
2
(Pierce et al. 1994, Smith et al. 1998). Assessing the impact of rotational tillage systems (i.e., mixing reduced,
no-till and/or full tillage practices) on soil C stocks will require a Tier 2 method.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
The main types of land-use activity data are: 1) aggregate statistics (Approach 1), 2) data with explicit
information on land-use conversions but without specific geo-referencing (Approach 2), or 3) data with explicit
information on land-use conversions and geo-referencing (Approach 3), such as land-use and management
inventories making up a statistically-based sample of a countrys land area (see Chapter 3 for discussion of
approaches). At a minimum, globally available land-use and crop production statistics, such as FAO databases
(http://apps.fao.org), provide annual compilations of total land area by major land-uses, select management data
(e.g., irrigated vs. non-irrigated cropland), land area in perennial crops (i.e., vineyards, perennial herbaceous
crops, and tree-based crops such as orchards) and annual crops (e.g. wheat, rice, maize, sorghum, etc.). FAO
databases would be an example of aggregate data (Approach 1).
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Management activity data supplement the land-use data, providing information to classify management systems,
such as crop types and rotations, tillage practices, irrigation, manure application, residue management, etc.
These data can also be aggregate statistics (Approach 1) or provide information on explicit management changes
(Approach 2 or 3). Where possible, it is good practice to determine the specific management practices for land
areas associated with cropping systems (e.g. rotations and tillage practice), rather than only area by crop.
Remote sensing data are a valuable resource for land-use and management activity data, and potentially, expert
knowledge is another source of information for cropping practices. It is good practice to elicit expert knowledge
using methods provided in Volume 1 (eliciting expert knowledge).
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
National land-use and resource inventories based on repeated surveys of the same locations constitute activity
data gathered using Approach 2 or 3, and have some advantages over aggregated land-use and cropland
management data (Approach 1). Time series data can be more readily associated with a particular cropping
system (i.e., combination of crop type and management over a series of years), and the soil type can be
determined by sampling or by referencing the location to a suitable soil map. Inventory points that are selected
based on an appropriate statistical design also enable estimates of the variability associated with activity data,
which can be used as part of a formal uncertainty analysis. An example of a survey using Approach 3 is the
National Resource Inventory in the U.S. (Nusser and Goebel, 1997).
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Activity data require additional in-country information to stratify areas by climate and soil types. If such
information has not already been compiled, an initial approach would be to overlay available land cover/land-use
maps (of national origin or from global datasets such as IGBP_DIS) with soil and climate maps of national
origin or global sources, such as the FAO Soils Map of the World and climate data from the United Nations
Environmental Program. A detailed description of the default climate and soil classification schemes is provided
in Chapter 3 Annex 3A.5. The soil classification is based on soil taxonomic description and textural data, while
climate regions are based on mean annual temperatures and precipitation, elevation, occurrence of frost, and
potential evapotranspiration.
36
37
38
39
40
41
Tier 2: Tier 2 approaches are likely to involve a more detailed stratification of management systems than in Tier
1 (see Figure 5.1) if sufficient data are available. This can include further subdivisions of annual cropping input
categories (i.e., medium, low, high and high w/amendment), rice cultivation, perennial cropping systems, and
set-asides. It is good practice to further subdivide default classes based on empirical data that demonstrates
significant differences in soil organic C storage among the proposed categories. In addition, Tier 2 approaches
can involve a finer stratification of climate regions and soil types.
42
43
44
the Tier 1 and 2 methods, but the exact requirements will depend on the model or measurement design.
45
46
47
48
49
50
Organic Soils
51
52
53
54
Similar databases and approaches as those outlined for Mineral Soils in the Tier 1 discussion can be used for
deriving area estimates. The land area with organic soils that are managed for cropland can be determined using
an overlay of a land-use map on climate and soils maps. Country-specific data on drainage projects combined
with land-use surveys can be used to obtain a more refined estimate of the relevant areas.
Tier 1: In contrast to the mineral soil method, croplands on organic soils are not classified into management
systems under the assumption that drainage associated with all types of management for crops stimulates
oxidation of organic matter previously built up under a largely anoxic environment. However, in order to apply
the method described in Section 2.3.3.1 (Chapter 2), croplands do need to be stratified by climate region and soil
type (see Chapter 3 Annex 3A.5 for guidance on soil and climate classifications).
55
5.19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Figure 5.1 Classification scheme for Cropland Systems. In order to classify cropland
management systems, the inventory compiler should start at the top and
proceed through the diagram answering questions (move across branches if
answer is yes) until reaching a terminal point on the diagram. The
classification diagram is consistent with default stock change factors in Table
5.5. C input classes (i.e., Low, Medium, High and High with organic
amendment) are further subdivided by tillage practice.
Continuous
perennial crops
(e.g. fruits, coffee
and nuts)?
START
Perennial
Crop
YES
NO
Rice
Cultivation
Long
term paddy rice or
irrigated rice in
rotation
(>20 yrs)?
YES
NO
Annual
crop with residues
removed or
burned? 1
YES
NO
Low C
input
NO
Medium C
input
Practice
increasing C
input? 3
YES
Organic
amendment?
YES
Low C
input
NO
Medium C
input
Annual
crop with low
residue 2 or
rotation with bare
fallow?
YES
NO
Annual
crop with no N
mineral fertilization
or N-fixing
crop?
YES
YES
NO
High C input
with organic
amendment
YES
Annual
crop with organic
amendment?
Practice
increasing C
input? 4
NO
Annual
crop with practice
increasing C
input? 4
NO
Low C
input
Medium C
input
YES
High C
input
NO
Set-aside
NO
Non-cropland systems
(e.g., Forest land,
Grassland)
Converted
into another
managed land
use?
YES
YES
Converted
into continuous
perennial
cover? 5
NO
Medium C
input
Does not typically include grazing of residues in the field.

e.g. cotton, vegetables and tobacco
Practices that increase C input above the amount typically generated by the low residues yielding varieties such as using organic amendments, cover
crops/green manures, and mixed crop/grass systems.
4
Practices that increase C input by enhancing residue production, such as using irrigation, cover crops/green manures, vegetated fallows, high residue
yielding crops, and mixed crop/grass systems.
5
Perennial cover without frequent harvest.
Note: Only consider practices, such as irrigation, residue burning/removal, mineral fertilizers, N-fixing crops, organic amendment, cover crops/green
manures, low residue crop, or fallow, if used in at least 1/3 of cropping rotation sequence.
2
3
8
9
5.20
Chapter 5: Cropland

1
2
3
Tier 2: Tier 2 approaches may involve a stratification of management systems if sufficient data are available.
This can include subdivisions of annual cropping systems by drainage class, crop type (Freibauer, 2003) or
tillage disturbance. In addition, Tier 2 approaches can involve a finer stratification of climate regions.
4
5
6
Tier 3: Tier 3 approaches for organic soils are likely to include more detailed data on climate, soil, topographic
and management data, relative to the Tier 1 and 2 methods, but the exact requirements will depend on the model
or measurement design.
5.2.3.4
C ALCULATION S TEPS
FOR
T IER 1
Mineral Soils
8
9
10
The steps for estimating SOC0 and SOC(0-T) and net soil C stock change per ha for Cropland remaining Cropland
on mineral soils are as follows:
11
12
Step 1: Organize data into inventory time periods based on the years in which activity data were collected (e.g.,
1990 to 1995, 1995 to 2000, etc.)
13
14
15
Step 2: Determine the amount Cropland remaining Cropland by mineral soil types and climate regions in the
country at the beginning of the first inventory time period. The first year of the inventory time period will
depend on the time step of the activity data (0-T; e.g., 5, 10 or 20 years ago).
16
Step 3: Classify each cropland into the appropriate management system using Figure 5.1.
17
Step 4: Assign a native reference C stock values (SOCREF) from Table 2.3 based on climate and soil type.
18
19
Step 5: Assign a land-use factor (FLU), management factor (FMG) and C input levels (FI) to each cropland based
on the management classification (Step 2). Values for FLU, FMG and FI are given in Table 5.5.
20
21
Step 6: Multiply the factors (factor (FLU, FMG, FI) by the reference soil C stock to estimate an initial soil
organic C stock (SOC(0-T)) for the inventory time period.
22
23
24
Step 7: Estimate the final soil organic C stock (SOC0) by repeating steps 1 to 4 using the same native reference
C stock (SOCREF), but with land-use, management and input factors that represent conditions for each cropland in
the last (year 0) inventory year.
25
26
27
28
29
Step 8: Estimate the average annual change in soil organic C stocks (CCCMineral) for Cropland remaining
Cropland by subtracting the initial soil organic C stock (SOC(0-T)) from the final soil organic C stock (SOC0),
and then dividing by the time dependence of the stock change factors (i.e., 20 years using the default factors). If
an inventory time period is greater than 20 years, then divide by the difference in the initial and final year of the
time period.
30
31
32
A numerical example is given below for Cropland remaining Cropland on mineral soils, using Equation 2.25 and
default reference C stocks (Table 2.3) and stock change factors (Table 5.5).
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Example: The following example shows calculations for aggregate areas of cropland soil carbon
stock change. In a warm temperate wet climate on Mollisol soils, there are 1Mha of permanent
annual cropland. The native reference carbon stock (SOCREF) for the region is 88 tonnes C ha-1 At
the beginning of the inventory calculation period (In this example, 10 yrs earlier in 1990) the
distribution of cropland systems were 400,000 ha of annual cropland with low carbon input levels
and full tillage and 600,000 ha of annual cropland with medium input levels and full tillage. Thus
initial soil carbon stocks for the area were: 400,000 ha (88 tonnes C ha-1 0.69 1 0.92) +
600,000 ha (88 tonnes C ha-1 0.69 1 1) = 58.78 million tonnes C. In the last year of the
inventory time period (In this example, the last year is 2000), there are: 200,000 ha of annual
cropping with full tillage and low C input, 700,000 ha of annual cropping with reduced tillage and
medium C input, and 100,000 ha of annual cropping with no-till and medium C input. Thus total
soil carbon stocks in the inventory year are: 200,000 ha (88 tonnes C ha-1 0.69 1 0.92) +
700,000 ha (88 tonnes C ha-1 0.69 1.08 1) + 100,000 ha (88 tonnes C ha-1 0.69 1.15
1) = 64.06 million tonnes C. Thus the average annual stock change over the period for the entire
area is: 64.06 58.78 = 5.28 million tonnes/20 yr = 264,000 tonnes C per year soil C stock
increase (Note: 20 years is the time dependence of the stock change factor, i.e., factor represents
annual rate of change over 20 years).
51
5.21
Organic Soils
1
2
The steps for estimating the loss of soil C from drained organic soils are as follows:
3
4
1990 to 1995, 1995 to 2000, etc.)
5
6
Step 2: Determine the amount of Cropland remaining Cropland on organic soils for the last year of each
inventory time period.
Step 3: Assign the appropriate emission factor (EF) for annual losses of CO2 based on climate (from Table 5.6).
8
9
all climate zones.
10
Step 5: Repeat for additional inventory time periods.
11
12
13
A numerical example is given below for Cropland remaining Cropland on drained organic soils, using Equation
2.26 and default emission factors (Table 5.6).
14
Example: The following example shows calculations for aggregate areas of cropland soil carbon
stock change. In a warm temperate wet climate on Histosols, there are 0.4 Mha of permanent
annual cropland on drained organic soils. The emission factor for this climate is 10.0 tonnes C ha-1
yr-1. Thus annual soil carbon stock change for organic soils during the inventory time period is:
400,000 ha 10.0 T C/ha = 4.0 million tonnes C yr-1.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
5.2.3.5
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Three broad sources of uncertainty exist in soil C inventories: 1) uncertainties in land-use and management
activity and environmental data; 2) uncertainties in reference soil C stocks if using a Tier 1 or 2 approach
associated with Tier 3 measurement-based inventories. In general, precision of an inventory is increased and
confidence ranges are smaller with more sampling to estimate values for the three board categories, while
reducing bias (i.e., improve accuracy) is more likely to occur through the development of a higher Tier inventory
that incorporates country-specific information.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
For Tier 1, uncertainties are provided with the reference C stocks in the first footnote in Table 2.3, stock change
factors in Table 5.5, and emission factor for organic soils in Table 5.6. Uncertainties in land-use and
management data will need to be addressed by the inventory compiler, and then combined with uncertainties for
the default factors and reference C stocks (mineral soils only) using an appropriate method, such as simple error
propagation equations. If using aggregate land-use area statistics for activity data (e.g., FAO data), the inventory
agency may have to apply a default level of uncertainty for the land area estimates (50%). It is good practice
for the inventory compiler to derive uncertainties from country-specific activity data instead of using a default
level.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Default reference C stocks and stock change factors for mineral soils and emission factors for organic soils can
have inherently high uncertainties, particularly bias, when applied to specific countries. Defaults represent
globally averaged values of land-use and management impacts or reference C stocks that may vary from regionspecific values (Powers et al. 2004, Ogle et al. 2006). Bias can be reduced by deriving country-specific factors
using a Tier 2 method or by developing a Tier 3 country-specific estimation system. The underlying basis for
higher Tier approaches will be experiments in the country or neighbouring regions that address the effect of land
use and management on soil C. In addition, it is good practice to further minimize bias by accounting for
significant within-country differences in land-use and management impacts, such as variation among climate
regions and/or soil types, even at the expense of reduced precision in the factor estimates (Ogle et al. 2006).
Bias is considered more problematic for reporting stock changes because it is not necessarily captured in the
uncertainty range (i.e., the true stock change may be outside of the reported uncertainty range if there is
significant bias in the factors).
50
51
Uncertainties in land-use activity statistics may be reduced through a better national system, such as developing
or extending a ground-based survey with additional sample locations and/or incorporating remote sensing to
5.22
Chapter 5: Cropland

1
2
provide additional coverage. It is good practice to design a classification that captures the majority of land-use
and management activity with a sufficient sample size to minimize uncertainty at the national scale.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Monte-Carlo procedures to estimate means and standard deviations for the change in soil C stocks (Ogle et al.
2003, Vanden Bygaart et al. 2004).
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
measurement-based Tier 3 inventories can be estimated from the sample variance, measurement error and other
relevant sources of uncertainty.
21
5.2.4
22
23
24
25
Non-CO2 emissions from Cropland remaining Cropland (particularly CH4, CO, NOx and N2O) are usually
associated with burning of agriculture residues, which vary by country, crop, and management system. CO2
emissions from biomass burning do not have to be reported, since the carbon released during the combustion
process is assumed to be reabsorbed by the vegetation during the next growing season.
26
27
28
29
The percentage of the agricultural crop residues burned on-site, which is the mass of fuel available for burning,
should be estimated taking into account the fractions removed before burning due to animal consumption, decay
in the field, and use in other sectors (e.g., biofuel, domestic livestock feed, building materials etc.). This is
important to eliminate the possibility of double counting.
30
31
The methodology for estimating non-CO2 emissions from biomass burning in Cropland remaining Cropland
follows the generic formulation in Equation 2.27 in Chapter 2. The estimates should be based on annual data.
32
5.2.4.1
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
The decision tree in Figure 2.6 in Chapter 2 provides general guidance on the choice of the appropriate Tier to be
used. The method of estimation of greenhouse gas emission from biomass burning involves the use of Equation
2.27 (Chapter 2). Under a Tier 1 approach, the activity data are normally highly aggregated, and combustion and
emissions factors are the default values provided in Chapter 2. Under a Tier 2, estimates are generally developed
for the major crop types by climate zones, using country-specific residue accumulation rates and country-specific
combustion and emission estimates. Tier 3 is a very country-specific method involving process modelling and/or
detailed measurement.
40
41
42
All countries should strive for improving inventory and reporting approaches by applying the highest Tier
possible, given national circumstances. If burning in Cropland remaining Cropland is a key category, countries
should use either Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods.
43
5.2.4.2
44
45
46
Tier 1: Countries applying a Tier 1 method should replace quantities MB and Cf in Equation 2.27 in Chapter 2 by
the appropriate default fuel consumption value (MB x Cf) in Table 2.4. The default emission factors to be used
are provided in Table 2.5 for each greenhouse gas of interest.
47
48
49
50
Tier 2: This method expands Tier 1 to include use of country-specific available fuel, combustion and emission
factors. Countries may estimate the amount of available fuel from crop production statistics and from the ratio of
crop yield and residue produced. Field studies are needed to estimate the fractions of crop residue removed from
field (as fuel or fodder) and left as residue for burning for different crop systems. Countries should focus on the
Greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning
C HOICE
C HOICE
OF
OF
M ETHOD
E MISSION F ACTORS
5.23
1
2
most dominant crops being burned or the systems with relatively high biomass per hectare and levels of
emissions per unit of land (e.g., sugarcane, cotton).
3
4
5
6
7
8
Tier 3: This tier makes use of models based on country-specific parameters, using national inventory data to
ensure that no burning of crop residues is omitted. Tier 3 depends on the field measurement of the amount of
residues burned on site for different cropping systems under different climate zones and management systems,
based on sampling methods described in Chapter 3 (Annex 3A.3). Countries should prioritize the development
of country-specific combustion and emission factors, by focusing on the most dominant crop residues being
burned.
5.2.4.3
C HOICE
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA
10
11
12
13
14
Tier 1: Activity data includes estimates of land areas under the crop types for which agricultural residues are
normally burned. This can be obtained in consultation with national agricultural governmental sectors, in the
lack of objective data from satellite imagery, for example. Countries can also estimate the crop area planted from
the annual crop production and an estimate of the average productivity per hectare. If no national estimates are
available, FAO statistics can be used. It is good practice to cross check FAO data with national sources.
15
16
17
18
19
Tier 2: Under a Tier 2 method, countries should use more disaggregated area estimates (e.g., major crop types
by climate zones) with country- crop management system specific residue accumulation rates. This can be
accomplished through the use of more detailed annual or periodic surveys to estimate the areas of land under
different crop classes. Areas should be further classified into relevant categories such that all major combinations
of crop types and climatic regions are represented, with individual area estimates provided.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Tier 3: Tier 3 requires high-resolution activity data disaggregated at sub-national to fine grid scales. Similar to
Tier 2, land area is classified into specific types of crops by major climate and soil categories and other
potentially important regional variables (e.g., regional patterns of management practices) to be used in models.
Countries should strive to obtain spatially explicit area estimates to facilitate complete coverage of the cropland
and ensure that areas are not over nor under - estimated. Additionally, spatially explicit area estimates can be
related to locally relevant emission rates and management impacts, improving the accuracy of the estimates.
Area data for different cropping systems used should be consistent with area used in earlier sections (Biomass,
Dead organic matter), though residues may be burnt on only a part of the total area.
28
5.2.4.4 U NCERTAINTY A SSESSMENT
29
30
31
32
33
34
Estimates of the area planted under each crop type for which residues are normally burned may be highly
uncertain. Global statistics of crop production, which may be an indirect way to estimate area planted, if not
updated on a yearly basis, may be very uncertain. The fraction of the agricultural residue that is burned in the
field is possibly the variable with most uncertainty. Tier 2 estimates are more precise, being based on countryspecific parameters. It is good practice to provide error estimates (i.e., standard deviation, standard error, ranges)
for country-specific combustion and emission factors and areas burnt.
35
5.3 LAND CONVERTED TO CROPLAND
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Globally, about 50% of the total land surface has been transformed by direct human action, 20% of land
ecosystems have been converted to permanent croplands, and 25% of the worlds forests have been cleared for
various uses such as crop cultivation and pastures (Moore, 2002). Area under cropland has been increasing in
some parts of the world to meet growing food and fibre demands. Most of the expansion of crop land in the last
two decades has occurred in Southeast Asia, parts of South Asia, the Great Lakes region of eastern Africa and
the Amazon Basin (Millennium Ecosystems Assessment, 2005). During the same period, forest destruction in the
tropics averaged 12 million hectares per year according to Environmental Group Limited
(www.environmental.com.au). Deforestation rate during the 1990s averaged 14.6 million ha per year.
Conversion to Cropland is a leading land-use change following tropical deforestation. Greenhouse gas emissions
and removals from land converted to Cropland can be a key source for many countries.
46
47
Estimation of annual greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land converted to Cropland includes the
following:
48
49
50
51
Estimates of annual change in C stocks from all C pools and sources

o
o
o
5.24
Above-ground and below-ground biomass

Dead organic matter (DOM); deadwood and litter
Soil organic matter
Chapter 5: Cropland

5.3.1
Biomass
5.3.1.1
C HOICE
Estimates of non- CO2 gases (CO, CH4, N2O, NOx) from burning of above-ground biomass and DOM
OF
M ETHODS
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
This section provides guidance on methods for calculating carbon stock change in biomass due to the conversion
of land from natural conditions and other uses to cropland, including deforestation and conversion of pasture and
grazing lands to cropland. The methods require estimates of carbon in biomass stocks prior to and following
conversion, based on estimates of the areas of lands converted during the period between land-use surveys. As a
result of conversion to Cropland, it is assumed (in Tier 1) that the dominant vegetation is removed entirely
leading to emissions, resulting in near zero amounts of carbon remaining in biomass. Some type of cropping
system is planted soon thereafter increasing the amount of carbon stored in biomass. The difference between
initial and final biomass carbon pools is used to calculate carbon stock change from land-use conversion; and in
subsequent years accumulations and losses in perennial woody biomass in cropland are counted using methods
in Section 5.2.1 (Croplands Remaining Croplands).
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
It is good practice to consider all carbon pools (i.e. above ground and below ground biomass, dead organic
matter, and soils) in estimating changes in carbon stocks in land converted to Cropland. Currently, there is
insufficient information to provide a default approach with default parameters to estimate carbon stock change in
dead organic matter (DOM) pools2. DOM is unlikely to be important except in the year of conversion. It is
assumed that there will be no DOM in croplands. In addition, the methodology below considers only carbon
stock change in above-ground biomass since limited data are available on below-ground carbon stocks in
perennial cropland.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
The IPCC Guidelines describe increasingly sophisticated alternatives that incorporate greater detail on the areas
of land converted, carbon stocks on lands, and loss of carbon resulting from land conversions. It is good practice
to adopt the appropriate tier depending on key source analysis, data availability and national circumstances. All
countries should strive for improving inventory and reporting approaches by advancing to the highest tier
possible given national circumstances. It is good practice for countries to use a Tier 2 or Tier 3 approach if
carbon emissions and removals in land converted to Cropland is a key category and if the sub-category of
biomass is considered significant based on principles outlined in Volume 1 Chapter 4. Countries should use the
decision tree in Figure 1.2 to help with the choice of method. Land converted to Cropland is likely to be a key
category for many countries and further biomass is likely to be a key source.
30
31
32
33
34
35
Tier 1
The Tier 1 method follows the approach in Chapter 4 (Forest land) where the amount of biomass that is cleared
for cropland is estimated by multiplying the area converted in one year by the average carbon stock in biomass in
the Forest land or Grassland prior to conversion. It is good practice to account completely for all land
conversions to Cropland. Thus, this section elaborates on the method such that it includes different initial uses,
including but not limited to forests.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Equation 2.15 in Chapter 2 summarises the major elements of a first-order estimation of carbon stock change
from land-use conversion to Cropland. Average carbon stock change on a per hectare basis is estimated for each
type of conversion. The average carbon stock change is equal to the carbon stock change due to the removal of
biomass from the initial land use (i.e., carbon in biomass immediately after conversion minus the carbon in
biomass prior to conversion), plus carbon stocks from one year of growth in cropland following conversion. It is
necessary to account for any vegetation that replaces the vegetation that was cleared during land-use conversion.
The IPCC GPG combines carbon in biomass after conversion and carbon in biomass that grows on the land
following conversion into a single term. In this method, they are separated into two terms, BAFTER and CG to
increase transparency.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
At Tier 1, carbon stocks in biomass immediately after conversion (BAFTER) are assumed to be zero, since the land
is cleared of all vegetation before planting crops. Average carbon stock change per hectare for a given land-use
conversion is multiplied by the estimated area of lands undergoing such a conversion in a given year. In
subsequent years, change in biomass of annual crops is considered zero because carbon gains in biomass from
annual growth are offset by losses from harvesting. Changes in biomass of perennial woody crops are counted
following the methodology in Section 2.3.1.1 (Change in carbon stocks in biomass in Land Remaining in a landuse category).
2
Any litter and dead wood pools (estimated using the methods described in Chapter 3 Section 3.4.2) should be assumed
oxidized following land conversion.
5.25
1
2
3
The default assumption for Tier 1 is that all carbon in biomass removed is lost to the atmosphere through
burning or decay processes either on- or off-site. Tier 1 calculations do not differentiate immediate emissions
from burning and other conversion related losses.
4
5
6
7
8
9
Tier 2
The Tier 2 calculations are structurally similar to Tier 1, with the following distinctions. First, Tier 2 relies
largely on country-specific estimates of the carbon stocks in initial and final land uses rather than the default data.
Area estimates for land converted to Cropland are disaggregated according to original vegetation (e.g. from
Forest land or Grassland) at finer spatial scales to capture regional and crop systems variations in countryspecific carbon stocks values.
10
11
12
Second, Tier 2 may modify the assumption that carbon stocks immediately following conversion are zero. This
enables countries to take into account land-use transitions where some, but not all, vegetation from the original
land use is removed.
13
14
15
16
Third, under Tier 2, it is good practice to apportion carbon losses to burning and decay processes if applicable.
Emissions of carbon dioxide occur as a result of burning and decay in land-use conversions. Further, non-CO2
trace gas emissions occur as a result of burning. By partitioning losses to burning and decay, countries can also
calculate non-CO2 trace gas emissions from burning (Section 5.3.4).
17
18
19
20
21
22
The immediate impacts of land conversion activities on the five carbon stocks can be summarized in a
disturbance matrix, which describes the retention, transfers and releases of carbon in the pools in the original
ecosystem following conversion to Cropland. A disturbance matrix defines for each pool the proportion that
remains in that pool and the proportion that is transferred to other pools. A small number of transfers are
possible, and are outlined in a disturbance matrix in Table 5.7. The disturbance matrix ensures consistency of
the accounting of all carbon pools.
23
Biomass transfers to deadwood and litter can be estimated using Equation 2.20.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Tier 3
The Tier 3 method is similar to Tier 2, with the following distinctions: rather than relying on average annual
rates of conversion, countries can use direct estimates of spatially disaggregated areas converted annually for
each initial and final land use; carbon densities and soil carbon stock change are based on locally specific
information, which makes possible a dynamic link between biomass and soil; and biomass volumes are based on
actual inventories. The transfer of biomass, to deadwood and litter following land-use conversion can be
estimated using Equation 2.20.
31
TABLE 5.7
EXAMPLE OF A SIMPLE DISTURBANCE MATRIX (TIER 2) FOR THE IMPACTS OF LAND CONVERSION ACTIVITIES ON CARBON POOLS
To:
Above-ground
biomass
Belowground
biomass
Dead
wood
Litter
Soil
carbon
Harvested
wood
products
Atmosphere
Sum of
row (must
equal 1)
From:
Above-ground
biomass
Below-ground
biomass
Dead wood
Litter
Soil carbon
Enter the proportion of each pool on the left side of the matrix that is transferred to the pool at the top of each column. All
of the pools on the left side of the matrix must be fully accounted, so the values in each row must sum to 1.
Impossible transitions are blacked out.
32
5.26
Chapter 5: Cropland

5.3.1.2
C HOICE
2
3
The emission /removal factors needed for the default method are; carbon stocks before conversion in the initial
land use and after conversion to Cropland and growth in biomass carbon stock from one year of cropland growth.
4
5
6
7
8
Tier 1
Default biomass carbon stock in initial land-use categories (BBEFORE) mainly Forest land and Grassland are
provided in Table 5.8. Initial land-use based carbon stocks should be obtained for different Forest land or
Grassland categories based on biome type, climate, soil management systems etc. It is assumed that all biomass
is cleared when preparing a site for cropland use, thus, the default for BAFTER is 0 tonne C ha-1.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
In addition, a value is needed for carbon stocks after one year of growth in crops planted after conversion (CG).
Table 5.9 provides defaults for CG. Separate defaults are provided for annual non-woody crops and perennial
woody crops. For lands planted in annual crops, the default value of CG is 5 tonnes of C per hectare, based on
the original IPCC Guidelines recommendation of 10 tonnes of dry biomass per hectare (dry biomass has been
converted to tonnes carbon in Table 5.9). The total accumulation of carbon in perennial woody biomass will,
over time, exceed that of the default carbon stock for annual cropland. However, default values provided in this
section are for one year of growth immediately following conversion, which usually give lower carbon stocks for
perennial woody crops compared to annual crops.
OF
17
TABLE 5.8
DEFAULT BIOMASS CARBON STOCKS REMOVED DUE TO LAND CONVERSION TO CROPLAND
Carbon stock in biomass before conversion (BBefore)
(tonnes C ha-1)
Land-use category
Error range #
Forest land
See Chapter 4 Tables 4.7 to 4.12 for carbon stocks in a range of forest types
by climate regions. Stocks are in terms of dry matter. Multiply values by a
carbon fraction (CF) 0.5 to convert dry matter to carbon.
Grassland
See Chapter 6 for carbon stocks in a range of grassland types by climate

regions.
See Section 4.3

(Land Converted to
Forest land)
+ 75%
18
19
TABLE 5.9
DEFAULT BIOMASS CARBON STOCKS PRESENT ON LAND CONVERTED TO CROPLAND
IN THE YEAR FOLLOWING CONVERSION
Carbon stock in biomass after one

year (CG)
(tonnes C ha-1)
Error range#
+ 75%
Temperate (all moisture regimes)
2.1
+ 75%
Tropical, dry
1.8
+ 75%
Tropical, moist
2.6
+ 75%
Tropical, wet
10.0
+ 75%
Crop type by climate region

Annual cropland
Perennial cropland
20
21
Tier 2
22
23
24
25
26
Tier 2 methods should include some country-specific estimates for biomass stocks and removals due to land
conversion, and also include estimates of on- and off-site losses due to burning and decay following land
conversion to Cropland. These improvements can take the form of systematic studies of carbon content and
emissions and removals associated with land uses and land-use conversions within the country and a reexamination of default assumptions in light of country-specific conditions.
27
28
Default parameters for emissions from burning and decay are provided, however countries are encouraged to
develop country-specific coefficients to improve the accuracy of estimates. The IPCC Guidelines use a general
5.27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
default of 0.5 for the proportion of biomass burned on-site for both forest and Grassland conversions. Research
studies suggest that the fraction is highly variable and could be as low as 0.2 (Fearnside 2000, Barbosa and
Fearnside, 1996, and Fearnside, 1990). Updated default proportions of biomass burned on site are provided in
Chapter 4 (Forest land) for a range of forest vegetation classes. These defaults should be used for transitions
from Forest land to Cropland. For non-forest initial land uses, the default proportion of biomass left on-site and
burned is 0.35. This default takes into consideration research, which suggests the fraction should fall within the
range 0.2 to 0.5 (e.g. Fearnside, 2000; Barbosa and Fearnside, 1996; and Fearnside, 1990). It is good practice for
countries to use 0.35, or another value within this range provided the rationale for the choice is documented.
There is no default value for the amount of biomass taken off-site and burned; countries will need to develop a
proportion based on national data sources. In Chapter 4 (Forest land), the default proportion of biomass oxidized
as a result of burning is 0.9, as originally stated in the GPG-LULUCF.
12
13
14
15
16
The method for estimating emissions from decay assumes that all biomass decays over a period of 10 years. For
reporting purposes countries have two options: 1) report all emissions from decay in one year, recognizing that
in reality they occur over a 10 year period, and 2) report all emission from decay on an annual basis, estimating
the rate as one tenth of the totals. If countries choose the latter option, they should add a multiplication factor of
0.10 to the equation.
17
Tier 3
18
19
Under Tier 3, all parameters should be country-defined using measurements and monitoring for more accurate
values rather than the defaults. Process based models and decay functions can also be used.
20
5.3.1.3
21
22
23
24
25
All tiers require estimates of land areas converted to Cropland. The same area estimates should be used for both
biomass and soil C calculations on land converted to Cropland. Higher tiers require greater specificity of areas.
At a minimum, the area of forest and natural Grassland converted to Cropland should be identified separately for
all tiers. This implies at least some knowledge of the land uses prior to conversion. This may also require expert
judgment if Approach 1 in Chapter 3 of these guidelines is used for land area identification.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Tier 1
Separate estimates are required of areas converted to Cropland from initial land uses (i.e., Forest land, Grassland,
Settlements, etc.) to final crop land type (i.e., annual or perennial) (ATO_OTHERS). For example, countries should
estimate separately the area of tropical moist forest converted to annual cropland, tropical moist forest converted
to perennial cropland, tropical moist Grassland converted to perennial cropland, etc. Although, to allow other
pools to equilibrate and for consistency with land area estimation overall, land areas should remain in the
conversion category for 20 years (or other period reflecting national circumstances) following conversion. The
methodology assumes that area estimates are based on a one-year time frame, which is likely to require
estimation on the basis of average rates on land-use conversion, determined by measurements estimates made at
longer intervals. If countries do not have these data, partial samples may be extrapolated to the entire land base
or historic estimates of conversions may be extrapolated over time based on the judgement of country experts.
Under Tier 1 calculations, international statistics such as FAO databases, IPCC GPG Reports and other sources,
supplemented with sound assumptions, can be used to estimate the area of land converted to Cropland from each
initial land use. For higher tier calculations, country-specific data sources are used to estimate all possible
transitions from initial land use to final crop type.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Tier 2
It is good practice for countries to use actual area estimates for all possible transitions from initial land use to
final crop type. Full coverage of land areas can be accomplished either through analysis of periodic remotely
sensed images of land-use and land cover patterns, through periodic ground-based sampling of land-use patterns,
or hybrid inventory systems. If finer resolution country-specific data are partially available, countries are
encouraged to use sound assumptions from best available knowledge to extrapolate to the entire land base.
Historic estimates of conversions may be extrapolated over time based on the judgment of country experts.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Tier 3
Activity data used in Tier 3 calculations should be a full accounting of all land-use transitions to cropland and be
disaggregated to account for different conditions within a country. Disaggregation can occur along political
(county, province, etc.), biome, climate, or on a combination of such parameters. In many cases countries may
have information on multi-year trends in land conversion (from periodic sample-based or remotely sensed
inventories of land use and land cover). Periodic land-use change matrix need to be developed giving the initial
and final land-use areas at disaggregated level based on remote sensing and field surveys.
5.28
C HOICE
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA
Chapter 5: Cropland

5.3.1.4
C ALCULATION S TEPS
2
3
4
5
The following summarizes steps for estimating change in carbon stocks in

biomass (C B ) using the default methods
Using the worksheet provided for Land converted to Cropland (see Annex 1), calculate the change in biomass
carbon stocks in Land Converted to Cropland as follows:
6
7
Step 1: Enter the sub-categories of croplands for the reporting year. The sub-categories of croplands used in
Section 5.2 may also be used to fill out the appropriate column in the worksheet.
8
9
10
Step 2: For each sub-category, enter the annual area of land converted to crop land (ATO_OTHERS). Data for
annual area may be obtained from various sources such as the ministry of forestry, ministry of agriculture,
ministry of planning, or mapping office within a country.
11
12
Step 3: For each sub-category, enter the carbon stocks (BAFTER) in biomass immediately after conversion to crop
land (in tonnes C ha). Biomass and carbon data may be default values or country-specific values.
13
14
Step 4: For each sub-category, enter the carbon stocks (BBEFORE) in biomass immediately before conversion to
Cropland (in tonnes C ha). Biomass and carbon data may be default values or country-specific values.
15
16
Step 5: Calculate the carbon stocks change per area (CCONVERSION) for the type of conversion when land is
converted to crop land (Equation 2.16).
17
18
Step 6: Obtain the values for change in carbon stocks from one year of cropland growth (CG) and the decrease
in biomass carbon due to losses ((CL) using Table 5.1. Enter the values in the appropriate column.
19
20
Step 7: Calculate the annual change in carbon stocks in biomass in land converted to Cropland (CB) using
Equation 2.15.
21
Step 8: Sum up all the annual changes in carbon stocks in biomass.
22
5.3.1.5
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Tier 1
The sources of uncertainty in this method are from the use of global or national average rates of conversion and
from estimates of land areas converted to Cropland. In addition, reliance on default parameters for carbon stocks
in initial and final conditions contributes to relatively high degrees of uncertainty. The default values in this
method have error ranges associated with them. A published compilation of research on carbon stocks in
agroforestry systems was used to derive the default data provided in Section 5.2 (Schroeder, 1994). While
defaults were derived from multiple studies, their associated uncertainty ranges were not included in the
publication. Therefore, a default uncertainty level of +/- 75% of the carbon stock has been assumed based on
expert judgement. Land converted to Cropland is likely to be a key source category for many countries and all
efforts should be made to reduce uncertainty.
33
34
35
36
37
38
Tier 2
The Tier 2 method uses at least some country-defined defaults, which will improve the accuracy of estimates,
because they better represent conditions relevant to the country. Use of country-specific values should entail
sufficient sample sizes and or use of expert judgment to estimate uncertainties. This, together with uncertainty
estimates on activity data derived using the advice in Chapter 3, should be used in the approaches to uncertainty
analysis as described in Volume 1 Chapter 3 of this report.
39
40
41
42
43
44
Tier 3
Activity data from a land-use and management inventory system should provide a basis to assign estimates of
uncertainty to areas associated with land-use changes. Combining emission and activity data and their associated
uncertainties can be done using Monte-Carlo procedures to estimate means and confidence intervals for the
overall inventory. The uncertainty is likely to be less than for other tiers since estimates of carbon stock changes
are based on more measurements and more refined models.
45
5.3.2
46
47
48
49
Grasslands, Forest lands, rangelands, Settlements, and Other land categories could be potentially converted to
Cropland which, in general will have little or no dead wood or litter, with the exception of agroforestry systems.
Methods are provided for two types of dead organic matter pools: 1) dead wood, and 2) litter. Chapter 1of this
report provides detailed definitions of these pools.
FOR
T IERS 1
AND
Dead Organic Matter
5.29
1
2
Dead wood is a diverse pool which is difficult to measure, with associated uncertainties about rates of transfer to
litter, soil, or emissions to the atmosphere.
3
4
5
6
7
Litter accumulation depends on litterfall, which includes all leaves, twigs and small branches, fruits, flowers, and
bark, minus the rate of decomposition. The litter mass is also influenced by the time since the last disturbance,
and the type of disturbance. During the early stages of cropland development, litter increases rapidly.
Management such as vegetation harvesting and burning dramatically alter litter stocks, but there are very few
studies clearly documenting the effects of management on litter carbon.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
In general, croplands will have little or no dead wood or litter, and therefore these pools can often be assumed to
approach zero after conversion, the exception being agroforestry systems which may be accounted under either
cropland or forests, depending upon definitions adopted by countries for reporting. It is likely that the same will
be true of many land uses prior to conversion, so that corresponding carbon pools prior to conversion can be also
assumed to be zero. The exceptions are forest, agro-forests, and wetlands converted to Cropland, which could
have significant carbon in DOM pools, as well as forest areas around settlements that may have been defined as
settlements based on nearby use rather than land cover.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Estimating change in carbon stocks in DOM for lands converted to Cropland under higher tiers requires a twophase approach. During the first phase, there is often an abrupt change in DOM associated with the land-use
change, particularly then the change is deliberate and associated with land preparation operations (e.g. clearing
and burning). The second phase accounts for decay and accumulation processes during a transition period to a
new steady-state system. At some point in time, the cropland ecosystem should reach an equilibrium; at which
time it can be considered Cropland remaining Cropland and accounted for under that category. The transition
period should be 20 years, but some countries can determine the appropriate transition period more accurately at
higher tiers.
23
24
25
26
To account for the transition period, lands converted to croplands should be treated as annual cohorts. That is,
land converted in a given year should be accounted for with Phase 1 methods in the year of conversion, and with
Phase 2 methods for the subsequent 19 years. At the end of the 20 year period, the land area for that given year
is added to the land area being accounted under the Cropland remaining Cropland category.
27
5.3.2.1
28
29
30
The decision tree in Figure 1.3 in Chapter 1 provides assistance in the selection of the appropriate tier level for
the implementation of estimation procedures. Estimation of changes in carbon stocks in DOM requires an
estimate of changes in stocks of dead wood and changes in litter stocks (refer to Equation 2.17 in Chapter 2).
31
32
same.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Tier 1: A Tier 1 approach involves estimating the area of each type of land conversion using only the major
conversion categories (e.g. forestland to Cropland). The immediate and abrupt carbon stock change (Phase 1) in
dead wood and litter due to conversion of other lands to croplands under Tier 1will be estimated using Equation
2.23 in Chapter 2. C0 in Equation 2.23 is likely to be zero and there is no need to divide Ton. The Tier 1 default
assumes removal of all dead wood and litter during conversion and that there is no dead wood or litter that
remains or accumulates in land converted to Cropland. Countries where this assumption is known to be false (e.g.
where slash and burn agriculture is widely practiced) are encouraged to use a higher tier when accounting for
lands converted to Croplands. Additionally, it is assumed that croplands achieve their steady-state biomass
during the first year following conversion. Thus, for Tier 1, phase 2 has no transition period and lands converted
to Grassland are transferred to Grassland remaining Grassland in the second year following conversion.
43
44
45
46
47
There are no default values available for dead wood or litter in most systems. For forests, there are no global
default values for deadwood, but there are values for litter (Table 2.2 in Chapter 2). These values are in terms of
tonnes C ha-1, not in terms of litter stocks. Countries should make best estimates and use local data from forestry
and agricultural research institutes to provide best estimates of the dead wood and litter in the initial system prior
to conversion.
48
49
Tier 2: Tier 2 approaches require greater disaggregation than that used in Tier 1. Activity data should be
reported by management regimes. Tier 2 also employs the two-phase approach described above.
50
51
52
53
54
55
As we recommended above in the biomass section, the immediate impacts of land conversion activities on the
five carbon stocks can be summarized in a disturbance matrix. The disturbance matrix describes the retention,
transfers and releases of carbon in the pools in the original ecosystem following conversion to Cropland. A
disturbance matrix defines the proportion of the carbon stock that remains in that pool and the proportion that is
transferred to other pools. A small number of transfers are possible, and are outlined in the disturbance matrix in
Table 5.7. Use of a disturbance matrix ensures consistency of the accounting of all carbon pools.
5.30
C HOICE
OF
M ETHOD
Chapter 5: Cropland

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The immediate and abrupt carbon stock change in dead wood due to conversion of other lands to croplands
under Tier 2 and 3 will be estimated using Equation 2.23 in Chapter 2 as suggested in Tier 1. During the
transition period, pools that gain or lose C often have a non-linear loss or accumulation curve that can be
represented through successive transition matrices. For Tier 2, a linear change function can be assumed; a Tier 3
approach based upon this method should use the true shapes of the curves. These curves should be applied to
each cohort that is under transition during the reporting year to estimate the annual change in the dead wood and
litter carbon pools.
8
9
For the calculation of changes in dead wood and litter carbon during the transition phase, two methods are
suggested:
10
11
12
13
14
15
Method 1 (Also called the Gain-Loss Method, Equation 2.18 in Chapter 2): Method 1 involves estimating the
area of each type of land conversion and the average annual transfer into and out of dead wood and litter stocks.
This requires an estimate of area under land converted to Cropland according to different climate or cropland
types, management regime, or other factors significantly affecting dead wood and litter carbon pools and the
quantity of biomass transferred into dead wood and litter stocks as well as the quantity of biomass transferred out
of the dead wood and litter stocks on per hectare basis according to different cropland types.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Method 2 (Also called the Stock-Difference Method, Equation 2.19 in Chapter 2): Method 2 involves
estimating the area of land converted to Cropland and then estimating dead wood and litter stocks at two periods
of time, t1 and t2. The deadwood and litter stock changes for the inventory year are obtained by dividing the
stock changes by the period (years) between two measurements. The stock difference method is feasible for
countries, which have periodic inventories. This method is more suitable for countries adopting Tier 3 methods.
Tier 3 methods are used where countries have country-specific emission factors, and substantial national data.
Country-defined methodology may be based on detailed inventories of permanent sample plots for their
croplands and/or models.
24
25
26
DOM. These methodologies may be derived from both methods specified above, or may be based on other
approaches. The method used needs to be clearly documented.
27
28
29
Method 2 may be suitable for countries adopting Tier 3 methods. Tier 3 methods are used where countries have
country-specific emission factors, and substantial national data. Country-defined methodology may be based on
detailed inventories of permanent sample plots for their grasslands and/or models.
30
5.3.2.2
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Tier 1: For Tier 1, it is assumed that the dead wood and litter carbon stocks in lands converted to Croplands are
all lost during the conversion and that there is no accumulation of new DOM in the cropland after conversion.
Countries experiencing significant conversions of other ecosystems to croplands that have a significant
component of dead wood or litter (e.g. slash and burn systems for clearing land, agroforestry, etc.) are
encouraged to develop domestic data to quantify this impact and report it under Tier 2 or 3 methodologies.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Tier 2: It is good practice to use country level data on dead wood and litter for different cropland categories, in
combination with default values if country or regional values are not available for some conversion categories.
Country-specific values for transfer of carbon from live trees and other crops that are harvested to harvest
residues and decomposition rates, in the case of Method 1 (gain-loss method), or the net change in DOM pools,
in the case of Method 2 (stock-difference method), can be derived from domestic expansion factors, taking into
account the cropland type, the rate of biomass utilization, harvesting practices and the amount of damaged
vegetation during harvesting operations. Country-specific values for disturbance regimes should be derived from
scientific studies.
46
47
48
49
Tier 3: National level disaggregated DOM carbon estimates should be determined as part of a national land-use
inventory, national level models, or from a dedicated greenhouse gas inventory programme, with periodic
sampling according to the principles set our in Chapter 3 Annex 3A.3. Inventory data can be coupled with
modelling studies to capture the dynamics of all cropland carbon pools.
50
51
52
53
54
Tier 3 methods provide estimates of greater certainty than lower tiers and feature a greater link between
individual carbon pools. Some countries have developed disturbance matrices that provide a carbon reallocation
pattern among different pools for each type of disturbance. Other important parameters in a modelled DOM
carbon budget are decay rates, which may vary with the type of wood and microclimatic conditions, and site
preparation procedures (e.g. controlled broadcast burning, or burning of piles).
C HOICE
OF
5.31
1
5.3.2.3
C HOICE
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Activity data should be consistent with the activity data used for estimating changes in biomass on land areas
converted to Cropland. This can be obtained, consistent with the general principles set out in Chapter 3 and as
described earlier through national statistics, from forest services, conservation agencies, municipalities, survey
and mapping agencies. Cross-checks should be made to ensure complete and consistent representation of
annually converted lands in order to avoid possible omissions or double counting. Data should be disaggregated
according to the general climatic categories and cropland types. Tier 3 inventories will require more
comprehensive information on the establishment of new croplands, with refined soil classes, climates, and spatial
and temporal resolution. All changes having occurred over the number of years selected as the transition period
should be included with transitions older than the transition period (default 20 years) reported as a subdivision of
Cropland remaining Cropland.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
All tiers require estimates of land areas converted to Cropland. The same area data should be used for biomass
calculations, dead organic matter and the soil carbon estimates. If necessary, area data used in the soils analysis
can be aggregated to match the spatial scale required for lower order estimates of biomass; however, at higher
tiers, stratification should take account of major soil types. Area data should be obtained using the methods
described in Chapter 3. Higher tiers require greater detail but the minimum requirement for inventories to be
consistent with the IPCC Guidelines is that the areas of forest conversion can be identified separately. This is
because forest will usually have higher carbon density before conversion. This implies that at least partial
knowledge of the land-use change matrix, and therefore, where Approaches 1 and 2 from Chapter 3 are used to
estimate land area are being used, supplementary surveys may be needed to identify the area of land being
converted from forest to Cropland. As pointed out in Chapter 3, where surveys are being set up, it will often be
more accurate to determine directly areas undergoing conversion, than to estimate these from the differences in
total land areas under particular uses at different times.
24
5.3.2.4
25
26
27
28
29
Tier 1
S t e p 1 . Determine the categories of land conversion to be used in this assessment and the representative area
of conversion by year (AON). Area data should be obtained using the methods described in Chapter 3. Higher
tiers require greater detail but the minimum requirement for inventories to be consistent with the IPCC
Guidelines when using Tier 1 is that the areas of forest conversion to Cropland can be identified separately.
30
31
Step 2. For each activity category, determine the dead wood and litter stocks (separately) per hectare prior to
conversion (CO).
32
33
34
Step 3. For each activity category, determine the stocks in the dead wood and litter (separately) per hectare for
the particular type of cropland after conversion (CN). For Tier 1, dead wood and litter stocks following
conversion are assumed to be equal to zero.
35
36
Step 4. Calculate the net change of dead wood and litter stocks per hectare for each type of conversion by
subtracting the initial stocks from the final stocks. A negative value indicates a loss in the stock.
37
38
39
Step 5. Convert the net change in the individual stock to units of tonnes C ha-1 by multiplying the net stock
change by the carbon fraction of that stock (0.40 tonnes of C per tonne of biomass dry weight for litter and 0.50
tonnes of C per tonne of biomass dry weight for dead wood.
40
41
Step 6. Multiply the net change in each C stock by the area converted during the reporting year, to get the
annual change in carbon stocks in deadwood and litter CI.
C ALCULATION S TEPS
FOR
T IERS 1
AND
42
43
44
45
46
Tiers 2
47
48
49
50
51
S tep 2 Ab rup t c hang es

Determine the activity categories to be used in this assessment and the representative areas. The category
consists of definitions of the type of conversion and, if applicable, the nature of management of the previous
land cover and cropland management, for example: conversion of logged tropical seasonal forest to cereal
crops.
of conversion by year. When calculating for lands in the transition phase, representative areas for each category
at different stages of conversion are required.
5.32
Chapter 5: Cropland

1
2
For each activity category, determine the dead wood and litter stocks (separately) per hectare prior to
conversion.
3
4
For each activity category, determine the stocks in the dead wood and litter (separately) per hectare
following one year of conversion to Cropland.
5
6
Calculate the net change of dead wood and litter stocks per hectare for each type of conversion by
Convert the net change in the individual stock to units of tonnes C ha-1 as mentioned in Tier 1.
Multiply the net change in each C stock by the area converted during the reporting year.
9
10
11
12
13
Step 3 Transitiona l cha nges

Determine the activity categories and cohorts to be used in this assessment and the representative areas. The
category consists of definitions of the type of conversion and, if applicable, the nature of management of the
previous land cover and cropland management, for example: conversion of logged tropical seasonal forest
to cattle pasture using exotic grasses.
14
15
16
Determine the annual change rate for dead wood and litter stocks (separately) by activity type using either
Method 1 (gain-loss method) or Method 2 (stock-difference method) (see below) for each cohort of lands
that are currently in the transition phase between conversion and a new steady-state cropland system.
17
18
Determine the dead wood and litter stocks in the cohort during the previous year (usually taken from the
previous inventory).
19
20
Calculate the change in dead wood and litter stocks for each cohort by adding the net change rate to the
previous years stocks.
21
Convert the net change in the individual stock to units of tonnes C ha-1 as described in Tier 1.
22
Multiply the net change in each C stock by the area in each cohort for the reporting year.
23
24
Method 1 (Gain-Loss Method; see Equation 2.18 in Chapter 2)
Determine the average annual inputs of dead wood and litter (separately).
25
Determine the average annual losses of dead wood and litter (separately).
26
Determine the net change rate in dead wood and litter by subtracting the outputs from the inputs.
27
28
A Tier 2 approach requires country and cropping system-specific stock change factors and the best available
local data should be used (and documented).
29
30
31
Method 2 (Stock-Difference Method; see Equation 2. 19 in Chapter 2)
Determine the inventory time interval, the average stocks of dead wood and litter at the initial inventory, and
the average stocks of dead wood and litter at the final inventory.
32
33
34
Use these figures to calculate the net change in dead wood and litter stocks by subtracting the initial stock
from the final stock and dividing this difference by the number of years between inventories. A negative
value indicates a loss in the stock.
35
36
A Tier 2 approach requires country and cropping system-specific stock change factors and the best available
local data should be used (and documented).
37
5.3.2.5
38
39
40
41
42
This section considers source-specific uncertainties relevant to estimates made for lands converted to Cropland.
Sources of uncertainty include the degree of accuracy in land area estimates, carbon increase and loss, carbon
stock, fraction of land area burned, and expansion factor terms. Error estimates (i.e., standard deviations,
standard error, or ranges) must be calculated for each of the country-defined terms used in a basic uncertainty
assessment.
43
44
45
46
47
Emission Factor Uncertainties
48
Activity Data Uncertainties
These will be the same as the uncertainties associated with estimation of the litter and dead organic matter stocks
per unit area on the previous land use. Uncertainties need not be estimated where zero carbon density in litter
and dead organic matter pools is assumed for cropland. Where this is not the case, uncertainties should be
assessed by analysis of local data and should both exceed a factor of about 2.
5.33
1
2
3
4
Area data and estimates of uncertainty should be obtained using the methods in Chapter 3. Tier 2 and 3
approaches may also use higher resolution activity data, such as area estimates for different climatic regions or
for cropland management systems within national boundaries. This will reduce uncertainty levels when
associated with carbon accumulation factors defined at the same resolution.
5.3.3
Soil Carbon
6
7
8
9
10
Land is typically converted to Croplands from native lands, managed forests and Grassland, but occasionally
conversions can occur from wetlands and seldom settlements. Regardless of soil type (i.e., mineral or organic),
the conversion of land to Cropland will, in most cases, result in a loss of soil C for some years following
conversion (Mann 1986, Armentano and Menges 1986, Davidson and Ackerman 1993). Possible exceptions are
irrigation of formerly arid lands and conversion of degraded lands to cropland.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
General information and guidance for estimating changes in soil C stocks are provided in Section 2.3.3 of
Chapter 2 (including equations), and that section needs to be read before proceeding with a consideration of
specific guidelines dealing with cropland soil C stocks. The total change in soil C stocks for Land Converted to
Cropland is estimated using Equation 2.24 (Chapter 2), which combines the change in soil organic C stocks for
mineral soils and organic soils; and stock changes associated with soil inorganic C pools (Tier 3 only). This
section provides specific guidance for estimating soil organic C stock changes; see Section 2.3.3.1 for discussion
on soil inorganic C (no additional guidance is provided in the cropland section below).
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
To account for changes in soil C stocks associated with Land Converted to Cropland, countries need to have, at a
minimum, estimates of the areas of land converted to Cropland during the inventory time period. If land-use and
management data are limited, aggregate data, such as FAO statistics, can be used as a starting point, along with
knowledge of country experts of the approximate distribution of land-use types being converted and their
associated management. If the previous land uses and conversions are not unknown, SOC stocks changes can
still be computed using the methods provided in Cropland Remaining Cropland, but the land base area will
likely be different for croplands in the current year relative to the initial year in the inventory. It is critical,
however, that the total land area across all land-use sectors be equal over the inventory time period (e.g., 7
Million ha may be converted from Forest land and Grassland to Croplands during the inventory time period,
meaning that croplands will have an additional 7 Million ha in the last year of the inventory, while grasslands
and forests will have a corresponding loss of 7 Million ha in the last year). Land Converted to Cropland is
stratified according to climate regions and major soil types, which could either be based on default or countryspecific classifications. This can be accomplished with overlays of climate and soil maps, coupled with spatiallyexplicit data on the location of land conversions.
32
5.3.3.1
33
34
35
36
37
38
Inventories can be developed using a Tier 1, 2 or 3 approach with each successive tier requiring more detail and
the separate sub-categories of soil C (i.e., soil organic C stocks changes in mineral soils and organic soils; and
stock changes associated with soil inorganic C pools). Decision trees are provided for mineral (Figure 2.4) and
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mineral Soils
Tier 1: Soil organic C stock changes for mineral soils can be estimated for land-use conversion to Cropland
using Equation 2.25 in Chapter 2. For Tier 1, the initial (pre-conversion) soil organic C stock (SOC(0-T)) and C
stock in the last year of the inventory time period are computed from the default reference soil organic C stocks
(SOCREF) and default stock change factors (FLU, FMG, FI). Annual rates of stock changes are estimated as the
difference in stocks (over time) divided by the time dependence (D) of the cropland stock change factors (default
is 20 years).
46
47
48
Tier 2: The Tier 2 method for mineral soils also uses Equation 2.25 in Chapter 2, but incorporates countryspecific reference C stocks and/or stock change factors, and possibly more disaggregated land-use activity and
environmental data.
49
50
51
52
53
54
Tier 3: Tier 3 methods will involve more detailed and country-specific models and/or measurement-based
approaches along with highly disaggregated land-use and management data. Tier 3 approaches estimate soil C
change from land-use conversions to Cropland, and may employ models, data sets and/or monitoring networks.
If possible, it is recommended that Tier 3 methods be integrated with estimates of biomass removal and the postclearance treatment of plant residues (including woody debris and litter), as variation in the removal and
treatment of residues (e.g. burning, site preparation) will affect C inputs to soil organic matter formation and C
5.34
C HOICE
OF
M ETHOD
Chapter 5: Cropland

1
2
3
losses through decomposition and combustion. It is important that models be evaluated with independent
observations from country or region-specific field locations that are representative of the interactions of climate,
soil and cropland management on post-conversion change in soil C stocks.
4
5
6
7
8
Tier 1 and Tier 2: Land Converted to Cropland on organic soils within the inventory time period is treated the
same as long-term cropped organic soils. Carbon losses are computed using Equation 2.26 (Chapter 2).
Additional guidance on the Tier 1 and 2 approaches are given in the Cropland Remaining Cropland section
(Section 5.2.3).
9
10
11
Tier 3: A Tier 3 approach will involve more detailed and country-specific models and/or measurement-based
approaches along with highly disaggregated land-use and management data (see mineral soils above for further
discussion).
12
5.3.3.2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Mineral Soils
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In the case of transient land-use conversions to Cropland, the stock change factors are given in Table 5.10, and
depend on the length of the fallow (vegetation recovery) cycle in a shifting cultivation system, representing an
average soil C stock over the crop-fallow cycle. Mature fallow denotes situations where the non-cropland
vegetation (e.g., forests) recovers to a mature or near mature state prior to being cleared again for cropland use,
whereas in shortened fallow, vegetation recovery is not attained prior to re-clearing. If land already in shiftingcultivation is converted to permanent cropland (or other land uses), the stock factors representing shifting
cultivation would provide the initial C stocks (SOC(0-T)) in the calculations using Equation 2.25 (Chapter 2).
Organic Soils
C HOICE
OF
S TOCK C HANGE
AND
E MISSION F ACTORS
Tier 1: For native unmanaged land, as well as for managed forest lands, settlements and nominally managed
grasslands with low disturbance regimes, soil C stocks are assumed equal to the reference values (i.e., land-use,
disturbance (forests only), management and input factors equal 1), while it will be necessary to apply the
appropriate stock change factors to represent previous land-use systems that are not the reference condition, such
as improved and degraded grasslands. It will also be necessary to apply the appropriate stock change factor to
represent input and management effects on soil C storage in the new cropland system. Default reference C
stocks are found in Table 2.3 (Chapter 2). See the appropriate land use chapter for default stock change factors
(see Table 5.10).
29
TABLE 5.10
SOIL STOCK CHANGE FACTORS (FLU, FMG, FI) FOR LAND-USE CONVERSIONS TO CROPLAND
Factor value
type
Land use
Land use
Land-use,
Management,
& Input
Land-use,
Management,
& Input
Land-use,
Management,
& Input
#
Level
Native forest or
grassland
(non-degraded)
Shifting cultivation
Shortened fallow
Shifting cultivation
Mature fallow
Climate
regime
IPCC
default
Error
All
NA
Tropical
NA
Tropical
0.64
+ 50%
Tropical
0.8
+ 50%
Definition
Represents native or long-term, nondegraded and sustainably managed forest

and grasslands.
Permanent shifting cultivation, where
tropical forest or woodland is cleared for
planting of annual crops for a short time
(e.g. 3-5 yr) period and then abandoned to
regrowth.
Managed forest
(default value is 1)
Managed grassland
(See default values in Table 6.2)
Cropland
(See default values in Table 5.5)
Represents a nominal estimate of error, equivalent to two times standard deviation, as a percentage of the mean. NA denotes Not
Applicable, where factor values constitute defined reference values.
30
31
5.35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
to a reference condition, using land-use factors (FLU). Input (FI) and management (FMG) are then used to further
refine the C stocks of the new cropland system. Additional guidance on how to derive these stock change factors
is given in Croplands Remaining Croplands, Section 5.2.3.2. See the appropriate chapter for specific information
regarding the derivation of stock change factors for other land-use sectors (Grassland in Section 6.2.3.2, Forest
land in 4.2.3.2, Settlement in 8.2.3.2, and Other Land in 9.3.3.2).
8
9
10
values should be consistent across the land uses (i.e., Cropland, Grassland, forests, Settlements, Other land), and
thus must be coordinated among the various teams conducting soil C inventories for AFOLU.
11
12
more accurately capture land-use and management effects. See Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3.1 for further discussion.
13
14
15
16
Organic Soils
17
18
accurately capture land-use and management effects. See Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3.1 for further discussion.
19
5.3.3.3
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Mineral Soils
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
One critical issue in evaluating the impact of Land Converted to Cropland on soil organic C stocks is the type of
land-use and management activity data. Activity data gathered using Approach 2 or 3 (see Chapter 3 for
discussion about approaches) provide the underlying basis for determining the previous land use for Land
Converted to Cropland. In contrast, aggregate data (Approach 1, Chapter 3) only provide the total amount of
area in each land at the beginning and end of the inventory period (e.g. 1985 and 2005). Approach 1 data is not
sufficient to determine specific transitions. In this case all cropland will be reported in the cropland remaining
cropland category and in effect transitions become step changes across the landscape. This makes it particularly
important to achieve coordination among all land sectors to ensure the total land base is remaining constant over
time, given that some land area will be lost and gained within individual sectors during each inventory year due
to land-use change.
38
39
40
41
42
43
Organic Soils
44
45
46
requirements will be dependent on the model or measurement design. .
47
5.3.3.4
48
49
50
Mineral Soils
51
52
1990 to 1995, 1995 to 2000, etc.)
Tier 1 and Tier 2: Land Converted to Cropland on organic soils within the inventory time period is treated the
same as long-term cropped organic soils. Tier 1 emission factors are given in Table 5.6, while Tier 2 emission
factors are derived from country or region-specific data.
C HOICE
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA
Croplands should be stratified according to major climate regions and soil types. This can be based on overlays
with suitable climate and soil maps and spatially-explicit data of the location of land conversions. Detailed
descriptions of the default climate and soil classification schemes are provided in Chapter 3 Annex 3A.5.
Specific information is provided in the each of the land-use chapters regarding treatment of landuse/management activity data (Cropland in Section 5.2.3.3, Grassland in 6.2.3.3, Forests in 4.2.3.3, Settlements
in 8.2.3.3, and Other Land in 9.3.3.3).
Tiers 1 and 2: Land Converted to Cropland on organic soils within the inventory time period is treated the same
as long-term cropped organic soils, and guidance on activity data is discussed in Section 5.2.3.3.
C ALCULATION S TEPS
FOR
T IER 1
The steps for estimating SOC0 and SOC(0-T) and net soil C stock change per ha of land converted to Cropland on
mineral soils are as follows:
5.36
Chapter 5: Cropland

1
2
3
Step 2: Determine the amount land converted to Cropland by mineral soil types and climate regions in the
country at the beginning of the first inventory time period. The first year of the inventory time period will
depend on the time step of the activity data (0-T; e.g., 5, 10 or 20 years ago).
4
5
Step 3: For Grassland converted to Cropland, classify previous grasslands into the appropriate management
system using Figure 6.1. No classification is needed for other land uses at the Tier 1 level.
Step 4: Assign native reference C stock values (SOCREF) from Table 2.3 based on climate and soil type.
7
8
9
Step 5: Assign a land-use factor (FLU), management factor (FMG) and C input levels (FI) to each grassland based
on the management classification (Step 2). Values for FLU, FMG and FI are given in Table 6.2 for grasslands.
Values are assumed to be 1 for all other land uses.
10
11
Step 6: Multiply the factors (factor (FLU, FMG, FI) by the reference soil C stock to estimate an initial soil
organic C stock (SOC(0-T)) for the inventory time period.
12
13
14
Step 7: Estimate the final soil organic C stock (SOC0) by repeating step 1 to 4 using the same native reference C
stock (SOCREF), but with land-use, management and input factors that represent conditions for the cropland in the
last (year 0) inventory year.
15
16
17
18
19
Step 8: Estimate the average annual change in soil organic C stocks (CCCMineral) for Cropland remaining
Cropland by subtracting the initial soil organic C stock (SOC(0-T)) from the final soil organic C stock (SOC0),
and then dividing by the time dependence of the stock change factors (i.e., 20 years using the default factors).
Note: if an inventory time period is greater than 20 years, then divide by the difference in the initial and final
year of the time period.
20
21
22
23
Note that land converted to Cropland will retain that designation for 20 years. Therefore, inventory time periods
that are less than 20 years may need to refer to the previous inventory time period to evaluate if a parcel of land
is considered land converted to Cropland or Cropland remaining Cropland.
24
25
A numerical example is given below for Forest land converted to Cropland on mineral soils, using Equation 2.25
and default reference C stocks (Table 2.3) and stock change factors (Table 5.5).
26
27
28
29
30
31
Example: For a forest on volcanic soil in a tropical moist environment: SOCRef = 70 tonnes C ha. For all forest soils (and for native grasslands) default values for stock change factors (FLU , FMG ,
FI) are all 1; thus SOC(0-T) is 70 tonnes C ha-1. If the land is converted into annual cropland, with
intensive tillage and low residue C inputs then SOC0 = 70 tonnes C ha-1 0.48 1 0.92 = 30.9
tonnes C ha-1. Thus the average annual change in soil C stock for the area over the inventory time
period is calculated as (30.9 tonnes C ha-1 70 tonnes C ha-1) / 20 yrs = -2.0 tonnes C ha-1 yr-1.
32
33
34
Organic Soils
35
5.3.3.5
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Uncertainty analyses for land converted to Cropland are fundamentally the same as Cropland remaining
Cropland. Three broad sources of uncertainty exists: 1) uncertainties in land-use and management activity and
environmental data; 2) uncertainties in reference soil C stocks if using a Tier 1 or 2 approach (mineral soils only);
and 3) uncertainties in the stock change/emission factors for Tier 1 or 2 approaches, model structure/parameter
error for Tier 3 model-based approaches, or measurement error/sampling variability associated with a Tier 3
measurement-based inventories. See the uncertainty section in Cropland remaining Cropland for additional
discussion (Section 5.2.3.5).
43
5.3.4
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Greenhouse gas emissions from conversion of non-cropland, particularly forestland and Grassland, to Cropland
are likely to be key source category for many countries. Greenhouse gas emissions from Land converted to
Cropland occur from incomplete combustion of biomass and DOM in the initial land-use category before
conversion. CO2 emissions are accounted for in the new land-use category (Land Converted to Cropland). The
most significant non-CO2 emissions in this section arise from conversion of Forest Land to Cropland, but it may
also occur as a result of the conversion from Grassland to Cropland. It is very unlikely that Cropland originates
from conversion of the other land-use categories (Settlements, Wetlands, or Other land).
Calculation steps and example are the same as described in Section 5.2.3.4 above.
5.37
1
2
3
4
5
In the tropics, it is common practice to burn the forest residues successively, until most (or all) of the forest
residues and DOM is cleared, and agriculture can be established. In some places, up to three or four burnings are
necessary. Part of the above-ground forest biomass removed during the process of conversion of Forest land to
Cropland may be transferred to harvested wood products, and an amount may be removed from the site to be
used as fuel wood (hence, burned off-site). Whatever remains is normally burned on-site.
Methods for estimating CO2 emissions from fire for Land Converted to Cropland are described in Section 2.4.
7
8
Non-CO2 emissions from biomass burning in unmanaged Forest land, if followed by a land-use conversion, shall
be reported, since the converted land is considered to be managed land.
9
10
The approach to be used to estimate non- CO2 emissions from biomass burning in Land converted to Cropland is
essentially the same as for Cropland remaining Cropland.
11
5.3.4.1
12
13
14
15
The decision tree in Figure 2.6 in Chapter 2 provides guidance on the choice of the Tier level to be applied by
countries when reporting non-CO2 emissions from Land converted to Cropland. Countries experiencing
significant scale conversion of non-cropland, particularly from Forest land, to cropland should strive to adopt
Tier 2 or 3 methods.
16
17
18
19
The choice of method is directly related to the availability of national data on the area of converted land burned,
the mass of fuel available, and combustion and emission factors. When using higher tiers, country specific data
on the mass of available fuel is used to represent the amount of biomass removed for conversion, and transferred
to harvested wood product (if applicable), removed for fuel use and burned off-site.
20
21
22
23
Countries should strive to report using a Tier 2 or Tier 3 method whenever greenhouse gas emissions from
biomass burning in Land converted to Cropland is a key category. If models have been developed and validated,
countries should apply a Tier 3 method even in those cases where Land converted to Cropland is not a key
category.
24
5.3.4.2
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Tier 1: The mass of fuel combusted is critical for estimating greenhouse gas emissions. Default data to support
estimation of emissions under a Tier 1 approach are given in Tables 2.4 2.6 in Chapter 2. Countries need to
judge how their vegetation types relate to the broad vegetation categories described in the default tables. For Tier
1, it should be assumed that all of the carbon in above-ground biomass and DOM in the previous land category is
lost immediately after conversion. Default values for biomass prior to conversion can be found in the chapters
relating to the respective land uses (e.g. default factors for Forest Land are to be found in the chapter dealing
with biomass in Forest Land). For calculation of non-CO2 emissions, estimates of the amount of fuel actually
burnt (Table 2.4) should be used.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Tier 2: In a Tier 2 method, country-specific estimates of mass of fuel available should be used. Data should be
disaggregated according to forest types, in the case of Forest land converted to cropland. Combustion and
emission factors that reflect better the national conditions (climate zone, biome, burning conditions) should be
developed and uncertainty ranges provided. In addition, unlike Tier 1, where it is assumed that all of the carbon
in above-ground and DOM is lost immediately after conversion, in a Tier 2 method the transfers of biomass to
harvested wood products and fuelwood (burned off-site) should be estimated to provide a more reliable estimate
of the mass of fuel available for combustion.
40
41
Tier 3: Under a Tier 3, all the parameters required for estimating CO2 and non-CO2 emissions should be
developed nationally for different land types subjected to conversion to Cropland.
42
5.3.4.3
43
44
45
46
47
48
The activity data needed to estimate non-CO2 emissions from biomass burning refers to the area affected by this
activity. Countries shall stratify the area converted to Cropland by Forest land and Grassland converted, since the
amount of fuel available for burning may present large variations from one category of land use to another. The
most critical conversion is from Forest land to Cropland, due to large biomass involved per hectare. It is good
practice to ensure the area data used for non-CO2 estimation is consistent with that used for biomass and DOM
sections.
49
50
Tier 1: Countries applying a Tier 1 method should estimate the areas converted to Cropland from initial land
uses (Forest land, Grassland etc.). Countries using Approach 1 of Chapter 3 should strive to further stratify land
5.38
C HOICE
C HOICE
C HOICE
OF
OF
OF
M ETHOD
E MISSION F ACTORS
A CTIVITY D ATA
Chapter 5: Cropland

1
2
3
4
5
6
converted to Cropland from different land categories. The conversion should be estimated on a yearly basis.
Estimates can be derived by applying a rate of conversion to Cropland to the total area cropped annually. The
rate can be estimated on the basis of historical knowledge, judgement of country experts, and/or from samples of
converted areas and assessment of the final land use. Alternatively, estimates can be derived using data from
international sources, such as FAO, to estimate the area of Forest land and Grassland area annually converted,
and using expert judgement to estimate the portion of this area converted to Cropland.
7
8
9
10
11
Tier 2: Countries should, where possible, use actual area estimates for all possible conversions to Cropland.
Multi-temporal remotely sensed data of adequate resolution should provide better estimates of land-use
conversion than the approaches used in Tier 1. The analysis may be based on full coverage of the territory or on
representative sample areas selected, from which estimates of the area converted to Cropland in the entire
territory can be derived.
12
13
14
15
16
Tier 3: The activity data in Tier 3 should be based on the Approach 3 method presented in Chapter 3, where the
total annual area converted to Cropland (from Forest land, Grassland, or Other land category) is estimated. It is
good practice to develop a land-use change matrix as suggested in Chapter 3, in a spatially explicit manner. The
data should be disaggregated according to type of biome, climate, soils, political boundaries, or a combination of
these parameters.
17
5.3.4.4
18
19
20
21
22
Tier 1: The sources of uncertainty arise from: (i) use of global or national average rates of conversion or coarse
estimates of land areas converted to Cropland; (ii) estimate of the area converted that is burned; (iii) mass of
available fuel; and (iv) combustion and emission factors. Uncertainties associated with emission and combustion
factors are provided, and those related to items (i) and (ii) can vary significantly depending on the method used
in their estimation.
23
24
As a result of these uncertainties it is unlikely that the estimate of area burnt will be known to better than 20%
and the emissions per unit area to within a factor of 2 using Tier 1 methods.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Tier 2: The use of area estimates produced from more reliable sources (remotely sensed data, sample approach)
will improve the accuracy relative to Tier 1 and Approach 1 of Chapter 3. These sources will also provide better
estimates of the areas that are converted and burnt. Taking into account the biomass transferred to harvested
wood products or removed from the site as fuelwood, and the biomass left on site to decay will eliminate a bias
(overestimation) in the estimates. Estimates of emission or combustion factors, if accompanied by error ranges
(in the form of standard deviation), will allow uncertainty associated with land converted to Cropland to be
assessed.
32
33
Tier 3: Uncertainty is less and is dependent on the accuracy of remote sensing and field surveys, and of the
modelling approach used and associated data inputs.
34
35

REPORTING
36
Material presented here supplements the general guidance on these issues that is provided in Volume I.
37
5.4.1
38
39
40
41
42
Tier 1: A complete Cropland inventory for Tier 1 has three elements: 1) carbon stock changes and non-CO2
(CH4, N2O, NOx) emissions from biomass burning have been estimated for all land converted to Cropland and
land remaining Cropland during the inventory time period, 2) inventory analysis addressed the impact of all
management practices described in the Tier 1 methods, and 3) the analysis accounted for climatic and soil
variation that impacts emissions and removals (as described for Tier 1).
43
44
45
46
47
48
The latter two elements require assignment of management systems to cropland areas and stratification by
climate regions and soil types. It is good practice for countries to use the same area classifications for biomass
and soil pools in addition to biomass burning (to the extent that classifications are needed for these source
categories). This will ensure consistency and transparency, allow for efficient use of land surveys and other data
collection tools, and enable the explicit linking between carbon dioxide emissions and removals in biomass and
soil pools, as well as non-CO2 emissions from biomass burning.
49
50
For biomass and soil C stock estimations, a cropland inventory should address the impact of land-use change
(land converted to Cropland) and management. However, in some cases, activity data or expert knowledge may
Completeness
5.39
1
2
3
4
5
6
not be sufficient to estimate the effects of agroforestry, crop rotation practices, tillage practices, irrigation,
manure application, residue management, etc. In those cases, countries may proceed with an inventory
addressing land use alone, but the results will be incomplete and omission of management practices must be
clearly identified in the reporting documentation for purposes of transparency. If there are omissions, it is good
practice to collect additional activity data for future inventories, particularly if biomass or soil C is a key source
category.
7
8
9
10
C stock changes may not be computed for some cropland areas if greenhouse gas emissions and removals are
believed to be insignificant or constant through time, such as non-woody cropland where there are no
management or land-use changes. In this case, it is good practice for countries to document and explain the
reason for omissions.
11
12
13
14
15
For biomass burning, non-CO2 greenhouse gases should be estimated for all major categories of crop residues,
taking care to account for removal of residues from the field for other purposes such as energy production, and
for losses of residues resulting from grazing and decomposition during the period between harvests and burning
operations. Where there is conversion of Forest lands to Croplands, the emissions from the burning of DOM and
cleared tree biomass should be included.
16
17
18
19
20
21
Tier 2: A complete Tier 2 inventory has similar elements as Tier 1, but incorporates country-specific data to
estimate C stock change factors, reference soil C stocks, residue estimates (fuel load), combustion and emission
factors for biomass burning; to develop climate descriptions and soil categories; in addition to improve
management system classifications. Moreover, it is good practice for a Tier 2 inventory to incorporate countryspecific data for each component. Inventories are still considered complete, however, if they combine country
specific data with Tier 1 defaults.
22
23
24
25
26
27
Tier 3: In addition to the Tiers 1 and 2 considerations, completeness of Tier 3 inventories will depend on the
components of the country-specific evaluation system. In practice, Tier 3 inventories are likely to more fully
account for emissions and removals for croplands using more finely resolved data on climate, soils, biomass
burning and management systems. It is good practice for inventory compilers to describe and document the
elements of the country-specific system, demonstrating the completeness of the approach and data sources. If
gaps are identified, it is good practice to gather additional data and further develop the country-specific system.
28
5.4.2
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Tier 1: Consistent time series are essential for evaluating trends in emissions or removals. In order to maintain
consistency, compilers should apply the same classifications and factors over the entire inventory time period,
including climate, soil types, management system classifications, C stock change factors, reference soil C stocks,
residue estimates (fuel load), combustion factors, and non-CO2 emission factors. Defaults are provided for all of
these characteristics and so consistency should not be an issue. In addition, the land base should also remain
consistent through time, with the exception of land converted to Cropland or Cropland converted to other land
uses.
36
37
38
39
Countries should use consistent sources of activity data on land use, management and biomass burning,
throughout the inventory. Sampling approaches, if used, should be maintained for the duration of the inventory
time period to ensure a consistent approach. If sub-categories are created, countries should keep transparent
records of how they are defined and apply them consistently throughout the inventory.
40
41
42
43
In some cases, sources of activity data, definitions or methods may change over time with availability of new
information. Inventory compilers should determine the influence of changing data or methods on trends, and if
deemed significant, emissions and removals should be re-calculated for the time series using methods provided
in Chapter 5 of Volume I.
44
45
46
47
48
49
For C stock changes, one key element in producing a consistent time series is to ensure consistency between C
stocks for lands converted to croplands that were reported in previous reporting periods and the state of those
stocks reported for those lands that are remaining croplands in the current reporting period. For example, if 50
tonnes of the above-ground live biomass was transferred to the dead organic matter pool for land converted from
forest to croplands in the previous reporting period, reporting in this period must assume that the starting carbon
stocks in the dead organic matter pool was 50 tonnes for those lands.
50
51
52
53
54
Tier 2: In addition to the issues discussed under Tier 1, there are additional considerations associated with
introduction of country-specific information. Specifically, it is good practice to apply new values or
classifications derived from country-specific information across the entire inventory and re-calculate the time
series. Otherwise, positive or negative trends in C stocks or biomass burning may be partly due to changes
associated with the inventory methods at some point in the time series, and not representative of actual trends.
5.40
Chapter 5: Cropland

1
2
3
It is possible that new country-specific information may not be available for the entire time series. In those cases,
it is good practice to demonstrate the effect of changes in activity levels versus updated country-specific data or
methods; guidance on recalculation for these circumstances is presented in Chapter 5 of Volume 1.
4
5
6
Tier 3: Similar to Tiers 1 and 2, it is good practice to apply the country-specific estimation system throughout
the entire time series; inventory agencies should use same measurement protocols (sampling strategy, method,
etc.) and/or model-based system throughout the inventory time period.
5.4.3
8
9
10
11
Tier 1: It is good practice to implement Quality Assurance/Quality Controls with internal and external review of
cropland inventory data. Internal reviews should be conducted by the agency in charge of the inventory, while
external review is conducted by other agencies, experts or groups who are not directly involved with the
compilation.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Internal review should focus on the inventory implementation process to ensure that 1) activity data have been
stratified appropriately by climate regions and soil types, 2) management classifications/descriptions have been
applied appropriately, 3) activity data have been properly transcribed into the worksheets or inventory
computation software, and 4) C stock change factors, reference soil C stocks, residue estimates (fuel load), and
biomass burning combustion and emission factors have been assigned appropriately. Quality Assurance/Quality
Control measures may involve visual inspection as well as built-in program functions to check data entry and
results. Summary statistics can also be helpful, such as summing areas by strata within worksheets to determine
if they are consistent with land-use statistics. Total areas should remain constant over the inventory period, and
areas by strata should only vary by land-use or management classification (climate and soil areas should remain
constant).
22
23
24
25
26
External reviews need to consider the validity of the inventory approach, thoroughness of inventory
documentation, methods explanation and overall transparency. It is important to evaluate if the total area of
cropland is realistic, and reviewers should cross-check area estimates across land-use categories (i.e., Cropland,
Grassland, forest etc.) to ensure that the sum of the entire land base for a country is equal across every year in the
inventory time period.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Tier 2: In addition to the Quality Assurance/Quality Controls measures under Tier 1, the inventory agency
should review the country-specific climate regions, soil types, management system classifications, C stock
change factors, reference C stocks, residue estimates (fuel load), combustion factors and/or non-CO2 emission
factors for biomass burning. If using factors based on direct measurements, the inventory agency should review
the measurements to ensure that they are representative of the actual range of environmental and management
conditions, and were developed according to recognized standards (IAEA, 1992). If accessible, it is good
practice to compare country-specific factors with Tier 2 stock change and emission factors used by other
countries with comparable circumstances, in addition to the IPCC defaults.
35
36
37
Given the complexity of emission and removal trends, specialist in the field should be involved in the external
review to critique the residue fuel load estimates, stock change factors, combustion and emission factors, as well
as country-specific climate regions, soil types, and/or management system descriptions.
38
39
40
41
Tier 3: Country-specific inventory systems will likely need additional Quality Assurance/Quality Control
measures, but this will be dependent on the systems that are developed. It is good practice to develop a Quality
Assurance/Quality Control protocol that is specific to the countrys advanced inventory system, archive the
reports, and include summary results in reporting documentation.
42
5.4.4
43
44
45
46
47
Tier 1: In general, it is good practice to document and archive all information required to produce the national
inventory estimates. For Tier 1, inventory compilers should document activity data trends and uncertainties for
croplands. Key activities include land-use change, use of mineral fertilizers, agroforestry practices, organic
amendments, tillage management, cropping rotations, residue management (including burning), irrigation
practices, extent of mixed cropping systems, water management in rice systems, and land-use change.
48
49
50
51
It is good practice to archive actual databases, such as agricultural census data, and procedures used to process
the data (e.g., statistical programs); definitions used to categorize or aggregate activity data; and procedures used
to stratify activity data by climate regions and soil types (for Tier 1 and Tier 2). The worksheets or inventory
software should be archived with input/output files that were generated to produce the results.
52
53
In cases where activity data are not available directly from databases or multiple data sets were combined, the
information, assumptions and procedures that were used to derive the activity data should be described. This
5.41
1
2
documentation should include the frequency of data collection and estimation, and uncertainty. Use of expert
knowledge should be documented and correspondences archived.
3
4
5
6
7
8
It is good practice to document and explain trends in biomass and soil C stocks, as well as biomass burning in
terms of the land-use and management activity. Changes in biomass stocks should be linked directly to land use
or changes in agroforestry practices, while trends in soil C stocks may be due to land use or shifts in key
management activities, as described above. Biomass burning emissions from residues will depend on the extent
to which burning is used to prepare fields for planting. Significant fluctuations in emissions between years
should be explained.
9
10
Countries need to include documentation on completeness of their inventory, issues related to time series
consistency or lack thereof, and a summary of Quality Assurance/Quality Control measures and results.
11
12
13
14
15
Tier 2: In addition to the Tier 1 considerations, inventory compilers should document the underlying basis for
country-specific C stock change factors, reference soil C stocks, residue estimated (fuel loads), combustion and
emission factors for biomass burning, management system classifications, climate regions and/or soil types.
Furthermore, it is good practice to archive metadata and data sources for information used to estimate countryspecific values.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Reporting documentation should include the country-specific factors (i.e., means and uncertainties), and it is
good practice to include a discussion in the inventory report about differences between country-specific factors
and Tier 1 defaults as well as Tier 2 factors from regions with similar circumstances as the reporting country. If
different emission factors, parameters and methods are used for different years, the reasons for these changes
should be explained and documented. In addition, inventory agencies should describe country-specific
classifications of management, climate and/or soil types, and it is recommended that improvements in the
inventory methods based on the new classifications be documented. For example, tillage management practices
may be subdivided into additional categories beyond the Tier 1 classes (i.e., reduced, no-till and full tillage), but
further subdivisions will only improve inventory estimates if the stock change or emission factors differ
significantly among the new categories.
26
27
When discussing trends in emissions and removals, a distinction should be made between changes in activity
levels and changes in methods from year to year, and the reasons for these changes need to be documented.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Tier 3: Tier 3 inventory will need similar documentation about activity data and emission/removal trends as
lower tier approaches, but additional documentation should be included to explain the underlying basis and
framework of the country-specific estimation system. With measurement-based inventories, it is good practice to
document the sampling design, laboratory procedures and data analysis techniques. Measurement data should be
archived, along with results from data analyses. For Tier 3 approaches that use models, it is good practice to
document the model version and provide a model description, as well as permanently archive copies of all model
input files, source code and executable programs.
35
37
5.5 METHANE EMISSIONS FROM RICE

CULTIVATION
38
39
40
41
42
43
Anaerobic decomposition of organic material in flooded rice fields produces methane (CH4), which escapes to
the atmosphere primarily by transport through the rice plants (Takai, 1970; Cicerone and Shetter, 1981; Conrad,
1989; Nouchi et al. 1990). The annual amount of CH4 emitted from a given area of rice is a function of the
number and duration of crops grown, water regimes before and during cultivation period, and organic and
inorganic soil amendments (Neue and Sass, 1994; Minami, 1995). Soil type, temperature and rice cultivar also
affect CH4 emissions.
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
These new guidelines for computing CH4 emissions incorporate various changes as compared to the 1996
Guidelines and the GPG2000, namely (i) revision of emission and scaling factors derived from updated analysis
of available data, (ii) use of daily instead of seasonal emission factors to allow more flexibility in separating
cropping seasons and fallow periods, (iii) new scaling factors for water regime before the cultivation period and
timing of straw incorporation, and (iv) inclusion of Tier 3 approach in line with the general principles of the
2006 revision of guidelines. The revised guidelines also maintain the separate calculation of N2O emission from
rice cultivation (as one form of managed soil) which is dealt with in Chapter 11.
36
51
52
5.42
Chapter 5: Cropland

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
5.5.1
Choice of method
The basic equation to estimate CH4 emissions from rice cultivation is shown in Equation 5.1. CH4 emissions are
estimated by multiplying daily emission factors by cultivation period3 of rice and annual harvested areas4. In its
most simple form, this equation is implemented using national activity data (i.e. national average cultivation
period of rice and area harvested) and a single emission factor. However, the natural conditions and agricultural
management of rice production may be highly variable within a country. It is good practice to account for this
variability by disaggregating national total harvested area into sub-units (e.g. harvested areas under different
water regimes). Harvested area for each sub-unit is multiplied by the respective cultivation period and emission
factor that is representative of the conditions that define the sub-unit (Sass, 2002). With this disaggregated
approach, total annual emissions are equal to the sum of emissions from each sub-unit of harvested area.
11
12
13
EQUATION 5.1
CH4 EMISSIONS FROM RICE CULTIVATION
14
CH 4
Rice
( EF
i , j ,k
t i , j ,k Ai , j ,k 10 6 )
i , j ,k
15
Where:
16
CH4 Rice = annual methane emissions from rice cultivation, Gg CH4 yr-1
17
EFijk = a daily emission factor for i, j, and k conditions, in kg CH4 ha-1 day-1
18
tijk = cultivation period of rice for i, j, and k conditions, in day
19
Aijk = annual harvested area of rice for i, j, and k conditions, in ha yr-1
20
21
i, j, and k = represent different ecosystems, water regimes, type and amount of organic amendments, and
other conditions under which CH4 emissions from rice may vary
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
The different conditions that should be considered include rice ecosystem type, flooding pattern before and
during cultivation period, type and amount of organic amendments. Other conditions such as soil type, and rice
cultivar can be considered for the disaggregation if country-specific information about the relationship between
these conditions and CH4 emissions are available. The rice ecosystem types and water regimes during cultivation
period are listed in Table 5.12. If the national rice production can be subdivided into climatic zones with
different production systems, (e.g. flooding patterns), Equation 5.1 should be applied to each region separately.
The same applies if rice statistics or expert judgments are available to distinguish management practices or other
factors along administrative units (district or province). In addition, if more than one crop is harvested during a
given year, emissions should be estimated for each cropping season taking into account possible differences in
cultivation practice (e.g. use of organic amendments, flooding pattern before and during the cultivation period).
32
33
34
35
36
37
The decision tree in Figure 5.2 guides inventory agencies through the process of applying the good practice
IPCC approach. Implicit in this decision tree is a hierarchy of disaggregation in implementing the IPCC method.
Within this hierarchy, the level of disaggregation utilised by an inventory agency will depend upon the
availability of activity and emission factor data, as well as the importance of rice as a contributor to its national
greenhouse gas emissions. The specific steps and variables in this decision tree, and the logic behind it, are
discussed in the text that follows the decision tree.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Tier 1: Tier 1 applies to countries in which either CH4 emissions from rice cultivation are not a key category or
country-specific emission factors do not exist. The disaggregation of the annual harvest area of rice needs to be
done for at least three baseline water regimes including irrigated, rainfed, and upland. It is encouraged to
incorporate as many of the conditions (i, j, k, etc.) that influence CH4 emissions (summarized in Box 5.2) as
possible. Emissions for each sub-unit are adjusted by multiplying a baseline default emission factor for no
flooded less than 180 days prior to rice cultivation and continuously flooded fields without organic amendments
(EFc) by various scaling factors as shown in Equation 5.2. The calculations are carried out for each water regime
and organic amendment separately as shown in Equation 5.1.
46
In the case of a ratoon crop, cultivation period should be extended by the respective number of days.
In case of multiple cropping during the same year, harvested area is equal to the sum of the area cultivated for each
cropping.
5.43
1
2
3
BOX 5.2
CONDITIONS INFLUENCING CH4 EMISSIONS FROM RICE CULTIVATION
4
5
The following rice cultivation characteristics should be considered in calculating CH4 emissions as
well as in developing emission factors:
6
7
8
Regional differences in rice cropping practices: If the country is large and has distinct
agricultural regions with different climate and/or production systems (e.g. flooding patterns), a
separate set of calculations should be performed for each region.
9
10
11
Multiple crops: If more than one crop is harvested on a given area of land during the year, and the
growing conditions vary among cropping seasons, calculations should be performed for each
season.
12
13
Water regime: In the context of this chapter, water regime is defined as a combination of (i)
ecosystem type and (ii) flooding pattern.
14
15
Ecosystem type: At a minimum, separate calculations should be undertaken for each rice
ecosystem (i.e. irrigated, rainfed, and deep water rice production).
16
17
18
19
20
21
Flooding pattern: Flooding pattern of rice fields has a significant effect on CH4 emissions (Sass et
al., 1992; Yagi et al., 1996; Wassmann et al., 2000). Rice ecosystems can further be distinguished
into continuously and intermittently flooded (irrigated rice), and regular rainfed, drought prone,
and deep water (rainfed), according to the flooding patterns during the cultivation period. Also,
flooding pattern before cultivation period should be considered (Yagi et al., 1998; Cai et al., 2000;
2003a; Fitzgerald et al., 2000).
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Organic amendments to soils: Organic material incorporated into rice soils increases CH4
emissions (Schtz et al, 1989; Yagi and Minami, 1990; Sass et al., 1991). The impact of organic
amendments on CH4 emissions depends on type and amount of the applied material which can be
described by a dose response curve (Denier van der Gon and Neue, 1995; Yan et al., 2005).
Organic material incorporated into the soil can either be of endogenous (straw, green manure etc.)
or exogenous origin (compost, farmyard manure, etc.). Calculations of emissions should consider
the effect of organic amendments.
29
30
31
32
33
34
Other conditions: It is known that other factors, such as soil type (Sass et al., 1994; Wassmann et
al., 1998; Huang et al., 2002), rice cultivar (Watanabe and Kimura, 1998; Wassmann and Aulakh,
2000), sulphate containing amendments (Lindau et al., 1993; Denier van der Gon and Neue, 2002),
etc., can significantly influence CH4 emissions. Inventory agencies are encouraged to make every
effort to consider these conditions if country-specific information about the relationship between
these conditions and CH4 emissions is available.
5.44
Chapter 5: Cropland

Figure 5.2 Decision Tree for CH 4 Emissions from Rice Production
2
3
START
4
5
Are
there different agroecological zones in the
country?
YES
Calculate emissions for each

agro-ecological zone
YES
Calculate emissions for each

cropping (i.e., dry season-,
wet season-, early-, single-,
late-cropping)
NO
Are there
multiple rice cropping
during the same
year?
NO
Box 3: Tier 3
Are country
specific methods including
modelling or direct
measurement approach
available?
YES
Calculate emissions using

country-specific methods for
higher level of
disaggregation as basis for
the Tier 3 method
NO
Box 2: Tier 2
Are
country-specific
emission factors available
for different water
regime?
YES

the Tier 2 methodology
NO
Is
rice production
a key source category?
(Note 1)
YES
Collect data for

Tier 2 or Tier 3
method
NO
Note 1: See Volume 1 Chapter 4, "Methodological Choice and
Identification of Key Categories" (noting Section 4.1.2 on limited
resources), for discussion of key categories and use of decision
trees.
Box 1: Tier 1
the Tier 1 default emission
factor and scaling factors
together with activity data for
harvested area and
cultivation period
5.45
1
2
3
4
EQUATION 5.2
ADJUSTED DAILY EMISSION FACTOR
EFi = EFc SFw SFp SFo SFs ,r
Where:
EFi = Adjusted daily emission factor for a particular harvested area
EFc = baseline emission factor for continuously flooded fields without organic amendments
9
10
SFw = Scaling factor to account for the differences in water regime during the cultivation period (from
Table 5.12)
11
12
SFp = Scaling factor to account for the differences in water regime in the pre-season before the cultivation
period (from Table 5.13)
13
14
SFo = Scaling factor should vary for both type and amount of organic amendment applied (from Equation
5.3 and Table 5.14)
15
SFs,r = Scaling factor for soil type, rice cultivar, etc., if available
16
17
18
19
20
21
Tier 2: Tier 2 applies the same methodological approach as Tier 1, but country-specific emission factors and/or
scaling factors should be used. These country-specific factors are needed to reflect the local impact of the
conditions (i, j, k, etc.) that influence CH4 emissions, preferably being developed through collection of field data.
As for Tier 1 approach, it is encouraged to implement the method at the most disaggregated level and to
incorporate the multitude of conditions (i, j, k, etc.) that influence CH4 emissions.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Tier 3: Tier 3 includes models and monitoring networks tailored to address national circumstances of rice
cultivation, repeated over time, driven by high-resolution activity data and disaggregated at sub-national level.
Models can be empirical or mechanistic, but must in either case be validated with independent observations from
country or region-specific studies that cover the range of rice cultivation characteristics (Cai et al., 2003b; Li et
al., 2004; Huang et al., 2004). Proper documentation of the validity and completeness of the data, assumptions,
equations and models used is therefore critical. Tier 3 methodologies may also take into account inter-annual
variability triggered by typhoon damage, drought stress etc. Ideally, the assessment should be based on recent
satellite data.
30
5.5.2
31
32
33
34
35
Tier 1: A baseline emission factor for no flooded less than 180 days prior to rice cultivation and continuously
flooded during the rice cultivation period without organic amendments (EFc) is used as a starting point. The
IPCC default for EFc is 1.30 (with error range of 0.80-2.20) kg CH4 ha-1 day-1 (Table 5.11), estimated by a
statistical analysis of available field measurement data (Yan et al., 2005, the data set used in the analysis is
available at a web site5).
36
37
38
39
40
41
Scaling factors are used to adjust the EFc to account for the various conditions discussed in Box 5.2, which result
in adjusted daily emission factors (EFi) for a particular sub-unit of disaggregated harvested area according to
Equation 5.2. The most important scaling factors, namely water regime during and before cultivation period and
organic amendments, are represented in Tables 5.12, 13, and 14, respectively, through default values. Countryspecific scaling factors should only be used if they are based on well-researched and documented measurement
data. It is encouraged to consider soil type, rice cultivar, and other factors if available.
Choice of emission and scaling factors
42
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d4/yanxy/database_of_CH4.xls
5.46
Chapter 5: Cropland

TABLE 5.11
DEFAULT CH4 BASELINE EMISSION FACTOR ASSUMING NO FLOODING LESS THAN 180 DAYS PRIOR TO RICE CULTIVATION
AND CONTINUOUSLY FLOODED DURING RICE CULTIVATION WITHOUT ORGANIC AMENDMENTS
-1
Emission factor
Error range
1.30
0.80-2.20
-1
CH4 Emission (kg CH4 ha d )
Source: Yan et al., 2005
1
2
3
4
5
6
Water regime during the cultivation period (SFw): Table 5.12 provides default scaling factors and error
ranges reflecting different water regimes. The aggregated case refers to a situation when activity data are only
available for rice ecosystem types, but not for flooding patterns (see Box 5.2). In the disaggregated case,
flooding patterns can be distinguished in the form of three sub-categories as shown in Table 5.12. It is good
practice to collect more disaggregated activity data and apply disaggregated case SFw whenever possible.
7
TABLE 5.12
DEFAULT CH4 EMISSION SCALING FACTORS FOR WATER REGIMES DURING THE CULTIVATION PERIOD RELATIVE TO
CONTINUOUSLY FLOODED FIELDS
Water Regime
Aggregated case
Scaling
Factor
(SFw)
Error
Range
Scaling
Factor
(SFw)
Error
Range
0.79-1.26
0.60
0.46-0.80
Intermittently flooded multiple aeration
0.52
0.41-0.66
Regular rainfed
0.28
0.21-0.37
0.25
0.18-0.36
0.31
ND
Uplanda
Continuously flooded
Irrigatedb
Rainfed and
deep waterc
Disaggregated case
Intermittently flooded single aeration
Drought prone
0.78
0.27
Deep water
0.62-0.98
0.21-0.34
ND: not determined

a: Fields are never flooded for a significant period of time.
b: Fields are flooded for a significant period of time and water regime is fully controlled.
Continuously flooded: Fields have standing water throughout the rice growing season and may only dry out for harvest (end-season
drainage).
Intermittently flooded : Fields have at least one aeration period of more than 3 days during the cropping season.
Single aeration: Fields have a single aeration during the cropping season at any growth stage (except for end-season
drainage).
Multiple aeration: Fields have more than one aeration period during the cropping season (except for end-season drainage).
c: Fields are flooded for a significant period of time and water regime depends solely on precipitation.
Regular rainfed: The water level may rise up to 50 cm during the cropping season.
Drought prone: Drought periods occur during every cropping season.
Deep water rice: Floodwater rises to more than 50 cm for a significant period of time during the cropping season.
Note: Other rice ecosystem categories, like swamps and inland, saline or tidal wetlands may be discriminated within each sub-category.
5.47
1
2
3
Water regime before the cultivation period (SFp): Table 5.13 provides default scaling factors for water
regime before the cultivation period (SFp), which can be used when country-specific data are unavailable. This
table distinguishes three different water regimes prior to rice cultivation, namely:
Non-flooded pre-season < 180 days, which often occurs under double cropping of rice;
Non-flooded pre-season > 180 days, e.g. single rice crop following a dry fallow period;
6
7
Flooded pre-season in which the minimum flooding interval is set to 30 days; i.e. shorter flooding periods
(usually done to prepare the soil for ploughing) will not be included in this category.
8
9
10
When activity data for the pre-season water status are not available, aggregated case factors can be used. It is
good practice to collect more disaggregated activity data and apply disaggregated case SFp. Scaling factors for
additional water regimes can be applied if country-specific data are available.
11
TABLE 5.13
DEFAULT CH4 EMISSION SCALING FACTORS FOR WATER REGIMES BEFORE THE CULTIVATION PERIOD
Aggregated case
Water regime prior to rice cultivation
Scaling
factor (SFp)
Error
range
Aggregated case
Water regime prior to rice cultivation (schematic
presentation showing flooded periods as shaded)
Non flooded preseason <180 d
Non flooded preseason >180 d
Flooded preseason (>30 d)a,b
Scaling
factor (SFp)
Error
range
< 180 d
CROP
> 180 d
CROP
1.22
1.07-1.40
> 30 d
CROP
Disaggregated case
Scaling
factor (SFp)
Error
range
Disaggregated case
Scaling
factor (SFp)
Error
range
0.88-1.14
0.68
0.58-0.80
1.90
1.65-2.18
a:
Short pre-season flooding periods of less than 30 d are not considered in selection of SFp
For calculation of pre-season emission see below (section on completeness)
b:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Organic amendments (SFo): It is good practice to develop scaling factors that incorporate information on the
type and amount of organic amendment applied (compost, farmyard manure, green manure, and rice straw). On
an equal mass basis, more CH4 is emitted from amendments containing higher amounts of easily decomposable
carbon and emissions also increase as more of each organic amendment is applied. Equation 5.3 and Table 5.14
present an approach to vary the scaling factor according to the amount of different types of amendment applied.
Rice straw is often incorporated into the soil after harvest. In the case of a long fallow after rice straw
incorporation, CH4 emissions in the ensuing rice-growing season will be less than the case that rice straw is
incorporated just before rice transplanting (Fitzgerald et al., 2000). Therefore, the timing of rice straw
application was distinguished. An uncertainty range of 0.54-0.64 can be adopted for the exponent 0.59 in
Equation 5.3.
23
24
25
EQUATION 5.3
ADJUSTED CH4 EMISSION SCALING FACTORS FOR ORGANIC AMENDMENTS
SFo = 1 + ROAi CFOAi

i
26
0.59
27
Where:
28
SFo = scaling factor for both type and amount of organic amendment applied
29
30
ROAi = application rate of organic amendment i, in dry weight for straw and fresh weight for others,
tonne ha-1
5.48
Chapter 5: Cropland

1
2
CFOAi = conversion factor for organic amendment i (in terms of its relative effect with respect to straw
applied shortly before cultivation) as shown in Table 5.14.
3
TABLE 5.14
DEFAULT CONVERSION FACTOR FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF ORGANIC AMENDMENT
Organic amendment
Conversion factor
(CFOA)
Error range
Straw incorporated shortly (<30 days) before cultivationa
0.97-1.04
Straw incorporated long (>30 days) before cultivationa
0.29
0.20-0.40
Compost
0.05
0.01-0.08
Farm yard manure
0.14
0.07-0.20
Green manure
0.50
0.30-0.60
a: straw application means that straw is incorporated into the soil, it does not include case that straw just placed on the soil surface, nor
that straw was burned on the field.
4
5
6
7
8
9
Soil type (SFs) and rice cultivar (SFr): In some countries emission data for different soil types and rice cultivar
are available and can be used to derive SFs and SFr, respectively. Both experiments and mechanistic knowledge
confirm the importance of these factors, but large variations within the available data do not allow one to define
reasonably accurate default values. It is anticipated that in the near future simulation models will be capable of
producing specific scaling factors for SFs and SFr.
10
11
12
13
14
Tier 2: Inventory agencies can use country-specific emission factors from field measurements that cover the
conditions of rice cultivation in the respective country. It is good practice to compile country-specific data bases
on available field measurements which supplement the Emission Factor database6 by other (e.g. national)
measurement programs not yet included in this data base. However, certain standard QA/QC requirements apply
to these field measurements (see Chapter 5.5.5).
15
16
17
18
19
20
In Tier 2, inventory agencies can define the baseline management according to the prevailing conditions found in
the respective country and determine country-specific emission factors for such a baseline. Then, inventory
agencies can also determine country-specific scaling factors for management practices other than the baseline. In
case where country-specific scaling factors are not available, default scaling factors can be used. However, this
may require some recalculation of the scaling factors given in Tables 5.12 to 5.14 as long as another baseline for
continuous flooding-no organic amendment is clearly defined.
21
22
Tier 3: Tier 3 approaches do not require choice of emission factors, but are instead based on a thorough
understanding of drivers and parameters (see above).
23
5.5.3
24
25
26
In addition to the essential activity data requested above, it is good practice to match data on organic
amendments and soil types to the same level of disaggregation as the activity data. It may be necessary to
complete a survey of cropping practices to obtain data on the type and amount of organic amendments applied.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Activity data are primarily based on harvested area statistics, which should be available from a national statistics
agency as well as complementary information on cultivation period and agronomic practices. The activity data
should be broken down by regional differences in rice cropping practices or water regime (see Box 5.2).
Harvested area estimates corresponding to different conditions may be obtained on a countrywide basis through
accepted methods of reporting. The use of locally verified areas would be most valuable when they are
correlated with available data for emission factors under differing conditions such as climate, agronomic
practices, and soil properties. If these data are not available in-country, they can be obtained from international
data sources: e.g., IRRI (1995) and the World Rice Statistics on the website of IRRI 7 (International Rice
Research Institute), which include harvest area of rice by ecosystem type for major rice producing counties, a
Choice of activity data
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d4/yanxy/database_of_CH4.xls
http://www.irri.org/science/ricestat/index.asp
5.49
1
2
3
4
5
rice crop calendar for each country, and other useful information, and the FAOSTAT on the website of FAO8.
The use of locally verified areas would be most valuable when they are correlated with available data for
emission factors under differing conditions such as climate, agronomic practices, and soil properties. It may be
necessary to consult local experts for a survey of agronomic practices relevant to methane emissions (organic
amendments, water management, etc.).
6
7
8
Most likely, activity data will be more reliable as compared to the accuracy of the emission factors. However, for
various reasons the area statistics may be biased and a check of the harvested area statistics for (parts of) the
country with remotely sensed data is encouraged.
9
10
11
In addition to the essential activity data requested above, it is good practice, particularly in Tier 2 and 3
approaches, to match data on organic amendments and other conditions, e.g. soil types, to the same level of
disaggregation as the activity data.
12
5.5.4
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
The general principles of uncertainty assessment relevant for national emission inventories are elucidated in
Volume 1 Chapter 3. The uncertainty of emission and scaling factors may be influenced by natural variability,
such as annual climate variability, and variability within units that are assumed to be homogenous, such as
spatial variability in a field or soil unit. For this source category, good practice should permit determination of
uncertainties using standard statistical methods when enough experimental data are available. Studies to quantify
some of this uncertainty are rare but available (e.g. for soil type induced variability). The variability found in
such studies is assumed to be generally valid. For more detail, see Sass (2002).
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Important activity data necessary to assign scaling factors (i.e. data on cultural practices and organic
amendments) may not be available in current databases/statistics. Estimates of the fraction of rice farmers using
a particular practice or amendment must then be based on expert judgement, and the uncertainty range in the
estimated fraction should also be based on expert judgement. As a default value for the uncertainty in the
fraction estimate as 0.2 (e.g. the fraction of farmers using organic amendment estimated at 0.4, the uncertainty
range being 0.2-0.6). Volume 1 Chapter 3 provides advice on quantifying uncertainties in practice including
combining expert judgements and empirical data into overall uncertainty estimates.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
In the case of CH4 emissions from rice cultivation, the uncertainty ranges of Tier 1 values (emission and scaling
factors) can be adopted directly from Tables 5.11-5.14. Ranges are defined as the standard deviation about the
mean, indicating the uncertainty associated with a given default value for this source category. The exponent in
Equation 5.3 is provided with an uncertainty range of 0.54-0.64. Uncertainty assessment of Tier 2 and Tier 3
approaches will depend on the respective data base and model used. Therefore, it is good practice to apply
general principles of statistical analysis as outlined in Volume 1 Chapter 3 as well as model approaches as
outlined in Volume 4 Chapter 3 Section 3.5.
34
5.5.5
35
C OMPLETENESS
36
37
Complete coverage for this source category requires estimation of emissions from the following activities, where
present:
38
39
40
If soil submergence is not limited to the actual rice growing season, emissions outside of the rice growing
season should be included (e.g. from a flooded fallow period). For further information, see Yagi et al., 1998;
Cai et al., 2000; and Cai et al. 2003a;
41
42
Other rice ecosystem categories, like swamp, inland-saline or tidal rice fields may be discriminated within
each sub-category according to local emission measurements;
43
44
45
46
If more than one rice crop is grown annually, these rice crops should be reported independently according to
the local definition (e.g. early rice, late rice, wet season rice, dry season rice). The rice crops may fall into
different categories with a different seasonally integrated emission factor and different correction factors for
other modifiers like organic amendments.
Completeness, Time Series, QA/QC, and Reporting
http://apps.fao.org/faostat/default.jsp
5.50
Chapter 5: Cropland

D EVELOPING
A CONSISTENT TIME SERIES
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
As for other sources and categories, the methods for estimating CH4 emissions from rice fields should be applied
consistently to every year in the time series and at the same level of disaggregation. If detailed activity level data
are unavailable for earlier years, emissions for these years should be recalculated according to the guidance
provided in Volume 1 Chapter 5. If there have been significant changes in agricultural practices affecting CH4
emissions over the time series, the estimation method should be implemented at a level of disaggregation which
is sufficient to discern the effects of these changes. For example, various trends in (Asian) rice agriculture such
as the adoption of new rice varieties, increasing use of inorganic fertiliser, improved water management,
changing use of organic amendments, and direct seeding may lead to increases or decreases in overall emissions.
To weigh the impact of these changes, it may be necessary to use model studies.
11
R EPORTING
12
13
14
15
16
It is good practice to document and archive all information required to produce the national emissions inventory
estimates as outlined in Volume 1 Chapter 8. It is good practice to document the emission estimate by reporting
the information required to fill out the rice worksheet in the Guidelines. Inventory agencies that do not use the
worksheets should provide comparable information. If the emission estimate is disaggregated by region,
information on each region should be reported.
17
The following additional information should be reported, if available, to ensure transparency:
18
Water management practices;
19
20
21
The types and amounts of organic amendments used. (Incorporation of rice straw or residues of the previous
(non-rice) crop should be considered an organic amendment, although it may be a normal production
practice and not aimed at increasing nutrient levels as is the case with manure additions);
22
Soil types used for rice agriculture;
23
Number of rice crops grown annually;
24
Most important rice cultivars grown.
25
26
27
Inventory agencies using country-specific emission factors should provide information on the origin and basis of
each factor, compare them to other published emission factors, explain any significant differences, and attempt
to place bounds on the uncertainties.
28
I NVENTORY
29
30
31
32
It is good practice to implement quality control checks as outlined in Volume 1 Chapter 6, and expert review of
the emission estimates. Additional quality control checks as outlined in Tier 2 procedures in Volume 1 Chapter 6,
and quality assurance procedures may also be applicable, particularly if higher tier methods are used to
determine emissions from this source.
33
34
A detailed treatment of inventory QA/QC for field measurement is given by Sass (2002). Some important issues
are highlighted and summarised below.
35
36
37
38
39
40
Measurements of standard methane emissions: The inventory QC procedures used at the rice field level will
be determined largely by local scientists. There are, however, certain internationally determined procedures to
obtain standard emission factors that should be common to all monitoring programmes. Instructions for
obtaining standard emission factors are contained in IAEA (1992) and IGAC (1994). It is desirable for each
laboratory in every reporting country to obtain this standard emission factor to ensure the intercomparibility
and intercalibration of extended data sets used to establish country-specific emission factors.
41
42
43
44
45
Compiling national emissions: Before accepting emissions data, the inventory agency should carry out an
assessment of data quality and sampling procedures. This type of review requires close cooperation with national
laboratories to obtain enough information to verify the reported emissions. The assessment should include
sample recalculations, an assessment on reliability of agronomic and climate data, an identification of potential
bias in the methodology, and recommendations for improvement.
46
47
It is, at present, not possible to cross-check emissions estimates from this source category through external
measurements. However, the inventory agency should ensure that emissions estimates undergo quality control by:
48
49
AND DOCUMENTATION
QUALITY ASSESSMENT / QUALITY CONTROL
(QA/QC)
Cross-referencing aggregated crop yield and reported field area statistics with national totals or other
sources of crop yield/area data;
5.51
1
Back-calculating national emission factors from aggregated emissions and other data;
Cross-referencing reported national totals with default values and data from other countries.
5.52
Chapter 5: Cropland

Annex 5A.1 Estimation of Default Stock Change Factors for

Mineral Soil C Emissions/Removals for Cropland
3
4
5
6
7
Default stock change factors are provided in Table 5.5 that were computed using a global dataset of experimental
results for tillage, input, set-aside, and land use. The land-use factor represents the loss of carbon that occurs
after 20 years of continuous cultivation. Tillage and input factors represent the effect on C stocks after 20 years
following the management change. Set-aside factors represent the effect of temporary removal of cultivated
cropland from production and placing it into perennial cover for a period of time that may extend to 20 years.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Experimental data (citations provided in reference list) were analyzed in linear mixed-effects models, accounting
for both fixed and random effects. Fixed effects included depth, number of years since the management change,
and the type of management change (e.g., reduced tillage vs. no-till). For depth, data were not aggregated but
included C stocks measured for each depth increment (e.g., 0-5 cm, 5-10 cm, and 10-30 cm) as a separate point
in the dataset. Similarly, time series data were not aggregated, even though those measurements were conducted
on the same plots. Consequently, random effects were used to account for the dependencies in times series data
and among data points representing different depths from the same study. If significant, a country level random
effect was used to assess an additional uncertainty associated with applying a global default value to a specific
country (included in the default uncertainties). Data were transformed with a natural log transformation if model
assumptions were not met for normality and homogeneity of variance (back-transformed values are given in the
tables). Factors represent the effect of the management practice at 20 years for the top 30 cm of the soil, with the
exception of the land-use factor, which represents the average loss of carbon at 20 years or longer time period
following cultivation. Users of the Tier 1 method can approximate the annual change in carbon storage by the
dividing the inventory estimate by 20. Variance was calculated for each of the factor values, and can be used
with simple error propagation methods or to construct probability distribution functions with a normal density.
23
24
5.53
1
References
BIOMASS
3
4
Albrecht, A. and Kandji, S.T. 2003. Carbon sequestration in tropical agroforestry systems. Agriculture,
Ecosytems and Environment 99: 15-27.
5
6
7
Hairiah, K., and Sitompul, S.M. 2000. Assessment and simulation of above-ground and below-ground carbon
dynamics. Report to Asia Pacific Network (APN). Brawijaya University, Faculty of Agriculture, Malang,
Indonesia..
8
9
Lasco, R.D. and P.D. Suson. 1999. A Leucaena Leucocephala -based indigenous fallow system in central
Philippines: the Naalad system. Intl Tree Crops Journal 10: 161-174.
10
11
12
Lasco, R.D., J.S. Lales, M.T. Arnuevo, I.Q. Guillermo, A.C. de Jesus, R. Medrano, O.F. Bajar, and C.V.
Mendoza. 2002. Carbon dioxide (CO2) storage and sequstration of land cover in the Leyte Geothermal
Reservation. Renewable Energy 25: 307-315.
13
14
15
Lasco, R.D., R.F. Sales, R. Estrella, S.R. Saplaco, A.S.A. Castillo, R.V.O. Cruz and F.B. Pulhin. 2001. Carbon
stocks assessment of two agroforestry systems in the Makiling Forest Reserve, Philippines. Philippine
Agricultural Scientist, 84: 401-407.
16
17
Millennium Ecosystems Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Synthesis. Island Press,
Washington DC. 137pp.
18
19
Moore III, B. 2002. Chapter 2 Challenges of a changing earth. In, Challenges of a Changing Earth (W. Steffen, J.
Jaeger, D.J. Carson, and C. Bradshaw, eds). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 7-17.
20
21
22
23
24
Palm, C.A., Woomer, P.L., Alegre, J., Arevalo, L., Castilla, C., Cordeiro, D.G., Feigl., B., Hairiah, K., KottoSame, J., Mendes, A., Maukam, A., Murdiyarso, D., Njomgang, R., Parton, W.J., Ricse., A., Rodrigues, V.,
Sitompus, S.M., and van Noordwijk, M. 1999. Carbon sequestration and trace gas emissions in slash-andburn and alternative land-uses in the Humid Tropics. ACB Climate Change Working Group. Final Report
Phase II, Nairobi, Kenya.
25
26
27
Siregar, C.A. and Gintings, Ng. 2000. Research activities related to ground biomass measurement at Forestry
Research Development Agency. Paper presented at the Workshop on LUCC and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Biophysical Data. Institut Pertanian Bogor. Indonesia, 16 December 2000.
28
29
30
Tjitrosemito, S., and Mawardi, I: 2000. 'Terrestrial carbon stock in oil palm plantation', Paper presented at the
Science Policy Workshop on Terrestrial Carbon Assessment for Possible Trading under CDM Projects,
Bogor, Indonesia 28-29 February 2000.
31
32
33
Tomich, T.P., van Noordwijk, M., Budidarsono, S., Gillison, A., Kusumanto, T., Murdiyarso, D., Stolle, T., and
Fagi, A.M. 1998. Alternative to slash and burn in Indonesia. Summary Report and Synthesis of Phase II.
ASB-Indonesia, Report No. 8, ICRAF, Bogor, Indonesia.
34
35
Wasrin, U.R., Rohiani, A, Putera, A.E. and Hidayat, A. 2000. Assessment of above-ground C-stock using
remote sensing and GIS technique. Final Report, Seameo Biotrop, Bogor, 28p.
36
37
SOILS
38
39
40
41
Augustin, J., Merbach, W., Schmidt, W. & Reining, E. (1996) Effect of changing temperature and water table on
trace gas emission from minerotrophic mires. Journal of Applied Botany-Angewandte Botanik, 70, 45-51.
42
43
Bruce JP, M. Frome, E. Haites, H. Janzen, R. Lal, and K. Paustian (1999) Carbon sequestration in soils. Journal
of Soil and Water Conservation 54:382-389.
44
45
Davidson E. A. and Ackerman I.L. (1993). Changes in soil carbon inventories following cultivation of
previously untilled soils. Biogeochemistry 20:161164.
46
47
48
improved long-term data sets to reduce uncertainty in model projections. Soil Use and Management, 19,
265-269.
49
50
Freibauer, A. (2003) Biogenic Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from European Agriculture. European Journal of
Agronomy 19(2): 135-160.
5.54
Chapter 5: Cropland

1
2
3
Freibauer, A. & Kaltschmitt, M. (eds). 2001. Biogenic greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture in Europe.
European Summary Report of the EU concerted action FAIR3-CT96-1877, Biogenic emissions of
greenhouse gases caused by arable and animal agriculture, 220 p.
4
5
Glenn, S.M., A. Hayes, and T.R. Moore (1993) Methane and carbon dioxide fluxes from drained peatland soils,
southern Quebec. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 7:247-257
6
7
Kasimir-Klemedtsson, A., L. Klemedtsson, K. Berglund, P. Martikainen, J. Silvola, and O. Oenema. (1997)

Greenhouse gas emissions from farmed organic soils: a review. Soil Use and Management 13:245-250.
8
9
Leifeld, J., Bassin, S. & Fuhrer, J. 2005. Carbon stocks in Swiss agricultural soils predicted by land-use, soil
characteristics, and altitude. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 105, 255-266.
10
11
Lohila A, Aurela M, Tuovinen JP, Laurila T (2004) Annual CO2 exchange of a peat field growing spring barley
or perennial forage grass. Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D18116
12
13
Maljanen M, Martikainen PJ, Walden J, Silvola J (2001) CO2 exchange in an organic field growing barley or
grass in eastern Finland. Global Change Biology, 7, 679-692.
14
15
16
Maljanen M, Komulainen VM, Hytonen J, Martikainen P, Laine J (2004) Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and
methane dynamics in boreal organic agricultural soils with different soil characteristics. Soil Biology and
Biochemistry, 36, 1801-1808.
17
Mann LK (1986) Changes in soil carbon storage after cultivation. Soil Science 142:279-288.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Nusser S.M. and Goebel J.J. (1997). The National Resources Inventory: a long-term multi-resource monitoring
programme. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 4:181-204.
25
26
Nyknen H, Alm J, Lang K, Silvola J, Martikainen PJ (1995) Emissions of CH4, N2O and CO2 from a virgin fen
and a fen drained for grassland in Finland. Journal of Biogeography, 22, 351-357.
27
28
29
Biology 9:1521-1542.
30
31
32
Ogle, S.M., Breidt FJ and Paustian K (2005) Agricultural Management Impacts on Soil Organic Carbon Storage
under Moist and Dry Climatic Conditions of Temperate and Tropical Regions. Biogeochemistry 72:87121.
33
34
Ogle, S.M., F.J. Breidt and Paustian K. (2006) Bias and variance in model results due to spatial scaling of
measurements for parameterization in regional assessments. Global Change Biology, in review.
35
36
37
Paustian K, O. Andren, H.H. Janzen, R. Lal, P. Smith, G. Tian, H. Tiessen, M. Van Noordwijk, and P.L.
Woomer (1997) Agricultural soils as a sink to mitigate CO2 emissions. Soil Use and Management 13:230244.
38
39
Pierce, F. J., M.-C. Fortin, and M.J. Staton. (1994) Periodic plowing effects on soil properties in a no-till farming
system. Soil Science Society of America Journal 58:1782-1787.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Smith P., Powlson D.S., Smith J.U., and Elliott E.T. (eds) (1997). Evaluation and comparison of soil organic
47
48
Smith, P., Powlson, D.S., Glendining, M.J. & Smith, J.U. (1998) Preliminary estimates of the potential for
carbon mitigation in European soils through no-till farming. Global Change Biology 4: 679-685.
49
50
51
5.55
1
2
ESTIMATION OF DEFAULT STOCK CHANGE FACTORS FOR MINERAL SOIL C

EMISSIONS/REMOVALS FOR CROPLAND: ANNEX 5A.1
3
4
5
Agbenin, J.O., and J.T. Goladi. (1997). Carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus dynamics under continuous cultivation
as influenced by farmyard manure and inorganic fertilizers in the savanna of northern Nigeria. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 63:17-24.
6
7
Ahl, C., R.G. Joergensen, E. Kandeler, B. Meyer, and V. Woehler. (1998). Microbial biomass and activity in silt
and sand loams after long-term shallow tillage in central Germany. Soil and Tillage Research 49:93-104.
8
9
Alvarez R., M.E. Russo, P. Prystupa, J.D. Scheiner, and L. Blotta. (1998). Soil carbon pools under conventional
and no-tillage systems in the Argentine Rolling Pampa. Agronomy Journal 90:138-143.
10
11
12
Angers, D.A., M.A. Bolinder, M.R. Carter, E.G. Gregorich, C.F. Drury, B.C. Liang, R.P. Voroney, R.R. Simard,
R.G. Donald, R.P. Beyaert, and J. Martel. (1997). Impact of tillage practices on organic carbon and nitrogen
storage in cool, humid soils of eastern Canada. Soil and Tillage Research 41:191-201.
13
14
Angers, D.A., R.P. Voroney, and D. Cote. (1995). Dynamics of soil organic matter and corn residues affected by
tillage practices. Soil Science Society of America Journal 59:1311-1315.
15
16
Anken, T., P. Weisskopf, U.Zihlmann, H. Forrer, J. Jansa, and K. Perhacova. (2004). Long-term tillage system
effects under moist cool conditions in Switzerland. Soil and Tillage Research 78:171-183.
17
18
Baer, S.G., C.W. Rice, and J.M. Blair. (2000). Assessment of soil quality in fields with short and long term
enrollment in the CRP. Journal of Soil and Water Convservation 55:142-146.
19
20
Balesdent, J., A. Mariotti, and D. Boisgontier. (1990). Effect of tillage on soil organic carbon mineralization
estimated from 13C abundance in maize fields. Journal of Soil Science 41:587-596.
21
22
23
Barber, R.G., M. Orellana, F. Navarro, O. Diaz, and M.A. Soruco. (1996). Effects of conservation and
conventional tillage systems after land clearing on soil properties and crop yield in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Soil
and Tillage Research 38:133-152.
24
25
Bauer, A., and A.L. Black. (1981). Soil carbon, nitrogen, and bulk density comparisons in two cropland tillage
systems after 25 years and in virgin grassland. Soil Science Society of America Journal 45:166-1170.
26
27
Bayer, C., J. Mielniczuk, L. Martin-Neto, and P.R. Ernani. (2002). Stocks and humification degree of organic
matter fractions as affected by no-tillage on a subtropical soil. Plant and Soil 238:133-140.
28
29
30
Bayer, C., J. Mielniczuk, T.J.C. Amado, L. Martin-Neto, and S.V. Fernandes. (2000). Organic matter storage in a
sandy clay loam Acrisol affected by tillage and cropping systems in southern Brazil. Soil and Tillage
Research 54:101-109.
31
32
Beare, M.H., P.F. Hendrix, and D.C. Coleman. (1994). Water-stable aggregates and organic matter fractions in
conventional- and no-tillage soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 58: 777-786.
33
34
Beyer, L. (1994). Effect of cultivation on physico-chemical, humus-chemical and biotic properties and fertility
of two forest soils. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 48:179-188.
35
36
37
38
Black, A.L., and D.L. Tanaka. (1997). A conservation tillage-cropping systems study in the Northern Great
Plains of the United States. Pages 335-342 in Paul, E.A., K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott, and C.V. Cole, editors.
Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems: Long-term Experiments in North America. CRC Press.
Boca Raton, FL.
39
40
Blanco-Canqui, H., C.J. Gantzer, S.H. Anderson, and E.E. Alberts. (2004). Tillage and crop influences on
physical properties for an Epiaqualf. Soil Science Society of America Journal 68:567-576.
41
42
Bordovsky, D.G., M. Choudhary, and C.J. Gerard. (1999). Effect of tillage, cropping, and residue management
on soil properties in the Texas rolling plains. Soil Science 164:331-340.
43
44
Borin, M., C. Menini, and L. Sartori. (1997). Effects of tillage systems on energy and carbon balance in northeastern Italy. Soil and Tillage Research 40:209-226.
45
46
Borresen, T., and A. Njos. (1993). Ploughing and rotary cultivation for cereal production in a long-term
experiment on a clay soil in southeastern Norway. 1. Soil properties. Soil and Tillage Research 28:97-108.
47
48
49
Bowman, R.A., and R.L. Anderson. (2002). Conservation Reserve Program: Effects on soil organic carbon and
preservation when converting back to cropland in northeastern Colorado. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation 57:121-126.
50
51
Bremer, E., H.H. Janzen, and A.M. Johnston. (1994). Sensitivity of total, light fraction and mineralizable organic
matter to management practices in a Lethbridge soil. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 74:131-138.
5.56
Chapter 5: Cropland

1
2
Burke, I.C., W.K. Lauenroth, and D.P. Coffin. (1995). Soil organic matter recovery in semiarid grasslands:
implications for the Conservation Reserve Program. Ecological Applications 5:793-801.
3
4
Buschiazzo, D.E., J.L. Panigatti, and P.W. Unger. (1998). Tillage effects on soil properties and crop production
in the subhumid and semiarid Argentinean Pampas. Soil and Tillage Research 49:105-116.
5
6
Buyanovsky, G.A., and G.H. Wagner. (1998). Carbon cycling in cultivated land and its global significance.
Global Change Biology 4:131-141
7
8
Buyanovsky, G.A., C.L. Kucera, and G.H. Wagner. (1987). Comparative analysis of carbon dynamics in native
and cultivated ecosystems. Ecology 68:2023-2031.
9
10
Cambardella, C.A., and E.T. Elliott. (1992). Particulate soil organic-matter changes across a grassland
cultivation sequence. Soil Science Society of America Journal 56:777-783.
11
12
13
14
Campbell, C.A., and R.P. Zentner. (1997). Crop production and soil organic matter in long-term crop rotations in
the semi-arid northern Great Plains of Canada. Pages 317-334 in: E.A. Paul, E.T. Elliott, K. Paustian, and
C.V. Cole. Soil organic matter in temperate agroecosystems: Long-term experiments in North America. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL.
15
16
17
Campbell, C.A., B.G. McConkey, R.P. Zentner, F. Selles, and D. Curtin. (1996). Long-term effects of tillage and
crop rotations on soil organic C and total N in a clay soil in southwestern Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of
Soil Science 76:395-401.
18
19
20
21
Campbell, C.A., G.P. Lafond, A.P. Moulin, L. Townley-Smith, and R.P. Zentner. (1997). Crop production and
soil organic matter in long-term crop rotations in the sub-humid northern Great Plains of Canada. Pages 297315 in: E.A. Paul, E.T. Elliott, K. Paustian, and C.V. Cole. Soil organic matter in temperate agroecosystems:
Long-term experiments in North America. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
22
23
24
Campbell, C.A., K.E. Bowren, M. Schnitzer, R.P. Zentner, and L. Townley-Smith. (1991). Effect of crop
rotations and fertilization on soil organic matter and some biochemical properties of a thick black Chernozem.
Canadian Journal of Soil Science 71: 377-387.
25
26
27
Campbell, C.A., R.P. Zentner, F. Selles, V.O. Biederbeck, B.G. McConkey, B. Blomert, and P.G. Jefferson.
(2000). Quantifying short-term effects of crop rotations on soil organic carbon in southwestern Saskatchewan.
Canadian Journal of Soil Science 80:193-202.
28
29
30
Campbell, C.A., V.O. Biederbeck, B.G. McConkey, D. Curtin, and R.P. Zentner. (1999). Soil quality - effect of
tillage and fallow frequency. Soil organic matter quality as influenced by tillage and fallow frequency in a silt
loam in southwestern Saskatchewan. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 31:1-7.
31
32
33
Campbell, C.A., V.O. Biederbeck, G. Wen, R.P. Zentner, J. Schoenau, and D. Hahn. (1999). Seasonal trends in
selected soil biochemical attributes: Effects of crop rotation in the semiarid prairie. Canadian Journal of Soil
Science 79:73-84.
34
35
36
Campbell, C.A., V.O. Biederbeck, R.P. Zentner, and G.P. Lafond. (1991). Effect of crop rotations and cultural
practices on soil organic matter microbial biomass and respiration in a thin Black Chernozem. Canadian
Journal of Soil Science 71: 363-376.
37
38
Carter, M.R., H.W. Johnston, and J. Kimpinski. (1988). Direct drilling and soil loosening for spring cereals on a
fine sandy loam in Atlantic Canada. Soil and Tillage Research 12:365-384.
39
40
41
Carter, M.R., J.B. Sanderson, J.A. Ivany, and R.P. White. (2002). Influence of rotation and tillage on forage
maize productivity, weed species, and soil quality of a fine sandy loam in the cool-humid climate of Atlantic
Canada 67:85-98.
42
43
Carter, M.R.. (1991). Evaluation of shallow tillage for spring cereals on a fine sandy loam. 2. Soil physical,
chemical and biological properties. Soil and Tillage Research 21:37-52.
44
45
46
Chan K.Y., W.P. Roberts, and D.P. Heenan. (1992). Organic carbon and associated soil properties of a red Earth
after 10 years of rotation under different stubble and tillage practices. Australian Journal of Soil Research 30:
71-83.
47
48
Chan, K.Y, and J.A. Mead. (1988). Surface physical properties of a sandy loam soil under different tillage
practices. Australian Journal of Soil Research 26:549-559.
49
50
51
Chaney B.K., D.R. Hodson, and M.A.Braim. (1985). The effects of direct drilling, shallow cultivation and
ploughing on some soil physical properties in a long-term experiment on spring barley. J. Agric. Sci., Camb.
104:125-133.
5.57
1
2
3
Clapp, C.E., R.R. Allmaras, M.F. Layese, D.R. Linden, and R.H. Dowdy. (2000). Soil organic carbon and 13C
abundance as related to tillage, crop residue, and nitrogen fertilization under continuous corn management in
Minnesota. Soil and Tillage Research 55:127-142.
4
5
6
Collins, H.P., R.L. Blevins, L.G. Bundy, D.R. Christenson, W.A. Dick, D.R. Huggins, and E.A. Paul. (1999).
Soil carbon dynamics in corn-based agroecosystems: results from carbon-13 natural abundance. Soil Science
7
8
Corazza E.J. et al. (1999). Behavior of different management systems as a source or sink of C-CO2 in relation to
cerrado type vegetation. R.Bras Ci.Solo 23:425-432.
9
10
Costantini, A., D. Cosentino, and A. Segat. (1996). Influence of tillage systems on biological properties of a
Typic Argiudoll soil under continuous maize in central Argentina. Soil and Tillage Research 38:265-271.
11
12
Dalal, R.C. (1989). Long-term effects of no-tillage, crop residue, and nitrogen application on properties of a
Vertisol. Soil Science Society of America Journal 53:1511-1515.
13
14
15
Dalal, R.C., and R.J. Mayer. (1986). Long-term trends in fertility of soils under continuous cultivation and cereal
cropping in Southern Queensland. I. Overall changes in soil properties and trends in winter cereal yields.
Australian Journal of Soil Research 24:265-279.
16
17
Dalal, R.C., P.A. Henderson, and J.M. Glasby. (1991). Organic matter and microbial biomass in a vertisol after
20 yr of zero tillage. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 23:435-441.
18
19
20
21
Dick, W.A., and J.T. Durkalski. (1997). No-tillage production agriculture and carbon sequestration in a Typic
Fragiudalf soil of Northeastern Ohio. Pages 59-71 in Lal, R., J.M. Kimble, R.F. Follett, and B.A. Stewart,
editors. Advances in Soil Science: Management of Carbon Sequestration in Soil. CRC Press Inc. Boca Raton,
FL.
22
23
24
25
Dick, W.A., W.M. Edwards, and E.L. McCoy. (1997). Continuous application of no-tillage to Ohio soils:
Changes in crop yields and organic matter-related soil properties. Pages 171-182 in: E.A. Paul, E.T. Elliott, K.
Paustian, and C.V. Cole. Soil organic matter in temperate agroecosystems: Long-term experiments in North
America. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
26
27
Doran, J.W., E.T. Elliott, and K. Paustian. (1998). Soil microbial activity, nitrogen cycling, and long-term
changes in organic carbon pools as related to fallow tillage management. Soil and Tillage Research 49:3-18.
28
29
Duiker, S.W, and R. Lal. (1999). Crop residue and tillage effects on carbon sequestration in a luvisol in central
Ohio. Soil and Tillage Research 52:73-81.
30
31
Edwards, J.H., C.W. Wood, D.L. Thurlow, and M.E. Ruf. (1992). Tillage and crop rotation effects on fertility
status of a Hapludult soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal 56:1577-1582.
32
33
34
Eghball B., L.N. Mielke, D.L. McCallister, and J.W. Doran. (1994). Distribution of organic carbon and inorganic
nitrogen in a soil under various tillage and crop sequences. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 49: 201205.
35
36
Fabrizzi, K.P., A. Moron, and F.O. Garcia. (2003). Soil carbon and nitrogen organic fractions in degraded vs.
non-degraded Mollisols in Argentina. Soil Science Society of America Journal 67:1831-1841.
37
38
Fitzsimmons, M.J., D.J. Pennock, and J. Thorpe. (2004). Effects of deforestation on ecosystem carbon densities
in central Saskatchewan, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 188: 349-361.
39
40
Fleige H., and K. Baeumer. (1974). Effect of zero-tillage on organic carbon and total nitrogen content, and their
distribution in different N-fractions in loessial soils. Agro-Ecosystems 1:19-29.
41
42
Follett, R.F., and G.A. Peterson. (1988). Surface soil nutrient distribution as affected by wheat-fallow tillage
systems. Soil Science Society of America Journal 52:141-147.
43
44
45
Follett, R.F., E.A. Paul, S.W. Leavitt, A.D. Halvorson, D. Lyon, and G.A. Peterson. (1997). Carbon isotope
ratios of Great Plains soils and in wheat-fallow systems. Soil Science Society of America Journal 61:10681077.
46
47
48
49
Follett, R.F., E.G. Pruessner, S.E. Samson-Liebig, J.M. Kimble, and S.W. Waltman. (2001). Carbon
sequestration under the Conservation Reserve Program in the historic grassland soils of the United States of
America. Pages 1-14 in Lal, R., and K. McSweeney, editors. Soil Management for Enhancing Carbon
Sequestration. SSSA Special Publication. Madison, WI.
50
51
Franzluebbers, A.J., and M.A. Arshad. (1996). Water-stable aggregation and organic matter in four soils under
conventional and zero tillage. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 76:387-393.
5.58
Chapter 5: Cropland

1
2
Franzluebbers, A.J., F.M. Hons, and D.A. Zuberer. (1995). Soil organic carbon, microbial biomass, and
mineralizable carbon and nitrogen in sorghum. Soil Science Society of America 59:460-466.
3
4
Franzluebbers, A.J., G.W. Langdale, and H.H. Schomberg. (1999). Soil carbon, nitrogen, and aggregation in
response to type and frequency of tillage. Soil Science Society of America Journal 63:349-355.
5
6
7
Freitas P.L., P. Blancaneaux, E. Gavinelly, M.-C. Larre-Larrouy, and C. Feller. (2000). Nivel e natureza do
estoque organico de latossols sob diferentes sistemas de uso e manejo, Pesq.agropec.bras. Brasilia 35: 157170.
8
9
10
Freixo, A.A., P. Machado, H.P. dos Santos, C.A. Silva, and F. Fadigas. (2002). Soil organic carbon and fractions
of a Rhodic Ferralsol under the influence of tillage and crop rotation systems in southern Brazil. Soil and
Tillage Research 64:221-230.
11
12
13
14
Frye, W.W., and R.L. Blevins. (1997). Soil organic matter under long-term no-tillage and conventional tillage
corn production in Kentucky. Pages 227-234 in: E.A. Paul, E.T. Elliott, K. Paustian, and C.V. Cole. Soil
organic matter in temperate agroecosystems: Long-term experiments in North America. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL.
15
16
Garcia-Prechac, F., O. Ernst, G. Siri-Prieto, and J.A. Terra. (2004). Intergrating no-till into crop-pasture rotations
in Uruguay. Soil and Tillage Research 77:1-13.
17
18
Gebhart, D.L., H.B. Johnson, H.S. Mayeux, and H.W. Polley. (1994). The CRP increases soil organic carbon.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 49:488-492.
19
20
Ghuman, B.S., and H.S. Sur. (2001). Tillage and residue management effects on soil properties and yields of
rainfed maize and wheat in a subhumid subtropical climate. Soil and Tillage Research 58:1-10.
21
22
Girma, T. (1998). Effect of cultivation on physical and chemical properties of a Vertisol in Middle Awash
Valley, Ethiopia. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 29:587-598.
23
24
25
Graham, M.H., R.J. Haynes, and J.H. Meyer. (2002). Soil organic matter content and quality: effects of fertilizer
applications, burning and trash retention on a long-term sugarcane experiment in South Africa. Soil Biology
and Biochemistry 34:93-102.
26
27
28
Grandy, A.S., G.A. Porter, and M.S. Erich. (2002). Organic amendment and rotation crop effects on the recovery
of soil organic matter and aggregation in potato cropping systems. Soil Science Society of America Journal
66:1311-1319.
29
30
Gregorich, E.G., B.H. Ellert, C.F. Drury, and B.C. Liang. (1996). Fertilization effects on soil organic matter
turnover and corn residue C storage. Soil Science Society of America Journal 60:472-476.
31
32
Grunzweig, J.M., S.D. Sparrow, D. Yakir, and F.S. Chapin III. (2004). Impact of agricultural land-use change on
carbon storage in boreal Alaska. Global Change Biology 10:452-472.
33
34
35
Hadas, A., M. Agassi, H. Zhevelev, L. Kautsky, G.J. Levy, E. Fizik, and M. Gotessman. (2004). Mulching with
composted municipal solid wastes in the Central Negev, Israel II. Effect on available nitrogen and
phosphorus and on organic matter in soil. Soil and Tillage Research 78:115-128.
36
37
Halvorson, A.D., B.J. Wienhold, and A.L. Black. (2002). Tillage, nitrogen, and cropping system effects on soil
carbon sequestration. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66:906-912.
38
39
Halvorson, A.D., C.A. Reule, and R.F. Follett. (1999). Nitrogen fertilization effects on soil carbon and nitrogen
in a dryland cropping system. Soil Science Society of America Journal 63:912-917.
40
41
42
43
Halvorson, A.D., M.F. Vigil, G.A. Peterson, and E.T. Elliott. (1997) Long-term tillage and crop residue
management study at Akron, Colorado. Pages 361-370 in: E.A. Paul, E.T. Elliott, K. Paustian, and C.V. Cole.
Soil organic matter in temperate agroecosystems: Long-term experiments in North America. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
44
45
46
47
Hansmeyer, T.L., D.R. Linden, D.L. Allan, and D.R. Huggins. (1998). Determining carbon dynamics under notill, ridge-till, chisel, and moldboard tillage systems within a corn and soybean cropping sequence. Pages 9397 in Lal R., J.M. Kimble, R.F. Follett, and B.A. Stewart, editors. Advances in Soil Science: Management of
Carbon Sequestration in Soil. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL.
48
49
Hao, X., C. Chang, and C.W. Lindwall. (2001). Tillage and crop sequence effects on organic carbon and total
nitrogen content in an irrigated Alberta soil. Soil and Tillage Research 62:167-169.
50
51
52
Harden, J.W., J.M. Sharpe, W.J. Parton, D.S. Ojima, T.L. Fries, T.G. Huntington, and S.M. Dabney. (1999).
Dynamic replacement and loss of soil carbon on eroding cropland. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 14:885901.
5.59
1
2
3
4
Havlin, J.L., and D.E. Kissel. (1997). Management effects on soil organic carbon and nitrogen in the EastCentral Great Plains of Kansas. Pages 381-386 in Paul, E.A., K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott, and C.V. Cole, editors.
Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems: Long-term Experiments in North America. CRC Press.
Boca Raton, FL.
5
6
7
Hendrix, P.F. (1997). Long-term patterns of plant production and soil carbon dynamics in a Georgia piedmont
agroecosystem. Pages 235-245 in: E.A. Paul, E.T. Elliott, K. Paustian, and C.V. Cole. Soil organic matter in
temperate agroecosystems: Long-term experiments in North America. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
8
9
10
Hernanz, J.L., R. Lopez, L. Navarrete, and V. Sanchez-Giron. (2002). Long-term effects of tillage systems and
rotations on soil structural stability and organic carbon stratification in semiarid central Spain. Soil and
11
12
Hulugalle, N.R. (2000). Carbon sequestration in irrigated vertisols under cotton-based farming systems.
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 31:645-654.
13
14
Hussain, I., K.R. Olson, M.M. Wander, and D.L. Karlen. (1999). Adaption of soil quality indices and application
to three tillage systems in southern Illinois. Soil and Tillage Research 50:237-249.
15
16
Ihori, T., I.C. Burke, W.K. Lauenroth, and D.P. Coffin. (1995). Effects of cultivation and abandonment on soil
organic matter in Northeastern Colorado. Soil Science Society of America Journal 59:1112-1119.
17
18
Jackson, L.E., I. Ramirez, R. Yokota, S.A. Fennimore, S.T. Koike, D.M. Henderson, W.E. Chaney, F.J. Calderon,
and K. Klonsky. (2004). Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 103:443-463.
19
20
Janzen, H.H. (1987). Soil organic matter characteristics after long-term cropping to various spring wheat
rotations. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 67:845-856.
21
22
Jastrow, J.D., R.M. Miller, and J. Lussenhop. (1998). Contributions of interacting biological mechanisms to soil
aggregate stabilization in restored prairie. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 30:905-916.
23
24
25
Karlen, D.L., A. Kumar, R.S. Kanwar, C.A. Cambardella, and T.S. Colvin. (1998). Tillage system effects on 15year carbon-based and simulated N budgets in a tile-drained Iowa field. Soil and Tillage Research 48:155165.
26
27
28
Karlen, D.L., M.J. Rosek, J.C. Gardner, D.L. Allan, M.J. Alms, D.F. Bezdicek, M. Flock, D.R. Huggins, B.S.
Miller, and M.L. Staben. (1999). Conservation Reserve Program effects on soil quality indicators. Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation 54:439-444.
29
30
Karlen, D.L., N.C. Wollenhaupt, D.C. Erbach, E.C. Berry, J.B. Swan, N.S. Eash, and J.L. Jordahl. (1994). Longterm tillage effects on soil quality. Soil and Tillage Research 32:313-327.
31
32
Knowles, T.A., and B. Singh. (2003). Carbon storage in cotton soils of northern New South Wales. Australian
Journal of Soil Research 41:889-903.
33
34
35
Kushwaha, C.P., S.K. Tripathi, and K.P. Singh. (2000). Variations in soil microbial biomass and N availability
due to residue and tillage management in a dryland rice agroecosystem. Soil and Tillage Research 56:153166.
36
37
Lal, R. (1998). Soil quality changes under continuous cropping for seventeen seasons of an alfisol in western
Nigeria. Land Degradation and Development 9:259-274.
38
39
Lal, R., A.A. Mahboubi, and N.R. Fausey. (1994). Long-term tillage and rotation effects on properties of a
central Ohio soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal 58:517-522.
40
41
42
Larney, F.J., E. Bremer, H.H. Janzen, A.M. Johnston, and C.W. Lindwall. (1997). Changes in total,
mineralizable and light fraction soil organic matter with cropping and tillage intensities in semiarid southern
Alberta, Canada. Soil and Tillage Research 42:229-240.
43
44
45
Lilienfein J., W. Wilcke, L. Vilela, S. do Carmo Lima, R. Thomas, and W. Zech. (2000). Effect of no-tillage and
conventional tillage systems on the chemical composition of soil solid phase and soil solution of Brazilian
savanna. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 163: 411-419.
46
47
Ludwig, B., B. John, R. Ellerbrock, M. Kaiser, and H. Flessa. (2003). Stabilization of carbon from maize in a
sandy soil in a long-term experiment. European Journal of Soil Science 54:117-126.
48
49
McCarty, G.W., N.N. Lyssenko, and J.L. Starr. (1998). Short-term changes in soil carbon and nitrogen pools
during tillage management transition. Soil Science Society of America Journal 62:1564-1571.
50
51
Mielke, L.N., J.W. Doran, and K.A. Richards. (1986). Physical environment near the surface of plowed and notilled soils. Soil and Tillage Research 7:355-366.
5.60
Chapter 5: Cropland

1
2
3
Mikhailova, E.A., R.B. Bryant, I.I. Vassenev, S.J. Schwager, and C.J. Post. (2000). Cultivation effects on soil
carbon and nitrogen contents at depth in the Russian Chernozem. Soil Science Society of America Journal
64:738-745.
4
5
6
Mrabet, R., N. Saber, A. El-brahli, S. Lahlou, and F. Bessam. (2001). Total, particulate organic matter and
structural stability of a Calcixeroll soil under different wheat rotations and tillage systems in a semiarid area
of Morocco. Soil & Tillage Research 57: 225-235.
7
8
9
Nyborg, M., E.D. Solberg, S.S. Malhi, and R.C. Izaurralde. (1995). Fertilizer N, crop residue, and tillage alter
soil C and N content in a decade. Pages 93-99 in Lal, R., J. Kimble, E. Levine, and B.A. Stewart, editors.
Advances in Soil Science: Soil Management and Greenhouse effect. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL.
10
11
Parfitt, R.L., B.K.G. Theng, J.S. Whitton, and T.G. Shepherd. (1997). Effects of clay minerals and land use on
organic matter pools. Geoderma 75:1-12.
12
13
14
15
Patwardhan, A.S., R.V. Chinnaswamy, A.S. Jr. Donigian, A.K. Metherell, R.L. Blevins, W.W. Frye, and K.
Paustian. (1995). Application of the Century soil organic matter model to a field site in Lexington, KY. Pages
385-394 in Lal, R., J. Kimble, E. Levine, and B.A. Stewart, editors. Advances in Soil Science: Soils and
Global Change. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
16
17
Paustian, K. and E.T. Elliott. Unpublished data. Field sampling of long-term experiments in U.S. and Canada for
EPA carbon sequestration project.
18
19
Pennock, D.J., and C. van Kessel. (1997). Effect of agriculture and of clear-cut forest harvest on landscape-scale
soil organic carbon storage in Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 77:211-218.
20
21
22
23
Pierce, F.J. and M.-C. Fortin. (1997). Long-term tillage and periodic plowing of a no-tilled soil in Michigan:
Impacts, yield, and soil organic matter. Pages 141-149 in: E.A. Paul, E.T. Elliott, K. Paustian, and C.V. Cole.
Soil organic matter in temperate agroecosystems: Long-term experiments in North America. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
24
25
Potter, K.N., H.A. Torbert, H.B. Johnson, and C.R. Tischler. (1999). Carbon storage after long-term grass
establishment on degraded soils. Soil Science 164:718-723.
26
27
28
Potter, K.N., H.A. Torbert, O.R. Jones, J.E. Matocha, J.E. Jr. Morrison, and P.W. Unger. (1998). Distribution
and amount of soil organic C in long-term management systems in Texas. Soil and Tillage Research 47:309321.
29
30
Potter, K.N., O.R. Jones, H.A. Torbert, and P.W. Unger. (1997). Crop rotation and tillage effects on organic
carbon sequestration in the semiarid southern Great Plains. Soil Science 162:140-147.
31
32
Powlson, D.S. and D.S. Jenkinson. (1982). A comparison of the organic matter, biomass, adenosine triphosphate
and mineralizable nitrogen contents of ploughed and direct-drilled soils, J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 97:713-721.
33
34
35
Rasmussen, P.E, and S.L. Albrecht. (1998). Crop management effects on organic carbon in semi-arid Pacific
Northwest soils. Pages 209-219 in Lal R., J.M. Kimble, R.F. Follett, and B.A. Stewart, editors. Advances in
Soil Science: Management of Carbon Sequestration in Soil. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL.
36
37
Reeder, J.D., G.E. Schuman, and R.A. Bowman. (1998). Soil C and N changes on Conservation Reserve
Program lands in the Central Great Plains. Soil and Tillage Research 47:339-349.
38
39
40
Rhoton, F.E., R.R. Bruce, N.W. Buehring, G.B. Elkins, C.W. Langdale, and D.D. Tyler. (1993). Chemical and
physical characteristics of four soil types under conventional and no-tillage systems. Soil and Tillage
Research 28: 51-61.
41
42
Robles, M.D., and I.C. Burke. (1997). Legume, grass, and conservation reserve program effects on soil organic
matter recovery. Ecological Applications 7:345-357.
43
44
Ross, C.W., and K.A. Hughes. (1985). Maize/oats forage rotation under 3 cultivation systems, 1978-83 2. Soil
properties. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 28:209-219.
45
46
47
Sa, J.C.M., C.C. Cerri, W.A. Dick, R. Lal, S.P.V. Filho, M.C. Piccolo, and B.E. Feigl. (2001). Organic matter
dynamics and carbon sequestration rates for a tillage chronosequence in a Brazilian Oxisol. Soil Science
48
49
50
Saffigna, P.G., D.S. Powlson, P.C. Brookes, and G.A. Thomas. (1989). Influence of sorghum residues and tillage
on soil organic matter and soil microbial biomass in an Australian vertisol. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 21:
759-765.
5.61
1
2
3
Saggar, S., G.W. Yeates, and T.G. Shepherd. (2001). Cultivation effects on soil biological properties, microfauna
and organic matter dynamics in Eutric Gleysol and Gleyic Luvisol soils in New Zealand. Soil and Tillage
Research 58:55-68.
4
5
6
Sainju, U.M., B.P. Singh, and W.F. Whitehead. (2002). Long-term effects of tillage, cover crops, and nitrogen
fertilization on organic carbon and nitrogen concentrations in sandy loam soils in Georgia, USA. Soil and
7
8
Salinas-Garcia, J.R., F.M. Hons, and J.E. Matocha. (1997). Long-term effects of tillage and fertilization on soil
organic matter dynamics. Soil Science Society of America Journal 61:152-159.
9
10
Schiffman, P.M., and W.C. Johnson. (1989). Phytomass and detrital carbon storage during forest regrowth in the
southeastern United States Piedmont. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 19:69-78.
11
12
Sherrod, L.A., G.A. Peterson, D.G. Westfall, and L.R. Ahuja. In press. Cropping intensification enhances soil
organic carbon and nitrogen in a no-till agroecosystem. Soil Science Society of America Journal.
13
14
Sidhu, A.S., and H.S. Sur. (1993). Effect of incorporation of legume straw on soil properties and crop yield in a
maize-wheat sequence. Tropical Agriculture (Trinidad) 70:226-229.
15
16
Six, J., E.T. Elliot, K. Paustian, and J.W. Doran. (1998). Aggregation and soil organic matter accumulation in
cultivated and native grassland soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 62:1367-1377.
17
18
Six, J., K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott, and C. Combrink. (2000). Soil structure and organic matter: I. Distribution of
aggregate-size classes and aggregate-associated carbon. Soil Science Society of America Journal 64:681-689
19
20
Slobodian, N., K. Van Rees, and D. Pennock. (2002). Cultivation-induced effects on below-ground biomass and
organic carbon. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66:924-930.
21
22
23
Solomon, D., F. Fritzsche, J. Lehmann, M. Tekalign, and W. Zech. (2002). Soil organic matter dynamics in the
subhumid agroecosystems of the Ethiopian Highlands: evidence from natural 13C abundance and particlesize fractionation. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66: 969-978.
24
25
Sparling, G.P., L.A. Schipper, A.E. Hewitt, and B.P. Degens. (2000). Resistance to cropping pressure of two
New Zealand soils with contrasting mineralogy. Australian Journal of Soil Research 38:85-100.
26
27
Stenberg, M., B. Stenberg, and T. Rydberg. (2000). Effects of reduced tillage and liming on microbial activity
and soil properties in a weakly-structured soil. Applied Soil Ecology 14:135-145.
28
29
30
Taboada, M.A., F.G. Micucci, D.J. Cosentino, and R.S. Lavado. (1998). Comparison of compaction induced by
conventional and zero tillage in two soils of the Rolling Pampa of Argentina. Soil and Tillage Research
49:57-63.
31
32
Tiessen, H., J.W.B. Stewart, and J.R. Bettany. (1982). Cultivation effects on the amounts and concentration of
carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus in grassland soils. Agronomy Journal 74:831-835.
33
34
35
Unger, P.W. (2001). Total carbon, aggregation, bulk density, and penetration resistance of cropland and nearby
grassland soils. Pages 77-92 in: R. Lal (ed.). Soil carbon sequestration and the greenhouse effect. SSSA
Special Publication No. 57, Madison, WI.
36
37
38
39
Vanotti, M.B., L.G. Bundy, and A.E. Peterson. (1997). Nitrogen fertilizer and legume-cereal rotation effects on
soil productivity and organic matter dynamics in Wisconsin. Pages 105-119 in: E.A. Paul, E.T. Elliott, K.
Paustian, and C.V. Cole. Soil organic matter in temperate agroecosystems: Long-term experiments in North
America. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
40
41
Varvel, G.E. (1994). Rotation and nitrogen fertilization effects on changes in soil carbon and nitrogen.
Agronomy Journal 86:319-325.
42
43
44
Voroney, R.P., J.A. Van Veen, and E.A. Paul. (1981). Organic C dynamics in grassland soils. 2. Model
validation and simulation of the long-term effects of cultivation and rainfall erosion. Canadian Journal of Soil
Science 61:211-224.
45
46
Wander, M.M., M.G. Bidart, and S. Aref. (1998). Tillage impacts on depth distribution of total and particulate
organic matter in three Illinois soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 62:1704-1711.
47
48
49
Wanniarachchi SD, R.P. Voroney, T.J. Vyn, R.P. Beyaert, and A.F. MacKenzie. (1999). Tillage effects on the
dynamics of total and corn-residue-derived soil organic matter in two southern Ontario soils. Canadian
Journal of Soil Science 79: 473-480.
50
51
52
Westerhof, R., L. Vilela, M. Azarza, and W. Zech. (1998). Land-use effects on labile N extracted with
permanganate and the nitrogen management index in the Cerrado region of Brazil. Biology and Fertility of
Soils 27:353-357.
5.62
Chapter 5: Cropland

1
2
3
Wu, T., J.J. Schoenau, F. Li, P. Qian, S.S. Malhi, Y. Shi, and F. Xu. (2004). Influence of cultivation and
fertilization on total organic carbon and carbon fractions in soils from the Loess Plateau of China. Soil and
4
5
6
Yang, X.M., and B.D. Kay. (2001). Impacts of tillage practices on total, loose- and occluded-particulate, and
humified organic carbon fractions in soils within a field in southern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Soil
Science 81: 149-156.
7
8
Yang, X.M., and M.M. Wander. (1999). Tillage effects on soil organic carbon distribution and storage in a silt
loam soil in Illinois. Soil and Tillage Research 52:1-9.
9
10
11
Zeleke, T.B., M.C.J. Grevers, B.C. Si, A.R. Mermut, and S. Beyene. (2004). Effect of residue incorporation on
physical properties of the surface soil in the South Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Soil and Tillage Research
77:35-46.
12
13
14
Zhang, H., M.L. Thompson, and J.A. Sandor. (1988). Compositional differences in organic matter among
cultivated and uncultivated Argiudolls and Hapludalfs derived from loess. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 52:216-222.
15
16
RICE CULTIVATION
17
18
Cai, Z.C., H. Tsuruta, and K. Minami (2000) Methane emission from rice fields in China: measurements and
influencing factors. Journal of Geophysical Research, 105(D13): 1723117242.
19
20
Cai, Z.C., H. Tsuruta, M. Gao, H. Xu, and C.F. Wei (2003a) Options for mitigating methane emission from a
permanently flooded rice field. Global Change Biology, 9: 37-45.
21
22
23
Cai, Z.C., T. Sawamoto, C.S. Li, G.D. Kang, J. Boonjawat, A. Mosier, and R. Wassmann (2003b) Field
validation of the DNDC model for greenhouse gas emissions in East Asian cropping systems, Global
Biogeochemical Cycles, 17(4): 1107 doi:10.1029/2003GB002046,2003.
24
25
Cicerone, R.J. and J.D. Shetter (1981) Sources of atmospheric methane: Measurements in rice paddies and a
discussion. Journal of Geophysical Research, 86: 7203-7209.
26
27
Conrad, R. (1989), Control of methane production in terrestrial ecosystems. In: Exchange of Trace Gases
between Terrestrial Ecosystems and the Atmosphere, M.O. Andreae and D.S. Schimel(eds.), 39-58.
28
29
Denier van der Gon, H.A.C., and H.U. Neue (1995) Influence of organic matter incorporation on the methane
emission from a wetland rice field. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 9: 11-22.
30
31
Denier van der Gon, H.A.C., and H.U. Neue (2002) Impact of gypsum application on the methane emission
from a wetland rice field. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 8: 127-134.
32
33
Fitzgerald, G.J., K.M. Scow, and J.E. Hill (2000) Fallow season straw and water management effects on
methane emissions in California rice. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 14: 767-775.
34
35
Huang, Y., Y. Jiao, L.G. Zong, X.H. Zheng, R.L. Sass, and F.M. Fisher (2002) Quantitative dependence of
methane emission on soil properties, Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 64(1-2): 157-167.
36
37
38
Huang, Y, W. Zhang, X.H. Zheng, J. Li, and Y.Q. Yu (2004) Modeling methane emission from rice paddies
with various agricultural practices. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 109 (D8): Art. No.
D08113 APR 29 2004.
39
40
IAEA (1992) Manual on measurement of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture. IAEATECDOC-674, pp. 91.
41
42
IGAC (1994) Global measurements standards of methane emissions for irrigated rice cultivation. Sass, R.L. and
H.-U. Neue (eds.) IGAC Core Project Office, Cambridge, Mass., USA, 10 pp.
43
44
IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) (1997) Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories Workbook (Volume 2). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
45
46
IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) (2000) Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
47
IRRI (1995) World rice statistics 1993-94, International Rice Research Institute, Los Bans, pp. 260.
48
49
50
Li C.S., A. Mosier, R. Wassmann, Z.C. Cai, X.H. Zheng, Y. Huang, H. Tsuruta, J. Boonjawat, and R. Lantin
(2004) Modeling greenhouse gas emissions from rice-based production systems: Sensitivity analysis and
upscaling, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 18, doi: 10.1029/2003GB00204, 2004.
5.63
1
2
Lindau, C.W., P.K. Bollich, R.D. DeLaune, A.R. Mosier, and K.F. Bronson (1993) Methane mitigation in
flooded Louisiana rice fields. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 15: 174-178.
3
4
Minami, K. (1995) The effect of nitrogen fertilizer use and other practices on methane emission from flooded
rice. Fertilizer Research, 40: 71-84.
5
6
Neue, H.U. and R. Sass (1994). Trace gas emissions from rice fields. In: Prinn R.G. (ed.) Global AtmosphericBiospheric Chemistry. Environmental Science Res. 48. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 119-148.
7
8
Nouchi, I., S. Mariko, and K. Aoki, (1990) Mechanism of methane transport from the rhizosphere to the
atmosphere through rice plants. Plant Physiology, 94: 59-66.
9
10
11
Sass, R. (2002) CH4 emissions from rice agriculture. In Background Papers, IPCC Expert Meetings on Good
Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. IPCC-NGGIP, p.
399-417, available at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/gpg-bgp.htm.
12
13
Sass, R.L., F.M. Fisher, P.A. Harcombe, and F.T. Turner (1991) Mitigation of methane emission from rice fields:
Possible adverse effects of incorporated rice straw. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 5: 275-287.
14
15
Sass, R.L., F.M. Fisher, Y.B. Wang, F.T. Turner, and M.F. Jund (1992) Methane emission from rice fields: The
effect of floodwater management. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 6: 249-262
16
17
Sass, R. I., F. M. Fisher, S. T. Lewis, M. F. Jund, and F. T. Turner (1994) Methane emissions from rice fields:
Effect of soil properties. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 2, 135-140, 1994.
18
19
20
Schtz, H., A. Holzapfel-Pschorn, R.Conrad,, H. Rennenberg, and W. Seiler (1989): A 3-year continuous record
on the influence of daytime, season, and fertilizer treatment on methane emission rates from an Italian rice
paddy. Journal of Geophysical Research, 94: 16405-16416.
21
22
Takai, Y. (1970), The mechanism of methane fermentation in flooded paddy soil. Soil Science and Plant
Nutrition, 16: 238-244.
23
24
Wassmann, R. and M.S. Aulakh (2000) The role of rice plants in regulating mechanisms of methane emissions.
Biology and Fertility of Soils, 31: 20-29.
25
26
27
Wassmann, R., H.U. Neue, C. Bueno, R.S. Lantin, M.C.R. Alberto, L.V. Buendia, K. Bronson, H. Papen, and H.
Rennenberg (1998) Methane production capacities of different rice soils derived from inherent and
exogenous substracts. Plant and Soil, 203: 227-237.
28
29
30
Wassmann, R, L.V. Buendia, R.S. Lantin, K. Makarim, N. Chareonsilp, and H. Rennenberg (2000)
Characterization of methane emissions from rice fields in Asia. II. Differences among irrigated, rainfed, and
deepwater rice. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 58: 107119.
31
32
Watanabe, A. and M. Kimura (1998) Factors affecting variation in CH4 emission from paddy soils grown with
different rice cultivars: A pot experiment. Journal of Geophysical Research, 103: 18947-18952.
33
34
Yagi, K and K. Minami (1990) Effect of organic matter application on methane emission from some Japanese
paddy fields. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 36: 599-610.
35
36
Yagi, K, H. Tsuruta, K. Kanda, and K. Minami (1996) Effect of water management on methane emission form a
Japanese rice paddy field: Automated methane monitoring. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 10: 255-267.
37
38
Yagi, K., K. Minami, and Y. Ogawa (1998) Effect of water percolation on methane emission from rice paddies:
a lysimeter experiment. Plant and Soil, 198: 193-200.
39
40
41
Yan, X., K. Yagi, H. Akiyama, and H. Akimoto (2005) Statistical analysis of the major variables controlling
methane emission from rice fields. Global Change Biology, 11, 1131-1141, doi: 10/1111/j.13652486.2005.00976.x.
42
5.64
Chapter 6: Grassland

CHAPTER 6
GRASSLAND
6.1
1
Authors
2
3
Louis V. Verchot (ICRAF/USA), Thelma Krug (Brazil), Rodel D. Lasco (Philippines), Stephen M. Ogle (USA),
and John Raison (Australia)
Li Yue (China), Daniel L. Martino (Uruguay), Brian G. McKonkey (Canada), Pete Smith (UK)
5
6
7
Mercy Karunditu (ICRAF)
6.2

Content
6.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5
6.2
Grassland Remaining Grassland................................................................................................. 6
6.2.1
Biomass ..................................................................................................................................... 6
6.2.1.1
Choice of Method....................................................................................................................... 6
6.2.1.2
Choice of Emission/Removal Factors ........................................................................................ 7
6.2.1.3
Choice of Activity Data.............................................................................................................. 8
6.2.1.4
Calculation Steps for Tiers 1 and 2 ............................................................................................ 9
10
6.2.1.5
Uncertainty Assessment ........................................................................................................... 10
11
6.2.2
Dead Organic Matter ............................................................................................................... 11
12
6.2.2.1
Choice of Method..................................................................................................................... 11
13
6.2.2.2
Choice of Emission/Removal Factors ...................................................................................... 11
14
6.2.2.3
Choice of Activity Data............................................................................................................ 12
15
6.2.2.4
Calculation Steps for Tiers 1 and 2 .......................................................................................... 12
16
6.2.2.5
17
6.2.3
Soil Carbon.............................................................................................................................. 14
18
6.2.3.1
Choice of Method..................................................................................................................... 14
19
6.2.3.2
Choice of Stock Change and Emission Factor ......................................................................... 15
20
6.2.3.3
21
6.2.3.4
Calculation Steps for Tier 1...................................................................................................... 19
22
6.2.3.5
23
6.2.4
Non-CO2 from biomass burning.............................................................................................. 21
24
6.2.4.1
Choice of Method..................................................................................................................... 22
25
6.2.4.2
Choice of Emission Factors...................................................................................................... 22
26
6.2.4.3
27
6.2.4.4
28
6.3
Land Converted to Grassland ................................................................................................... 24
29
6.3.1
Biomass ................................................................................................................................... 24
30
6.3.1.1
Choice of Method..................................................................................................................... 25
31
6.3.1.2
32
6.3.1.3
33
6.3.1.4
34
6.3.1.5
35
6.3.2
Dead Organic Matter ............................................................................................................... 30
36
6.3.2.1
Choice of Method..................................................................................................................... 31
37
6.3.2.2
6.3
1
6.3.2.3
6.3.2.4
6.3.2.5
6.3.3
Soil Carbon.............................................................................................................................. 34
6.3.3.1
Choice of Method..................................................................................................................... 35
6.3.3.2
Choice of Stock Change and Emission Factors ........................................................................ 36
6.3.3.3
6.3.3.4
Calculation Steps for Tier 1...................................................................................................... 37
6.3.3.5
10
6.3.4
Greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning................................................................... 38
11
6.3.4.1
Choice of Method..................................................................................................................... 39
12
6. 3.4.2
Choice of Emission Factors...................................................................................................... 39
13
6.3.4.3
14
6.3.4.4
15
6.4
Completeness, Time Series, QA/QC, and Reporting................................................................ 40
16
6.4.1
Completeness........................................................................................................................... 40
17
6.4.2
Developing a Consistent Times Series .................................................................................... 41
18
6.4.3
Quality Assurance and Quality Control................................................................................... 41
19
6.4.4
Reporting and Documentation................................................................................................. 42
20
Figures
21
22
23
24
25
26
Figure 6.1 Classification Scheme for Grassland/Grazing Systems. In order to classify grassland
management systems, the inventory compiler should start at the top and proceed through
the diagram answering questions (move across branches if answer is yes) until reaching a
terminal point on the diagram. The classification diagram is consistent with default stock
change factors in Table 6.2. ...............................................................................................18
27
Tables
28
29
30
Table 6.1 Default expansion factors of the ratio of below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass (R)
for the major grassland ecosystems of the world .................................................................8
31
Table 6.2 Relative stock change factors for grassland management...........................................................16
32
Table 6.3 Annual emission factors (EF) for Drained grassland organic soils.............................................17
33
Table 6.4 Default biomass stocks present on grassland , after conversion from other land use .................27
34
6.4

6.1 INTRODUCTION
2
3
4
5
6
7
Grasslands cover about one-quarter of the earths land surface (Ojima et al., 1993) and span a range of climate
conditions from arid to humid. Grasslands vary greatly in their degree and intensity of management, from
extensively managed rangelands and savannahs where animal stocking rates and fire regimes are the main
management variables to intensively managed (e.g. with fertilization, irrigation, species changes) continuous
pasture and hay land. Grasslands generally have vegetation dominated by perennial grasses, and grazing is the
predominant land use.
8
9
10
11
12
13
Grasslands are generally distinguished from forest as ecosystems having a tree canopy cover of less than a
certain threshold, which varies from region to region. Below-ground carbon dominates in grassland, and is
mainly contained in roots and soil organic matter. The transition along rainfall or soil gradients from grassland
to forest is often gradual. Many shrublands with high proportions of perennial woody biomass may be
considered to be a type of grassland and countries may elect to account for some or all of these shrublands in the
grasslands category.
14
15
16
17
18
Many grassland species have developed adaptations to cope with grazing and the common perturbation of fire
and consequently both the vegetation and soil carbon are relatively resistant to moderate disturbances from
grazing and fire regimes (Milchunas and Lauenroth, 1993). In many types of grassland, the presence of fire is a
key factor in preventing the invasion of woody species which can significantly affect ecosystem carbon stores
(Jackson et al., 2002).
19
20
21
22
23
24
The 1996 Guidelines dealt only with emissions from tropical savannah burning and changes in biomass
associated with conversion of grassland to other land use. Three sets of calculations were used to produce
estimates of CO2 emissions due to grassland conversion: (i) carbon dioxide emitted by burning above-ground
biomass, (ii) carbon dioxide released by decay of above-ground biomass, and (iii) carbon dioxide released from
soil. No explicit provisions were made for reporting changes in the carbon stocks of grasslands associated with
changes in woody perennial biomass cover or from changes in management of these systems.
25
26
27
28
29
These Guidelines update the 1996 Guidelines, and allow for the estimation of carbon emissions and removals in
grasslands due to changes in stocks in above- and below-ground biomass, emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse
gases due to biomass burning, and carbon emissions and removals in grasslands due to changes in soil C stocks.
They incorporate several new methodologies that were developed in the GPG-LULUCF (IPCC, 2003). New
elements relative to the 1996 Guidelines include:
30
Methodologies to address C stock changes in the two main pools in grassland: biomass and soils;
31
Explicit inclusion of impacts of natural disturbances and fires on managed grassland;
32
Estimation of emissions and removals on Land Converted to Grassland;
33
34
Extension of methods for estimation of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions due to biomass burning
from savannas to all grasslands;
35
36
Estimation of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions due to biomass burning during conversion to
grasslands;
37
New stock change rate factors and reference C stocks for soil organic C.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
This chapter provides guidelines for default and advanced approaches to estimating and reporting on emissions
and removals from grasslands. Methods and guidance are given for Grassland Remaining Grassland (Section
6.2) and Land Converted to Grassland (Section 6.3). For Grassland Remaining Grassland, carbon emissions and
removals are based on estimating the effects of changes in management practices on carbon stocks. For lands
converted to grasslands, carbon emissions and removals are based on estimating the effects of replacement of
one vegetation type by grassland vegetation. If data is not available to segregate grassland area into Grassland
Remaining Grassland and Land Converted to Grassland, the default approach is to consider all grasslands
under the category Grassland Remaining Grassland.
46
47
48
49
50
Inter-annual climatic variability is an important factor for consideration when compiling a carbon inventory for
grasslands. Large changes in standing biomass can occur from year to year that is associated with differences in
annual rainfall. Inter-annual rainfall variability may also affect management decisions such as irrigation or
fertilizer application. The inventory compiler needs to be aware of this and factor these effects into the inventory
as appropriate.
51
6.5
1
6.2 GRASSLAND REMAINING GRASSLAND
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Grassland Remaining Grassland includes managed pastures which have always been under grassland vegetation
and pasture use or other land categories converted to grassland more than 20 years ago. Constructing a
greenhouse gas inventory for the land-use category Grassland Remaining Grassland (GG) involves estimation
of changes in carbon stock from five carbon pools (i.e., above-ground biomass, below-ground biomass, dead
wood, litter, and soil organic matter), as well as emissions of non-CO2 gases. The principal sources of emissions
and removals of greenhouse gases in this category are associated with grassland management and changes in
management. The change in C stocks in Grassland Remaining Grassland is estimated using Equation 2.3 in
Chapter 2. The decision tree in, Figure 1.2 (Chapter 1) provides guidance for selecting the appropriate tier (level
of methodological complexity) for the implementation of estimation procedures for GG.
11
6.2.1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Carbon stocks in permanent grassland are influenced by human activities and natural disturbances, including:
harvesting of woody biomass, rangeland degradation, grazing, fires, pasture rehabilitation, pasture management,
etc. Annual production of biomass in grassland can be large, but due to rapid turnover and losses through grazing
and fire, and annual senescence of herbaceous vegetation, standing stock of above-ground biomass in many
grasslands rarely exceeds a few tonnes per hectare. Larger amounts can accumulate in the woody component of
vegetation, in root biomass and in soils. The extent to which carbon stocks increase or decrease in each of these
pools is affected by management practices such as those described above.
19
20
21
22
23
This section provides guidance for estimating carbon stock changes in biomass for Grassland Remaining
Grassland, including increased cover of woody vegetation, effects of organic matter additions and effects of
management and liming. The concepts underlying carbon stock changes in biomass of Grassland Remaining
Grassland are tied to management practices. The decision tree in Figure 2.2 (Chapter 2) provides guidance on
the choice of tiers for reporting changes in biomass C stocks.
24
25
26
27
Because data on below-ground biomass are often lacking for specific ecosystems, a simplified approach based
upon below-ground to above-ground biomass ratios is used. With this approach, estimates of below-ground
biomass are closely tied to estimates of above-ground biomass. Hence for simplicity, above- and below-ground
biomass are combined for estimation and reporting.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Although the methods for estimating biomass changes are conceptually similar among grassland, cropland, and
forest land, grasslands are unique in a number of ways. Large areas of grasslands are subject to frequent fires that
can influence the abundance of woody vegetation, mortality and regrowth of woody and herbaceous vegetation,
and the partitioning of carbon above and below ground. Climate variability and other management activities,
such as tree and brush removal, pasture improvement, tree planting, as well as overgrazing and degradation can
influence biomass stocks. For woody species in savannahs (grassland with trees), the allometric relationships
differ from those used in forest land because of large numbers of multi-stem trees, large number of shrubs,
hollow trees, high proportion of standing dead trees, high root-to-shoot ratios and coppicing regeneration.
36
6.2.1.1
37
38
39
The decision tree in Chapter 1, Figure 1.2 provides guidance in the selection of the appropriate tier for the
implementation of estimation procedures. Estimation of changes in carbon stocks in biomass requires an estimate
of changes in stocks of above-ground biomass and changes in carbon stocks in below-ground biomass.
40
41
42
43
44
Depending on the tier used and data availability, grassland can be disaggregated by type, region or climatic zone,
and management system. It is good practice for countries to strive to improve inventory and reporting
approaches by advancing to the highest tier possible given national circumstances. It is good practice to use a
Tier 2 or Tier 3 approach if carbon emissions and removals in Grassland Remaining Grassland is a key category
and if the sub-category of biomass is considered significant based on principles outlined in Volume 1 Chapter 4.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Tier 1
A Tier 1 approach assumes no change in biomass in Grassland Remaining Grassland. In grassland where there
is no change in either type or intensity of management, biomass will be in an approximate steady-state (i.e.
carbon accumulation through plant growth is roughly balanced by losses through grazing, decomposition and
fire). In grassland where management changes are occurring over time (e.g. through introduction of silvopastoral
systems, tree/brush removal for grazing management, improved pasture management or other practices), the
carbon stock changes can be significant. If it is reasonable to assume that grassland is not a key source, a country
may apply the Tier 1 assumption of no change in biomass. However, if information is available to develop
6.6
Biomass
C HOICE
OF
M ETHOD

1
2
reliable estimates of rates of change in biomass in Grassland Remaining Grassland, a country may use a higher
Tier, even if Grassland Remaining Grassland is not a key source, particularly if management changes are likely.
3
4
5
Tier 2
Tier 2 allows for estimation of changes in biomass due to management practices. Two methods are suggested
for estimating the carbon stock change in biomass.
6
7
8
9
10
Gain-Loss Method (see Equation 2.7 in Chapter 2): This method involves estimating the area of grassland
according to management categories and the average annual growth and loss of biomass stocks. This requires an
estimate of area under Grassland Remaining Grassland according to different climate or ecological zones or
grassland types, disturbance regime, management regime, or other factors that significantly affect biomass
carbon pools and the growth and loss of biomass according to different grassland types.
11
12
13
14
15
16
Stock-Difference Method (see Equation 2.8 in Chapter 2): The Stock-Difference Method involves estimating
the area of grassland and the biomass stocks at two periods of time, t1 and t2. The average annual biomass stock
differences for the inventory year are obtained by dividing the stock difference by the period (years) between
inventories. This method is feasible for countries which have periodic inventories, and may be more suitable for
countries adopting Tier 3 methods. This method may not be well suited to regions with very variable climates
and may produce spurious results unless annual inventories can be made.
17
18
19
Tier 3: Tier 3 methods are used where countries have country-specific emission factors, and substantial national
data. Country-defined methodology may be based on detailed inventories of permanent sample plots for their
grasslands, and/or models.
20
21
22
For Tier 3, countries should develop their own methodologies and parameters for estimating changes in biomass.
These methodologies may be derived from Equation 2.7 or Equation 2.8 specified above, or may be based on
other approaches. The method used needs to be clearly documented.
23
24
25
26
Estimates of carbon stocks in biomass at the national level should be determined as part of a national grasslands
inventory, national level models, or from a dedicated greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory programme, with
periodic sampling according to the principles set out in Volume 1. Inventory data can be coupled with modelling
studies to capture the dynamics of all grassland carbon pools.
27
28
29
pattern among different pools for each type of disturbance.
30
6.2.1.2
31
32
33
34
Emission and removal factors that are required to estimate the changes in biomass resulting from management
include biomass growth rate, loss of biomass, and expansion factor for below-ground biomass. Emission and
removal factors are used to estimate biomass growth and loss resulting from encroachment of woody perennial
vegetation into grassland, degradation due to overgrazing, and other management effects.
35
36
37
38
39
Tier 1
Tier 1 is to be chosen when there are no significant emissions or removals in Grassland Remaining Grassland.
The assumption in Tier 1 is that the biomass in all Grassland Remaining Grassland is stable. Countries
experiencing significant changes in grassland management or disturbance are encouraged to develop domestic
data to estimate this impact, and report it under a Tier 2 or 3 methodology.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Tier 2
It is good practice to use country level data on biomass C stocks for different grassland categories, in
combination with default values if country or regional values are not available for some grassland categories.
Country-specific values for net biomass increment as well as losses from harvested live trees and grasses to
harvest residues and decomposition rates, in the case of the Gain-Loss Method, or the net change in biomass
stocks, in the case of the Stock Difference Method can be derived from country-specific data, taking into account
the grassland type, the rate of biomass utilization, harvesting practices and the amount of damaged vegetation
during harvesting operations. Country-specific values for disturbance regimes should be derived from scientific
studies.
49
50
51
52
53
54
Estimating below-ground biomass can be an important component of biomass surveys of grassland but field
measurements are laborious and difficult. Hence, expansion factors to estimate below-ground biomass from
above-ground biomass are often used. Adaptations to fire and grazing have led to higher root-to-shoot ratios
compared to many other ecosystems; thus biomass expansion factors from undisturbed ecosystems cannot be
applied without modification. Root-to-shoot ratios vary significantly at both individual species (e.g. Anderson et
al., 1972) and community scales (e.g. Jackson et al., 1996; Cairns et al., 1997). Thus it is recommended to use,
C HOICE
OF
6.7
1
2
3
4
5
as far as possible, empirically-derived root-to-shoot ratios specific to a region or vegetation type. Table 6.1
provides default root-to-shoot ratios (all vegetation) for grassland ecosystems in the major climate zones of the
world (IPCC climate zones taken from Annex 3A.5). These values can be used as defaults when countries do not
have more specific information to develop country-specific ratios. Ratios for woodland/savannah and shrublands
are also included for use by countries that include these lands in the grassland section of their inventory.
6
TABLE 6.1
DEFAULT EXPANSION FACTORS OF THE RATIO OF BELOW-GROUND BIOMASS TO ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS (R) FOR THE
MAJOR GRASSLAND ECOSYSTEMS OF THE WORLD
Error2
Vegetation type
Approximate IPCC climate

zone1
Steppe/tundra/prairie grassland
Boreal Dry & Wet

Cold Temperate Wet
Warm Temperate Wet
4.0
150%
Semi-arid grassland
Cold Temperate Dry

Warm Temperate Dry
Tropical Dry
2.8
95%
Sub-tropical/ tropical grassland
Tropical Moist & Wet
1.6
130%
Woodland/savannah
0.5
19
80%
Shrubland
2.8
144%
Grassland
Other
Classification of the source data was by grassland biome types and thus correspondence to the IPCC climate zones are approximations.
Error estimates are given as two times standard deviation, as a percentage of the mean.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Tier 3
Tier 3 approaches consist of using a combination of dynamic models and inventory measurements of biomass
stock changes. This approach does not employ simple stock changes or emission factors per se. Estimates of
emissions/removals using model-based approaches derive from the interaction of multiple equations that
estimate the net change of biomass stocks within the models. Models, jointly with periodic sampling-based stock
estimates similar to those used in detailed forest inventories could be applied to estimate stock changes or inputs
and outputs as in Tier 2 to make spatial extrapolations for grassland areas. For example, validated species
specific growth models that incorporate management effects such as grazing intensity, fire, and fertilization, with
corresponding data on management activities, can be used to estimate net changes in grassland biomass over
time.
18
6.2.1.3
19
20
21
22
23
24
Activity data consist of areas of Grassland Remaining Grassland summarised by major grassland types,
management practices, and disturbance regimes. Total grassland areas should be determined according to
Approaches laid out in Chapter 3 and should be consistent with those reported under other sections of this
chapter, notably under the DOM and soil C sections of Grassland Remaining Grassland. The assessment of
changes in biomass will be greatly facilitated if this information can be used in conjunction with national soils
and climate data, vegetation inventories, and other biophysical data.
6.8
C HOICE
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA

6.2.1.4
C ALCULATION S TEPS
2
3

biomass (C B )
4
5
6
7
Once countries choose to apply a Tier 1 approach, no further work is necessary, as the ecosystem is assumed to
be in steady state, where no changes in carbon stocks are expected to occur. Thus, there is no worksheet for
biomass.
8
9
10
11
12
S t e p 1 . Determine the grassland categories to be used in this assessment and the representative areas. The
categories consist of definitions of the grassland type (e.g. stratified by climate zone and species assemblage)
and the state or management of that type (e.g., degraded tall grass prairie (USA, Canada), or grazed campo
limpo (Brazil)). Area data should be obtained using the methods described in Chapter 3.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
S t e p 2 . Determine the biomass increment and loss of woody biomass (using Equations 2.9 and 2.11), for each
stratum and use these to estimate the net change in biomass (using Equation 2.7). Where data exist only for
above-ground biomass, countries may use expansion factors for below-ground to above-ground biomass ratios to
estimate the below-ground portion of the biomass. Multiply the change in biomass by the carbon content of the
dry biomass. The default value is 0.50 tonnes of C per tonne of biomass (dry weight). A Tier 2 approach may
use default expansion factors provided in Table 6.1 to estimate below-ground biomass when country specific
factors are not available.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
S t e p 3 . Determine the average biomass increment and loss of herbaceous biomass and use these to estimate
the net change in biomass using Equation 2.7. An approach based upon Equations 2.9 and 2.11 may be devised
for herbaceous biomass. Where data exist only for above-ground biomass, countries may use expansion factors
for below-ground to above-ground biomass ratios to estimate the below-ground portion of the biomass. Multiply
the change in biomass by the carbon content of the dry biomass. The default value is 0.47 tonnes of C per tonne
of biomass (dry weight). This default value differs from the one in the GPG-LULUCF (IPCC, 2003), but is more
realistic for herbaceous biomass. A Tier 3 approach requires country- or ecosystem-specific expansion factors.
A Tier 2 approach may use default expansion factors provided in Table 6.1 to estimate below-ground biomass
when country specific factors are not available.
29
30
31
S t e p 4 . If increment and loss were calculated on a per area basis, estimate the total change in the biomass
carbon stocks for each category by multiplying the representative area of each category by the net change in
biomass for that category. Otherwise, proceed to step 5.
32
33
S t e p 5 . Estimate the total net change in carbon stocks in biomass by summing up the net changes in
herbaceous and woody perennial biomass.
FOR
T IERS 1
AND
Tier 1
Tier 2 (Gain-Loss Method Equation 2.7 in Chapter 2)
34
35
36
Tier 2 (Stock-Difference Method Equation 2.8 in Chapter 2)
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
S t e p 2 . Determine the inventory time interval, the average woody biomass at the initial inventory (t1), and the
average woody biomass at the final inventory (t2). Use these figures to estimate the net annual change in woody
biomass (Equation 2.8). Where data exist only for above-ground biomass, countries may use expansion factors
for below-ground to above-ground biomass ratios (R) to estimate the below-ground portion of the biomass.
Multiply the change in biomass by the carbon content of the dry biomass. The default value is 0.50 tonnes of C
per tonne of biomass (dry weight). A Tier 3 approach requires country- or ecosystem-specific expansion factors.
A Tier 2 approach may use default expansion factors provided in Table 6.1 to estimate below-ground biomass or
country- or ecosystem-specific expansion factors, if available. Note the R values in Table 6.1 are whole
ecosystem R values. Thus, to use these values, one must first sum the above-ground herbaceous and woody
biomass and then multiply by R to obtain the value for below-ground biomass.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
S t e p 3 . Determine the inventory time interval, the average herbaceous biomass at the initial inventory (Ct1),
and the herbaceous biomass at the final inventory (Ct2). Use these figures, and the inventory time interval, to
estimate the net annual change in herbaceous biomass (Equation 2.8). Where data exist only for above-ground
biomass, countries may use expansion factors for below-ground to above-ground biomass ratios to estimate the
below-ground portion of the biomass. Multiply the change in biomass by the carbon content of the dry biomass.
The default value is 0.47 tonnes of C per tonne of biomass (dry weight). This default value differs from the one
in the GPG-LULUCF (IPCC, 2003), but is more realistic for herbaceous biomass. A Tier 3 approach requires
S t e p 1 . Same as for Gain-Loss Method (see above).
6.9
1
2
country- or ecosystem-specific expansion factors. A Tier 2 approach may use default expansion factors provided
in Table 6.1 to estimate below-ground biomass when country specific factors are not available.
Step 4. Estimate the total change in the biomass carbon stocks for each category using Equation 2.8.
4
5
S t e p 5 . Estimate the total net change in carbon stocks in biomass by summing up the net changes in
herbaceous and woody perennial biomass.
6.2.1.5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
This section considers source-specific uncertainties relevant to estimates made for biomass C in Grassland
Remaining Grassland. Two sources of uncertainty exist in C inventories: 1) uncertainties in land-use and
management activity and environmental data; 2) uncertainties in carbon increase and loss, carbon stocks and
expansion factor terms in the stock change/emission factors for Tier 2 approaches, model structure/parameter
error for Tier 3 model-based approaches, or measurement error/sampling variability associated with Tier 3
measurement-based inventories. In general, precision of an inventory is increased and confidence ranges are
narrower with greater sampling intensity to estimate values for each category, while reducing bias (i.e., improve
accuracy) is more likely to occur through the development of a higher Tier inventory that incorporates countryspecific information. Error estimates (i.e., standard deviations, standard error, or ranges) must be calculated for
each of the country-defined terms used in a basic uncertainty assessment.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Uncertainties in land-use and management data will need to be addressed by the inventory compiler, and then
combined with uncertainties for default factors and reference C stocks using an appropriate method, such as
simple error propagation equations. For Tier 2 methods, country-specific information is incorporated into the
inventory analysis for purposes of reducing bias. It is good practice to evaluate dependencies among the factors,
reference C stocks or land-use and management activity data. In particular, strong dependencies are common in
land-use and management activity data because management practices tend to be correlated in time and space.
Combining uncertainties in stock change/emission factors, reference C stocks and activity data can be done using
methods such as simple error propagation equations or Monte-Carlo procedures to estimate means and standard
deviations for the change in biomass C stocks (Ogle et al. 2003, Vanden Bygaart et al. 2004).
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
measurement-based Tier 3 inventories can be estimated directly from the sample variance, estimated
measurement error and other relevant sources in uncertainty.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Expansion factor uncertainties
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Activity data uncertainties
Default uncertainty estimates provided in Table 6.1 can be used for the uncertainty expressed for below-ground
biomass expansion factors. Uncertainties associated with expansion factors for carbon content of woody and
herbaceous biomass, are relatively small, and are on the order of 2 to 6 percent. For Tier 2 and 3 estimates,
country specific or regionally derived values will be used. These reference C stocks and stock change factors
can have inherently high uncertainties, particularly bias, when applied to specific countries. Defaults represent
averaged values of land-use and management impacts or reference C stocks that may vary from site-specific
values. It is good practice for countries to determine the uncertainties of their default factors for above-ground
and below-ground biomass.
Area data and estimates of uncertainty should be obtained using the methods in Chapter 3. Tier 2 and 3
approaches may also use finer resolution activity data, such as area estimates for different climatic regions or for
grassland management systems within national boundaries. The finer-resolution data will reduce uncertainty
levels when associated with carbon accumulation factors defined for those finer-scale land databases. If using
aggregate land-use area statistics for activity data (e.g., FAO data), the inventory agency may have to apply a
default level of uncertainty for the land area estimates (50%). However, it is good practice for the inventory
compiler to derive uncertainties from country-specific activity data instead of using a default level.For Tier 2 and
3. Use of higher resolution activity data (such as area estimates for different climatic regions or for grassland
management systems within national boundaries) will reduce uncertainty levels when all necessary carbon
accumulation/loss parameters are suitably stratified. Uncertainties in land-use activity statistics may be reduced
through a better national system, such as developing or extending a ground-based survey with additional sample
locations and/or incorporating remote sensing to provide additional coverage. It is good practice to design a
6.10

1
2
classification system that captures the majority of land-use and management activities with a sufficient sample
size to minimize uncertainty at the national scale.
3
4
6.2.2
Dead Organic Matter
5
6
7
Methods for estimating carbon stock changes associated with dead organic matter (DOM) pools are provided for
two types of dead organic matter pools: 1) dead wood and 2) litter. Chapter 1 of this report provides detailed
definitions of these pools.
8
9
10
11
Dead wood is a diverse pool which is difficult to measure in the field, with associated uncertainties about rates of
transfer to litter, soil, or emissions to the atmosphere. Amounts of dead wood depend on the time since last
disturbance, the amount of input (mortality) at the time of the disturbance, natural mortality rates, decay rates,
and management.
12
13
14
15
branches, fruits, flowers, and bark, minus the annual rate of decomposition of these inputs. The litter mass is also
influenced by the time since the last disturbance, and the type of disturbance. Management practices also alter
litter properties, but there are few studies clearly documenting the effects of management on litter carbon.
16
6.2.2.1
17
18
19
Estimation of changes in carbon stocks in DOM requires an estimate of changes in stocks of dead wood and
changes in litter stocks (refer to Equation 2.17 in Chapter 2).The decision tree in Chapter 1, Figure 1.2 helps in
the selection of the appropriate tier level for the implementation of estimation procedures.
20
21
The deadwood and litter pools are treated separately, but the method for estimating ch ang es in e ach poo l is
th e same .
22
23
24
25
26
Tier 1: The Tier 1 method assumes that the dead wood and litter stocks are at equilibrium, so there is no need to
estimate the carbon stock changes for these pools. Thus there is no worksheet provided for DOM in Grasslands
Remaining Grasslands. Countries experiencing significant changes in grassland types or disturbance or
management regimes in their grasslands are encouraged to develop domestic data to quantify this impact and report
it under Tier 2 or 3 methodologies.
27
28
Tiers 2 and 3: Tiers 2 and 3 allow for calculation of changes in dead wood and litter carbon due to management
practices. Two methods are suggested for estimating the carbon stock change in DOM.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Gain-Loss Method (Equation 2.18 in Chapter 2): This method involves estimating the area of grassland
management categories and the average annual transfer into and out of dead wood and litter stocks. This
requires: (i) an estimate of the area under Grassland Remaining Grassland according to different climate or
ecological zones or grassland types, disturbance regime, management regime, or other factors significantly
affecting dead wood and litter carbon pools; (ii) the quantity of biomass transferred into dead wood and litter
stocks; and (iii) the quantity of biomass transferred out of the dead wood and litter stocks on per hectare basis
according to different grassland types.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Stock- Difference Method (Equation 2.19 in Chapter 2): This method involves estimating the area of grassland
and the dead wood and litter stocks at two periods of time, t1 and t2. The deadwood and litter stock changes for
the inventory year are obtained by dividing the stock changes by the period (years) between two measurements.
The stock change method is feasible for countries, which have periodic grassland inventories. This method may
not be well suited to regions with very variable climates and may produce spurious results unless annual
inventories can be made. This method is more suitable for countries adopting Tier 3 methods. Tier 3 methods are
used where countries have country-specific emission factors, and substantial national data. Country-defined
methodology may be based on detailed inventories of permanent sample plots for their grasslands and/or models.
44
6.2.2.2
45
46
47
48
49
decomposition. Wood is much less variable than litter and a value of 0.50 tonnes of carbon per tonne of dry
biomass can be used for the carbon fraction. The carbon fraction values for litter in grasslands range from 0.05 to
0.50 (Naeth et al., 1991; Kauffman et al., 1997). When country- or ecosystem-specific data are not available, it is
suggested that a carbon fraction value of 0.40 be used.
C HOICE
C HOICE
OF
OF
M ETHOD
6.11
1
2
Tier 1: Estimation E/R factors are not needed, as the assumption in Tier 1 is that the DOM carbon stocks in all
Grasslands Remaining Grasslands are stable.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Tier 2: It is good practice to use country level DOM data on for different grassland categories, in combination
with default values if country or regional values are not available for some grassland categories. Countryspecific values for transfer of carbon from live trees and grasses that are harvested to harvest residues and
decomposition rates, in the case of the Gain-Loss method or the net change in DOM pools, in the case of the
Stock Difference Method, can be derived from domestic expansion factors, taking into account the grassland
type, the rate of biomass utilization, harvesting practices and the amount of damaged vegetation during
harvesting operations. Country-specific values for disturbance regimes should be derived from scientific studies.
10
11
12
Tier 3: For Tier 3, countries should develop their own methodologies and emission factors needed for
estimating changes in DOM. These methodologies may be derived from methods specified above, or may be
based on other approaches. The method used needs to be clearly documented.
13
14
15
16
National-level disaggregated DOM carbon estimates should be determined as part of a national grasslands
periodic sampling according to the principles set out in Volume 1. Inventory data can be coupled with modelling
studies to capture the dynamics of all grassland carbon pools.
17
18
19
20
21
Tier 3 methods provide estimates of greater certainty than lower tiers and feature greater links between
individual carbon pools. Some countries have developed disturbance matrices (see Table 2.1 in Chapter 2) that
provide a carbon reallocation pattern among different pools for each type of disturbance. Other important
parameters in a modelled DOM carbon budget are decay rates, which may vary with the type of wood and
microclimatic conditions, and site preparation procedures (e.g. controlled broadcast burning, or burning of piles).
22
6.2.2.3
23
24
25
26
27
28
Activity data consist of areas of Grassland Remaining Grassland summarised by major grassland types,
management practices, and disturbance regimes. Total grassland areas should be consistent with those reported
under other sections of this chapter, notably under the biomass section of Grassland Remaining Grassland. The
assessment of changes in dead organic matter will be greatly facilitated if this information can be used in
conjunction with national soils and climate data, vegetation inventories, and other geophysical data. Area
estimates should be obtained using methods described in Chapter 3.
29
6.2.2.4
30
The following summarizes steps for estimating change in DOM carbon stocks
31
32
33
34
Tier 1
35
36
37
Tier 2 (Gain-Loss Method) Equation 2.17 in Chapter 2
38
S t e p 1 . Determine the categories of grassland types to be used in this assessment and the representative area.
39
40
41
42
43
S t e p 2 . Determine the input and output rates of deadwood and litter to the respective pools. Identify values
from inventories or scientific studies for the average inputs and outputs of dead wood or litter for each category.
No default factors exist for inputs and outputs from these pools, so countries should use locally available data.
Calculate the net change in the DOM pools by subtracting the outputs from the inputs. Negative values indicate
a net decrease in the stock.
44
45
46
47
S t e p 3 . Determine the net change in DOM stocks for each category by subtracting the outputs from the inputs.
Convert the net change in DOM biomass stocks to carbon stocks for each category by multiplying by the carbon
fraction. The default carbon fractions are 0.50 for deadwood and 0.40 for litter. A Tier 2 approach requires
country- or ecosystem-specific stock change rate factors.
48
49
S t e p 4 . Estimate the total change in the DOM carbon pools for each category by multiplying the representative
area of each category by the net change in DOM carbon stocks for that category.
50
51
S t e p 5 . Estimate the total change in carbon stocks in dead wood by taking the sum of the total changes in
DOM across all categories.
C HOICE
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA
C ALCULATION S TEPS
FOR
T IERS 1
AND
Once the decision is made that reporting for this category will be done using a Tier 1 approach, no further work
is necessary as the ecosystem is assumed to be in steady-state and there are no expected changes in dead wood or
litter carbon stocks.
same.
6.12

Tier 2 (Stock-Difference Method) Equation 2.19 in Chapter 2
1
2
S t e p 1 . Determine the categories of grassland types to be used in this assessment and the representative area.
4
5
6
7
8
S t e p 2 . Determine the net change in DOM stocks for each category. From the inventory data, identify the
inventory time interval, the average stock of DOM at the initial inventory (t1), and the average stock of DOM at
the final inventory (t2). Use these figures to estimate the net annual change in DOM stocks by subtracting the
DOM stock at t1 from the DOM stock at t2 and dividing this difference by the time interval (Equation 2.19). A
negative value indicates a decrease in the DOM stock.
9
10
11
the DOM. A Tier 2 approach requires country- or ecosystem-specific expansion factors.
12
S te ps 4 and 5 . Same as for Gain-Loss Method.
13
6.2.2.5
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
This section considers source-specific uncertainties relevant to estimates made for DOM in Grassland
Remaining Grassland. Two sources of uncertainty exist in C inventories: 1) uncertainties in land-use and
management activity and environmental data; 2) uncertainties in carbon increase and loss, carbon stocks and
expansion factor terms in the stock change/emission factors for Tier 2 approaches, model structure/parameter
error for Tier 3 model-based approaches, or measurement error/sampling variability associated with Tier 3
measurement-based inventories. In general, precision of an inventory is increased and confidence ranges are
narrower with greater sampling intensity to estimate values for each category, while reducing bias (i.e., improve
accuracy) is more likely to occur through the development of a higher Tier inventory that incorporates countryspecific information. Error estimates (i.e., standard deviations, standard error, or ranges) must be calculated for
each of the country-defined terms used in a basic uncertainty assessment.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Uncertainties in land-use and management data will need to be addressed by the inventory compiler, and then
combined with uncertainties for default factors and reference C stocks using an appropriate method, such as
simple error propagation equations. For Tier 2 methods, country-specific information is incorporated into the
inventory analysis for purposes of reducing bias. It is good practice to evaluate dependencies among the factors,
reference C stocks or land-use and management activity data. In particular, strong dependencies are common in
land-use and management activity data because management practices tend to be correlated in time and space.
Combining uncertainties in stock change/emission factors, reference C stocks and activity data can be done using
methods such as simple error propagation equations or Monte-Carlo procedures to estimate means and standard
deviations for the change in DOM C stocks (Ogle et al. 2003, Vanden Bygaart et al. 2004).
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Emission/Removal Factor Uncertainties
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Activity Data Uncertainties
No uncertainty analysis is needed for Tier 1 since the default assumption is unchanging carbon stocks in DOM.
For Tier 2 and 3 estimates, country specific or regionally derived values will be used. These reference C stocks
and stock change factors can have inherently high uncertainties, particularly bias, when applied to specific
countries. Defaults represent averaged values of land-use and management impacts or reference C stocks that
may vary from site-specific values. It is good practice for countries to determine the uncertainties of their default
factors for dead wood and litter.
Area data and estimates of uncertainty should be obtained using the methods in Chapter 3. If using aggregate
land-use area statistics for activity data (e.g., FAO data), the inventory agency may have to apply a default level
of uncertainty for the land area estimates (50%). However, it is good practice for the inventory compiler to
derive uncertainties from country-specific activity data instead of using a default level. For Tier 2 and 3, use of
higher resolution activity data (such as area estimates for different climatic regions or for grassland management
systems within national boundaries) will reduce uncertainty levels when all necessary carbon accumulation/loss
6.13
1
2
3
4
5
parameters are suitably stratified. Uncertainties in land-use activity statistics may be reduced through a better
national system, such as developing or extending a ground-based survey with additional sample locations and/or
incorporating remote sensing to provide additional coverage. It is good practice to design a classification system
that captures the majority of land-use and management activities with a sufficient sample size to minimize
uncertainty at the national scale.
6.2.3
Soil Carbon
7
8
9
10
11
12
This section deals with the impacts of grassland management on soil organic C stocks, primarily by influencing
C inputs to the soil, and thus soil C storage, by affecting net primary production, root turnover, and allocation of
C between roots and shoots. Soil C stocks in grassland are influenced by fire, grazing intensity, fertilizer
management, liming, irrigation, re-seeding with more or less productive grass species and mixed swards with Nfixing legumes (Conant et al. 2001, Follett et al. 2001, Ogle et al. 2004). In addition, drainage of organic soils
for grassland management causes losses of soil organic C (Armentano and Menges 1986).
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
General information and guidance for estimating changes in soil C stocks are provided in Chapter 2 Section 2.3.3
(including equations), and this section needs to be read before proceeding with a consideration of specific
guidelines dealing with grassland soil C stocks. The total change in soil C stocks for grassland is estimated using
Equation 2.24 (Chapter 2), which combines the change in soil organic C stocks for mineral soils and organic
soils; and stock changes associated with soil inorganic C pools (if estimated at Tier 3). This section provides
specific guidance for estimating soil organic C stocks. There is a general discussion in Section 2.3.3.1 on soil
inorganic C and no additional information on this is provided here.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
To account for changes in soil C stocks associated with Grassland Remaining Grassland, countries need to have,
at a minimum, estimates of grassland areas at the beginning and end of the inventory time period. If land-use and
management data are limited, aggregate data, such as FAO statistics on grassland, can be used as a starting point,
along with knowledge of country experts about the approximate distribution of land management systems (e.g.,
degraded, nominal and improved grassland/grazing systems). Grassland management classes must be stratified
according to climate regions and major soil types, which could either be based on default or country-specific
classifications. This can be accomplished with overlays of land use on suitable climate and soil maps.
27
6.2.3.1
28
29
30
31
32
33
the separate sub-categories of soil C (i.e., soil organic C stocks changes in mineral and organic soils; and stock
changes associated with soil inorganic C pools). Decision trees are provided for mineral (Figure 2.4) and
organic soils (Figure 2.5) in Section 2.3.3.1 (Chapter 2) to assist inventory compilers with the selection of the
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Mineral Soils
45
46
47
Tier 2: The Tier 2 method for mineral soils also uses Equation 2.25 (Chapter 2), but the inventory approach is
further developed with country-specific information to better specify stock change factors, reference C stocks,
climate regions, soil types, and/or the land management classification system.
48
49
Tier 3: Tier 3 approaches do not employ simple stock change factor per se, but rather use dynamic models
and/or detailed soil C inventory measurements as the basis for estimating annual stock changes.
50
51
52
53
Estimates of stock changes using model-based approaches are computed from the coupled equations that
estimate the net change of soil carbon. A variety of models designed to simulate soil carbon dynamics exist (for
example, see reviews by McGill et al. 1996, Smith et al. 1997). Key criteria in selecting an appropriate model
include its capability of representing all of the relevant management practices/systems for grasslands; model
C HOICE
OF
M ETHOD
Tier 1: For mineral soils, the estimation method is based on changes in soil organic C stocks over a finite period
following changes in management that impact soil organic C storage. After a finite transition period, one can
assume a steady state for this stock. Equation 2.25 (Chapter 2) is used to estimate change in soil organic C stocks
in mineral soils by subtracting the C stock in the last year of an inventory time period (SOC0) from the C stock
at the beginning of the inventory time period (SOC(0 T)) and dividing by the time dependence of the stock
change factors (D). Note that area of exposed bedrock in grasslands are not included in the soil C stock
calculation (assume a stock of 0). In practice, country-specific data on grassland management activity should be
obtained and classified into appropriate land management systems, and then stratified by IPCC climate regions
and soil types (see Chapter 3). Soil organic C stocks (SOC) are estimated for each time period in the inventory
using default reference carbon stocks (SOCref) and default stock change factors (FLU, FMG, FI ).
6.14

1
2
inputs (i.e., driving variables) are compatible with the availability of country-wide input data; and the model
sufficiently represents stock changes based on comparisons with experimental data.
3
4
5
6
7
A Tier 3 approach may also be developed using a measurement-based approach in which a monitoring network
is sampled periodically to estimate soil organic C stock changes. In contrast to a network associated with model
validation, a much higher density of benchmark sites will be needed to adequately represent the combination of
land-use and management systems, climate and soil types. Additional guidance is provided in Section 2.3.3.1
(Chapter 2).
8
9
10
11
12
13
Tier 1: Equation 2.26 (Chapter 2) is used to estimate C stock change in managed grassland on organic soils
(e.g., peat-derived, histosols). The methodology is to stratify managed organic soils by climate region and
assign a climate-specific annual emission rate. Land areas are multiplied by the emission factor and then
summed to derive annual C emissions. Natural grasslands that may be used for seasonal grazing but have not
been artificially drained should not be included in this category.
14
15
16
Tier 2: The Tier 2 approach also uses Equation 2.26 (Chapter 2), but country-specific information is
incorporated to better specify emission factors, climate regions, and/or the land management classification
system.
17
18
Tier 3: Tier 3 approaches for organic soils use dynamic models and/or measurement networks (see Mineral Soils
above for additional discussion).
19
6.2.3.2
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Mineral Soils
Organic Soils
C HOICE
OF
S TOCK C HANGE
AND
E MISSION F ACTOR
Tier 1: For the Tier 1 approach, default stock change factors are provided in Table 6.2, which includes values
for land use (FLU), input (FI) and management factors (FMG). The method and studies that were used to derive the
default stock change factor are provided in Annex 6.A. The time dependence (D) is 20 years for default stock
change factors in grasslands, and they represent the influence of management to a depth of 30 cm. Default
reference soil organic C stocks are found in Table 2.3 of Chapter 2. The reference stock estimates are for the top
30 cm of the soil profile, to be consistent with the depth increment for default stock change factors.
27
6.15
TABLE 6.2
RELATIVE STOCK CHANGE FACTORS FOR GRASSLAND MANAGEMENT
Factor
Level
Climate
regime
IPCC
default
Error 1,2
Definition
Land use
(FLU)
All
All
1.0
NA
All permanent grassland is assigned a land-use factor

of 1.
Management
(FMG)
Nominally
managed (non All
degraded)
1.0
NA
Represents non-degraded and sustainably managed

grassland, but without significant management
improvements.
Temperate
/Boreal
0.95
+ 13%
Tropical
0.97
+ 11%
Tropical
Montane3
0.96
+ 40%
All
0.7
Implies major long-term loss of productivity and

+ 490% vegetation cover, due to severe mechanical damage to
the vegetation and/or severe soil erosion.
Temperate
/Boreal
1.14
+ 11%
Tropical
1.17
+ 9%
Tropical
Montane3
1.16
+ 40%
All
1.0
NA
Applies to improved grassland where no additional

management inputs have been used.
+ 7%
Applies to improved grassland where one or more

additional management inputs/improvements have
been used (beyond that required to be classified as
improved grassland).
Management
(FMG)
Management
(FMG)
Management
(FMG)
Moderately
degraded
grassland
Severely
degraded
Improved
grassland
Input (applied
only to improved
grassland) (FI )
Input (applied
only to improved
grassland) (FI )
Medium
High
All
1.11
Represents overgrazed or moderately degraded

grassland, with somewhat reduced productivity
(relative to the native or nominally managed
grassland) and receiving no management inputs.
Represents grassland which is sustainably managed

with moderate grazing pressure and that receive at
least one improvement (e.g. fertilization, species
improvement, irrigation).
+ two standard deviations, expressed as a percent of the mean; where sufficient studies were not available for a statistical analysis a
default, based on expert judgement, of + 490% is used as a measure of the error. NA denotes Not Applicable, for factor values that
constitute reference values or nominal practices for the input or management classes.
2
This error range does not include potential systematic error due to small sample sizes that may not be representative of the true impact
for all regions of the world.
3
There were not enough studies to estimate stock change factors for mineral soils in the tropical montane climate region. As an
approximation, the average stock change between the temperate and tropical regions was used to approximate the stock change for the
tropical montane climate.
Note: See Annex 6A.1 for estimation of default stock change factors for mineral soil C emissions/removals for Grassland.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Tier 2: Estimation of country-specific stock change factors is an important advancement for improving an
inventory that can be developed in the Tier 2 approach. Derivation of management (FMG) and input (FI) factors
are based on experimental comparisons to nominally-managed grasslands with medium input, respectively,
because these classes are considered the nominal practices in the IPCC default classification scheme for
management systems (see Choice of Activity Data). It is considered good practice to derive values for more
detailed classification schemes of management, climate and soil types if there are significant differences in the
stock change factors among finer categories based on an empirical analysis. Reference C stocks can also be
derived from country-specific data in a Tier 2 approach. Additional guidance is provided in Section 2.3.3.1
(Chapter 2).
11
12
13
more accurately capture land-use and management effects. See Section 2.3.3.1 (Chapter 2) for further
discussion.
14
15
16
Organic Soils
Tier 1: For a Tier 1 approach, default emission factors are provided in Table 6.3 to estimate the loss of C
associated with drainage of organic soils.
17
6.16

TABLE 6.3
ANNUAL EMISSION FACTORS (EF) FOR DRAINED GRASSLAND ORGANIC SOILS
IPCC default
Error 1
Climatic temperature regime
Boreal/Cold Temperate
0.25
+ 90%
Warm Temperate
2.5
+ 90%
Tropical/Sub-Tropical
5.0
+ 90%
Represents a nominal estimate of error, equivalent to two times standard deviation, as a percentage of the mean
These values represent one quarter of the loss on drained croplands (see Table 5.6 in Chapter 5), which is
approximately the proportional loss of C on drained grassland relative to croplands according to data presented in
Armentano and Menges (1986). These values have a degree of uncertainty as reflected in the error column.
1
2
3
4
5
practice for emission factors to be derived for specific land management categories of grassland on organic soils
and/or a finer classification of climate regions, assuming the new categories capture significant differences in C
loss rates. More discussion is provided in Section 2.3.3.1 (Chapter 2).
6
7
accurately capture land-use and management effects. See Section 2.3.3.1 (Chapter 2) for further discussion.
8
9
6.2.3.3
C HOICE
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Mineral Soils
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The main types of land-use activity data include: 1) aggregate statistics (Approach 1), 2) data with explicit
information on land-use conversions but without specific geo-referencing (Approach 2), or 3) data with
information on land-use conversion and explicit geo-referencing (Approach 3), such as point-based land-use and
management inventories making up a statistically-based sample of a countrys land area. (See Chapter 3 for
discussion of Approaches) At a minimum, globally available land-use statistics, such as FAOs databases
(http://www.fao.org/waicent/portal/glossary_en.asp), provide annual compilations of total land area by major landuse types. This would be an example of aggregate data (Approach 1).
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Management activity data supplement the land-use data, providing information to classify management systems,
such as stocking rates, fertilizer use, irrigation etc. These data can also be aggregate statistics (Approach 1) or
provide information on explicit management changes (Approach 2 or 3). It is good practice where possible for
grassland areas to be assigned appropriate general (i.e., degraded, native, or improved) or specific (e.g.,
fertilization or grazing intensity) management activities. Soil degradation maps may be a useful source of
information for stratifying grassland according to management (e.g., Conant and Paustian 2002, McKeon et al.
2004). Expert knowledge is another source of information for management practices; it is good practice to elicit
expert knowledge, where appropriate, using methods provided in Volume 1 (eliciting expert knowledge).
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
National land-use and resource inventories based on repeated surveys of the same locations constitute activity
data gathered using Approach 2 or 3, and have some advantages over aggregated pastoral and land-use statistics
(Approach 1). Time series data can be more readily associated with a particular grassland management system
and the soil type associated with the particular location can be determined by sampling or by referencing the
location to a suitable soil map. Inventory points that are selected based on an appropriate statistical design also
enable estimates of the variability associated with activity data, which can be used as part of a formal uncertainty
analysis. An example of a survey using Approach 3 is the National Resource Inventory in the U.S. (Nusser and
Goebel 1997).
Tier 1: Grassland systems are classified by practices that influence soil C storage. In general, practices that are
known to increase C input to the soil and thus soil organic C stocks, such as irrigation, fertilization, liming,
organic amendments, more productive grass varieties, are given an improved status, with medium or high inputs
depending on the level of improvement. Practices that decrease C input and soil organic C storage, such as longterm heavy grazing, are given a degraded status relative to nominally-managed seeded pastures or native
grassland that are neither improved nor degraded. These practices are used to categorize management systems
and then estimate the change in soil organic C stocks. A classification system is provided in Figure 6.1, which
forms the basis for a Tier 1 inventory. Inventory compilers should use this classification to categorize
management systems in a manner consistent with the default Tier 1 stock change factors. This classification
may be further developed for Tier 2 and 3 approaches.
44
6.17
1
2
3
4
5
6
Figure 6.1 Classification Scheme for Grassland/Grazing Systems. In order to classify

grassland management systems, the inventory compiler should start at the
top and proceed through the diagram answering questions (move across
branches if answer is yes) until reaching a terminal point on the diagram.
The classification diagram is consistent with default stock change factors in
Table 6.2.
7
START
Is the
grassland/grazing
systems 1 degraded 2
relative to native
condition?
YES
Severe
damage to
vegetation and
soils?
NO
Moderately
degraded
YES
Improved-High
Input
YES
Severely
degraded
NO
Productivity
greater than native due
to improvements 3?
YES
Multiple
improvement?
NO
NO
Improved-Medium
Input
Nominal/Native
Includes continuous pasture, hay lands and rangelands.

Degradation is equated with C input to the soil relative to native conditions, which may be caused by
long-term heavy grazing or planting less productive plants relative to native vegetation.
3
Productivity refers explicitly to C input to soil, and management improvements that increase input
include fertilization, organic amendment, irrigation, planting more productive varieties, liming, and
seeding legumes.
2
8
9
6.18

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Activity data require additional in-country information to stratify areas by climate and soil types. If such
information has not already been compiled, an initial approach would be to overlay available land cover/land-use
maps (of national origin or from global datasets such as IGBP_DIS) with soil maps of national origin or global
sources, such as the FAO Soils Map of the World and climate data from the United Nations Environmental
Program. A detailed description of the default climate and soil classification schemes is provided in Chapter 3.
The soil classification is based on soil taxonomic description and textural data, while climate regions are based
on mean annual temperatures and precipitation, elevation, occurrence of frost, and potential evapotranspiration.
8
9
10
11
12
13
Tier 2: Tier 2 approaches are likely to involve a more detailed stratification of management systems than in Tier
1 (Figure 6.1), if sufficient data are available. This could include further subdivisions of grassland systems (i.e.,
moderately degraded, severely degraded, nominal and improved), and the input classes (medium and high input).
It is good practice to further subdivide default classes based on empirical data that demonstrates significant
differences in soil organic C storage among the proposed categories. In addition, Tier 2 approaches could
involve a finer stratification of climate regions and soil types.
14
15
16
the Tier 1 and 2 methods, but the exact requirements will be dependent on the model or measurement design.
17
18
19
20
21
22
Organic Soils
23
24
25
26
27
Similar databases and approaches as those outlined for Mineral Soils in the Tier 1 section can be used for
deriving area estimates. The land area with organic soils that are managed grasslands can be determined using an
overlay of a land-use map on climate and soils maps. Country-specific data on drainage projects combined with
soil maps and surveys can be used to obtain a more refined estimate of relevant areas of managed grassland on
organic soils.
28
29
30
Tier 2: Tier 2 approaches may involve a stratification of management systems if sufficient data are available.
This could include a division of grassland systems by drainage class, for example. Tier 2 approaches could also
involve a finer stratification of climate regions.
31
32
33
Tier 3: Tier 3 approaches for organic soils will probably include more detailed data on climate, soil, topographic
and management data, relative to the Tier 1 and 2 methods, but the exact requirements will be dependent on the
model or measurement design.
34
6.2.3.4
35
36
37
Mineral Soils
The steps for estimating SOC0 and SOC(0-T) and net soil C stock change from Grassland Remaining Grassland
are as follows:
38
39
1990 and 1995, 1995 and 2000, etc.)
40
41
42
or 20 years ago).
43
44
45
46
sectors.
47
48
49
Step 4: Select the land-use factor (FLU), management factor (FMG) and C input levels (FI) representing the landuse and management system present at the beginning of the inventory period. Values for FLU, FMG and FI are
provided in Table 6.2.
50
51
52
53
Step 6: Estimate SOC0 by repeating step 1 to 4 using the same native reference C stock (SOCREF), but with landuse, management and input factors that represent conditions in the last (year 0) inventory year.
Tier 1: In contrast to the mineral soil method, grasslands on organic soils are not classified into management
systems under the assumption that drainage stimulates oxidation of organic matter at about the same rate after
exposure to aerobic conditions, regardless of the management system. However, in order to apply the method
described in Section 2.3.3.1 (Chapter 2), managed grasslands do need to be stratified by soil type and climate
region (see Chapter 3 for guidance on soil and climate classifications).
C ALCULATION S TEPS
FOR
T IER 1
6.19
1
2
Step 7: Estimate the average annual change in soil organic C stock for the area over the inventory time period
(CCCMineral)
4
5
A case example is given below for computing a change in grassland soil organic C stocks using Equation 2.25
(Chapter 2), default stock change factors and reference C stocks.
6
Example: The following example shows calculations for aggregate areas of grassland soil carbon
stock change to a 30 cm depth. In a tropical moist climate on Ultisol soils, there are 1Mha of
permanent grassland. The native reference carbon stock (SOCRef) for the climate/soil type is 47
tonnes C ha-1. At the beginning of the inventory time period (1990 in this example) the distribution
of grassland systems was 500,000 ha of unmanaged native grassland, 400,000 ha of unimproved,
moderately degraded grazing land and 100,000 ha of heavily degraded grassland. Thus initial soil
carbon stocks for the area were: 500,000 ha (47 tonnes C ha-1 1 1 1) + 400,000 ha (47
tonnes C ha-1 1 0.97 1) + 100,000 (47 tonnes C ha-1 1 0.7 1) = 45.026 million tonnes
C. In the last year of inventory time period (2010 in this example), there are: 300,000 ha of
unmanaged native grassland, 300,000 ha of unimproved, moderately degraded grazing land,
200,000 ha of heavily degraded grassland, 100,000 ha of improved pasture receiving fertiliser, and
100,000 of highly improved pasture receiving fertiliser together with irrigation. Thus total soil
carbon stocks in the inventory year are: 300,000 ha (47 tonnes C ha-1 1 1 1) + 300,000 ha
(47 tonnes C ha-1 1 0.97 1) + 200,000 (47 tonnes C ha-1 1 0.7 1) + 100,000 (47
tonnes C ha-1 1 1.17 1) + 100,000 (47 tonnes C ha-1 1 1.17 1.11) = 45.960 million
tonnes C. The average annual stock change over the period for the entire area is: 45.960 45.026 =
0.994 million tonnes/20 yr = 46,695 tonnes per year soil C stock increase. (Note: 20 years is the
time dependence of the stock change factor, i.e., factor represents annual rate of change over 20
years).
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Organic Soils
29
30
1990 and 1995, 1995 and 2000, etc.)
31
32
Step 2: Determine the amount of Grassland Remaining Grassland on drained organic soils in the last year of
each inventory time period.
33
34
Step 3: Assign the appropriate emission factor (EF) for annual losses of CO2 based on climatic temperature
regime (from Table 5.6).
35
36
all climate zones.
37
Step 5: Repeat for additional inventory time periods.
38
6.2.3.5
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Three broad sources of uncertainty exist in soil C inventories: 1) uncertainties in land-use and management
activity and environmental data; 2) uncertainties in reference soil C stocks if using a Tier 1 or 2 approach
associated with Tier 3 measurement-based inventories. In general, precision of an inventory is increased and
confidence ranges are smaller with more sampling to estimate values for the three broad categories, while
reducing bias (i.e., improve accuracy) is more likely to occur through the development of a higher Tier inventory
that incorporates country-specific information.
47
48
49
50
51
52
For Tier 1, uncertainties are provided with the reference C stocks in the first footnote in Table 2.3, and emission
factors for organic soils in Table 6.3 and stock change factors in Table 6.2. Uncertainties in land-use and
management data will need to be addressed by the inventory compiler, and then combined with uncertainties for
the default factors and reference C stocks (mineral soils only) using an appropriate method, such as simple error
propagation equations. If using aggregate land-use area statistics for activity data (e.g., FAO data), the inventory
agency may have to apply a default level of uncertainty for the land area estimates (50%). However, it is good
The steps for estimating the loss of soil C from drained organic soils are as follows:
6.20

1
2
practice for the inventory compiler to derive uncertainties from country-specific activity data instead of using a
default level.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Default reference C stocks and stock change factors for mineral soils and emission factors for organic soils can
have inherently high uncertainties, particularly bias, when applied to specific countries. Defaults represent
globally averaged values of land-use and management impacts or reference C stocks that may vary from regionspecific values (Powers et al. 2004, Ogle et al. 2006). Bias can be reduced by deriving country-specific factors
using a Tier 2 method or by developing a Tier 3 country-specific estimation system. The underlying basis for
higher Tier approaches will be experiments in the country or neighbouring regions that address the effect of land
use and management on soil C. In addition, it is good practice to further minimize bias by accounting for
significant within-country differences in land-use and management impacts, such as variation among climate
regions and/or soil types, even at the expense of reduced precision in the factor estimates (Ogle et al. 2006).
Bias is considered more problematic for reporting stock changes because it is not necessarily captured in the
uncertainty range (i.e., the true stock change may be outside of the reported uncertainty range if there is
significant bias in the factors).
15
16
17
18
Uncertainties in land-use activity statistics may be reduced through a better national system, such as developing
or extending a ground-based survey with additional sample locations and/or incorporating remote sensing to
and management activities with a sufficient sample size to minimize uncertainty at the national scale.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Monte-Carlo procedures to estimate means and standard deviations for the change in soil C stocks (Ogle et al.
2003, Vanden Bygaart et al. 2004).
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
6.2.4
38
39
40
41
Non-CO2 emissions from biomass burning in Grassland remaining Grassland result predominantly from
`savannah burning`, which occurs mostly in tropical and sub-tropical regions. However, grassy and woody
formations elsewhere in the world can also be subject to fire, mainly as a result of management practices, and the
resulting non-CO2 emissions should also be reported.
42
43
44
CO2 emissions from biomass burning in Grassland remaining Grassland are not reported since they are largely
balanced by the CO2 that is reincorporated back into biomass via photosynthetic activity, within weeks to few
years after burning.
45
46
47
48
49
Non-CO2 emissions (particularly CO, CH4, N2O and NOx) that result from incomplete combustion of biomass in
managed grassland should be reported, regardless of their nature (natural or anthropogenic fire). The amount of
biomass burned in any one fire may change from region to region, as well as vary seasonally. The efficiency of
combustion and the corresponding fraction of the biomass converted into non-CO2 greenhouse gases may also
vary.
50
51
52
53
54
55
Countries should report non-CO2 emissions from biomass burning in Grassland remaining Grassland using
annual data, instead of an average of activity data for a given period. This allows the reporting to capture
interannual fluctuations due to climatic events (such as El Nio), or natural climatic variability (unusually dry
years, when disturbances from fire may be more frequent). Generally, the estimates are highly uncertain due to
the lack of reliable and accurate data on the mass of fuel available for combustion, and combustion and emission
factors.
Non-CO 2 from biomass burning
6.21
1
2
3
4
5
The general method for estimating greenhouse gas emissions in Grassland remaining Grassland is described in
Equation 2.27 in Chapter 2. Emissions from biomass burning should be estimated from the above-ground
biomass, and DOM pools. With burning, below-ground biomass is assumed to remain constant after
disturbance, or transferred to the soil pool. Default values for Tier 1 method or components of a Tier 2 method
are provided in Section 2.4 of Chapter 2.
6.2.4.1
C HOICE
OF
M ETHOD
7
8
9
10
11
12
Figure 2.6 in Chapter 2 presents a decision tree that guides the selection of the appropriate Tier level to report
non-CO2 emissions from biomass burning. If biomass burning in Grassland remaining Grassland is not a key
category, countries may choose to report non-CO2 emissions using Tier 1 method, which is based on highly
aggregated data and default combustion and emission factors. However, if biomass burning in Grassland
remaining Grassland is a key category, countries should strive for improving inventory and reporting
approaches by applying the highest Tier possible, given national circumstances.
13
Tier 1
14
15
16
17
18
19
Equation 2.27 should be applied when choosing to report under a Tier 1 method. Tier 1 is based on highly
aggregated data and default combustion and emission factors. If data on Mass of Fuel Available Fuel are not
available, countries should use the default data in Table 2.4 in Chapter 2 for the mass of fuel consumed.
However, since the data in this table is provided by vegetation types and sub-categories, countries applying these
default data should stratify the area of Grassland remaining Grassland in their territory before choosing the
appropriate default value (or values) to be applied.
20
Tier 2
21
22
23
24
25
26
Tier 2 extends Tier 1 by incorporating more disaggregated area estimates (per vegetation types, sub-categories)
and country-specific estimates of combustion and emission factors for each stratum. The area burnt can be
estimated using remotely sensed data of adequate spatial and temporal resolutions analysed according to a robust
sampling design. The periodicity of data acquisition is crucial especially in the tropics, where burning occurs
during a specific period in the year, which can extend over several months. It is important, when estimating the
area burnt, to capture the month-to-month variation of the area burnt.
27
Tier 3
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Tier 3 method should be based on models with algorithms to generate regional scale maps of area burnt using
satellite data of multiple sources and of moderate spatial resolution. The results should be validated using high
spatial resolution data augmented by field observations, and refined based on the validation results and feedback
from operational users. A sampling approach can be designed to generate estimates of area burnt. Countries
should stratify, as far as possible, the Grassland Remaining Grassland areas, and the corresponding combustion
and emission factors. The Tier 3 method should provide estimates (fluxes) of the impact of biomass burning on
all pools, including below-ground biomass.
35
6.2.4.2
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Tier 1: Under a Tier 1 approach, default values are provided for combustion factors [fraction of fuel (aboveground biomass, litter and dead wood) consumed] in Table 2.6 in Chapter 2; and for emission factors in Table
2.5 in Chapter 2, for each non-CO2 greenhouse gas. Estimates of above-ground biomass in savannas are provided
in Table 6.4. The value in Table 2.4 should be used as the fraction of fuel actually burnt in Equation 2.27 in
Chapter 2. Even though data for Tier 1 is usually highly aggregated, countries should seek to stratify the
grassland area affected by biomass burning by broad vegetation types (shrubland, savanna woodland, savannah
grassland), as well as according to the period of the burn (early dry season, or mid/late dry season). If the
grassland is stratified by vegetation type and sub-categories (e.g., savanna parkland, savanna woodland),
countries can use the default values on biomass consumption provided in Table 2.6 in Chapter 2, which gives
estimates of the product between fuel available and the fraction of biomass actually burnt (equivalent to the
product of quantities B and C in Equation 2.27 in Chapter 2).
47
48
49
Tier 2: countries using a Tier 2 approach should use country-specific combustion and emission factors
developed for each broad grassland type (shrublands, savanna woodlands, savanna grassland) and sub-categories
(if applicable).
50
51
Tier 3: countries using a Tier 3 method should develop algorithms to estimate the area burnt, validating the
products obtained with data from field observation and consultation with the product users.
6.22
C HOICE
OF
E MISSION F ACTORS

6.2.4.3
C HOICE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Tier 1: For a Tier 1 method, the only activity data needed is the area affected by biomass burning in Grassland
remaining Grassland. If national data on burnt areas are not available, data from global fire maps can be used.
However, note that any global fire product only represents a fraction of the total fires which take place both in
time and space, due to inherent limitations of satellite sensors, which are the sources of the global map data.
Alternatively, countries may also estimate the annual area burnt by multiplying the area of grassland in the
territory by the estimated annual fraction of grassland burnt, and to apportion the area thus estimated between
Grassland remaining Grassland and Grassland converted to other Land use.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Tier 2: This approach extends Tier 1 by incorporating more disaggregated data on areas affected by biomass
burning. The grassland areas should be stratified according to different grassland vegetation types (shrublands,
savanna grassland, savanna woodland etc.) and by sub-categories. National estimates of the area burned should
be produced. In the absence of reliable national data, countries can rely on global fire maps, but should strive to
assess the particular sampling underlying the production of the fire maps, and, more importantly, whether the
particular sample which is observed is affected by any systematic or unsystematic bias. Different data sources,
which in general have different sampling strategies, should be used to estimate the total area burnt. Additionally,
the burnt area should be compared with burnt areas with validation data sets.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Tier 3: Tier 3 requires high-resolution activity data disaggregated at sub-national to fine grid scales. Similar to
Tier 2, the grassland area should be stratified by specific vegetation types and sub-categories to be used in
models. If possible, spatially explicit area estimates are used to facilitate complete coverage of the grassland and
ensure that areas are not over or underestimated. Furthermore, spatially explicit area estimates can be related to
locally relevant emission and combustion rates, improving the accuracy of estimates. The use of process-based
models should provide a more accurate estimate of area burnt if the results are validated with field
measurements. Sufficient representative measurements are needed for validation purposes.
24
6.2.4.4
25
26
27
28
There are several sources of uncertainty related to estimates of non-CO2 emissions from biomass burning in
Grassland remaining Grassland. For example, savannas include a heterogeneous mosaic of grass, brush, thorn
scrub, and open woodland. Fire behaviour varies greatly among these and hence, disaggregation of vegetative
formations will lead to greater precision.
29
30
31
32
The fraction of fuel that is actually combusted during biomass burning (combustion factor) varies greatly, not
only between ecosystems, but also between fires, between years, and as a function of cultural practices.
Measurements from a given fire, year, and/or cultural setting cannot be extrapolated with confidence to other
regions or years, or to biome scale (Robinson, 1989).
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
A major cause of uncertainty in estimating the contribution of biomass burning to emissions of trace gases is the
extent of area burned, intensity of the fire, and the rate of spread, especially in tropical ecosystems (Seiler and
Crutzen, 1980; Matson and Ojima, 1990; Robinson, 1989). Precision estimates vary widely and depend
essentially on the accuracy of the estimates of area burnt, proportion of the available fuel oxidized, and the
biomass fuel available. Uncertainties of estimates of areas burned can vary markedly depending on the
methodology employed for example, where very high resolution remote-sensing is used it may be of the order
of 20%, whereas the use of global fire maps may result in uncertainties of up to two-fold. Uncertainties in
estimates of greenhouse gas emissions over large regions from fire are likely to be at least 50%, even with good
country-specific data, and at least two-fold where only default data are used.
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA
6.23
1
6.3 LAND CONVERTED TO GRASSLAND
2
3
4
5
6
7
Land Converted to Grassland includes forest land or other land categories converted to grassland within the last
20 years. Greenhouse gas inventory for the land-use category Land Converted to Grassland (LG) involves
estimation of changes in carbon stock from five carbon pools (i.e. above-ground biomass, below-ground
biomass, dead wood, litter, and soil organic matter), as well as emissions of non-CO2 gases. The principal
sources of emissions and removals of greenhouse gases in this category are associated with land-use change and
management.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
The carbon implications of the conversion from other land uses (mostly forest land, cropland, and to lesser
degree wetlands and seldom settlements) to grassland is less clear cut than the case of conversion to cropland.
Literature on the main conversion type (from forest land to grassland in the tropics) provides evidence for net
gains as well as net losses in soil carbon, and the effect of management on the soil carbon changes of grassland
after conversion is critical (see, for example, Veldkamp, 2001) as well as the pre-conversion stocks. Conversion
of land from other uses and from natural states to grassland can result in net emissions or net uptake of CO2 from
both, biomass and soil. The conversion process may also result in emissions from biomass burning.
15
16
The decision tree in, Figure 1.3 (Chapter 1) provides guidance for selecting the appropriate tier level for the
implementation of estimation procedures for LG.
17
6.3.1
18
19
20
21
22
23
This section provides guidelines for estimating carbon stock changes in biomass due to the conversion of
unmanaged land to managed grassland, as well as conversion from other land uses to grassland, including forest
land converted to grassland and cropland converted to pasture and grazing lands. The changes in carbon stock in
biomass from land conversion to grassland result from the removal of existing vegetation and replacement with
grassland vegetation. This differs from the concepts underlying carbon stock changes in biomass of grassland
remaining grassland where changes are tied to management practices.
24
25
26
27
28
Conversion of land to grassland often results in the transfer of carbon from one pool to another. All transfers
must be accounted for and gains and losses from these pools during the transition to a new steady state must be
accounted when reporting lands converted to grasslands. For example, when converting a forest to a pasture,
trees are felled and a portion of the above-ground biomass is transferred to the dead organic matter pool, a
portion of the below-ground biomass is transferred to the soil organic matter pool, etc.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Estimating changes in carbon stocks in biomass for lands converted to grassland requires a two-phase approach.
There is often an abrupt change in biomass associated with the land-use change, particularly when the change is
deliberate and associated with land preparation operations (e.g. clearing and burning). This abrupt change is
treated as Phase 1, and is estimated at the year of conversion. The second phase (Phase 2) accounts for gradual
biomass loss and gain during a transition period to a new steady-state system. At some point in time, the
grassland ecosystem should approach an equilibrium, when it is then considered under the category Grassland
Remaining Grassland and accounted for under that category. A 20-year transition period following conversion
is the default period for remaining in the transitional category, but countries can determine the appropriate
transition period at their discretion. The values of coefficients determining the rate of emissions may depend on
the transition period used.
39
40
41
42
To account for the transition period, lands converted to grasslands should be treated as annual cohorts. That is,
land converted at a given year should be accounted for with Phase 1 methods in the year of conversion, and with
Phase 2 methods for the subsequent 19 years. At the end of the 20-year period, the land area for that given year
is added to the land area being accounted under the grassland remaining grassland category.
43
44
45
46
It is likely that a number of lands converted to grassland will not have an abrupt transition (e.g. cropland that is
abandoned and that reverts to grassland). In this case, Phase 1 methods will not be appropriate and there will be
a gradual transition in biomass pools to a new equilibrium. When this type of conversion occurs, the whole
conversion accounting can be treated with Phase 2 methods.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
It is good practice to apportion transfers of carbon between pools when there is an abrupt transition. The
immediate impacts of land conversion activities on the five carbon stocks can be summarized in a disturbance
matrix. The disturbance matrix describes the retention, transfers and releases of carbon in the pools in the
original ecosystem following conversion to grassland. A disturbance matrix defines for each pool the proportion
that remains in that pool and the proportion that is transferred to other pools. A small number of transfers are
possible, and are outlined in the disturbance matrix in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2. If the rate of land conversion is
more or less constant, the assumption that all carbon in theses pools was lost at the time of conversion would be
a reasonable first approximation. Where the rate of land conversion varies over time, it is good practice to
6.24
Biomass

1
2
account for the transfer and release of carbon among the different carbon pools and ensure that all carbon is
accounted.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
In cases where there is an immediate and abrupt carbon stock change in biomass due to conversion to grasslands,
the effect of this conversion will be estimated using Equation 2.16 in Chapter 2. During the transition period,
pools that gain or lose C often have a non-linear loss or accumulation curve that can be represented through
successive transition matrices. If the true shapes of the curves are known, these curves can be applied to each
cohort that is under transition during the reporting year to estimate the annual emission or removal by the
specific pool. If the shape of the curve is unknown, countries may simplify and use a linear decay function to
estimate pool changes. Two methods are available to estimate these changes.
10
6.3.1.1
C HOICE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
The decision tree in, Figure 2.2 (Chapter 2) provides guidance for selecting the appropriate tier level for the
implementation of estimation procedures for biomass in LG. Estimation of changes in biomass requires an
estimate of changes in above-ground vegetation and changes in below-ground biomass. Countries should use the
highest tier possible given national circumstances. It is good practice to use a Tier 2 or Tier 3 approach if carbon
emissions and removals in Land Converted to Grassland is a key category and if the sub-category of biomass is
considered significant, based on principles outlined in Volume 1 Chapter 4 (Methodological Choice and
Identification of Key Categories).
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Tier 1
The change in biomass carbon stock on Land Converted to Grassland under Tier 1 should be estimated using
Equation 2.15. The average carbon stock change is equal to the carbon stock change due to the removal of
biomass from the initial land use (i.e., carbon in biomass immediately after conversion minus the carbon in
biomass prior to conversion), plus carbon stocks from biomass growth following conversion. As a simplification
for Tier 1, it is assumed that all biomass is lost immediately from the previous ecosystem after conversion
(Equation 2.16) , even when there is no abrupt change, and residual biomass (Bafter) is thus assumed to be zero,
(i.e., the land is cleared of all vegetation before grassland vegetation is established). Thus, there is no transfer of
biomass from the biomass pool to the dead wood pool, for example. Default values for biomass prior to
conversion can be found in the chapters relating to the respective land uses (e.g. default factors for forest land are
to be found in the chapter dealing with biomass in forest land).
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Additionally, it is assumed that grasslands achieve their steady-state biomass during the first year following
conversion. Thus, for Tier 1, there are no stock changes associated with Phase 2, though the lands converted to
grasslands should be retained in the conversion category for the 20 year transition period because the soil stocks
will take longer to reach equilibrium. Emissions and uptakes from biomass during Phase 2 of the calculation are
therefore zero. If there are significant management changes during the transition phase, countries can account for
the impacts of this on C stocks in biomass using Tier 2 methods from GG. It is good practice to account for all
land converted to grassland. Thus, a separate calculation must be done for each type of conversion.
36
37
38
39
40
41
Tier 2
The Tier 2 calculations differ structurally in a number of ways from Tier 1. First, Tier 2 estimates use the twophase approach described earlier. Tier 2 relies on some country-specific estimates of the biomass in initial and
final land uses rather than the defaults, as in Tier 1. Area estimates for Land Converted to Grassland are
disaggregated at higher resolution spatial scales than in Tier 1 to capture regional variations within the grassland
formations of the country.
42
43
44
45
46
47
Second, for Tier 2 countries may modify the assumption that biomass immediately following conversion is zero.
This enables countries to take into account land-use transitions where some, but not all, vegetation from the
original land use is removed. In addition, under Tier 2 it is possible to account for biomass accumulation
following grassland establishment over a several year period (rather than accounting all biomass stock change in
the year of conversion) if data are available to estimate the time to full biomass establishment and the annual
stock changes.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Third, under Tier 2, it is good practice to apportion transfers of carbon between pools. Grassland systems
typically do not contain significant carbon in the dead wood or litter pools, but dead wood may persist for a
number of years in young grasslands that are replacing forests or accumulate in scrublands as woody biomass
senesces. If the rate of land conversion is more or less constant, the assumption that all carbon in theses pools
was lost at the time of conversion would be a reasonable first approximation. Where the rate of land conversion
varies over time, it is appropriate to try to account for the transfer and release of carbon from litter, dead wood,
and soil carbon pools. It is therefore necessary to distinguish immediate losses due to the conversion activities
from the losses that occur in the years following the land conversion.
OF
M ETHOD
6.25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The immediate and abrupt carbon stock change in biomass due to land converted to grasslands under Tiers 2 and
3 will be estimated using Equation 2.16 in Chapter 2, where Bafter is assumed to be zero. During the transition
period, pools that gain or loose C often have a non-linear loss or accumulation curve that can be represented
through successive transition matrices. For Tier 2, a linear change function can be assumed; for a Tier 3
approach based upon these methods, it is good practice to use the true shapes of the curves. These curves are to
be applied to each cohort that is under transition during the reporting year to estimate the annual change in the
biomass carbon pools.
8
9
For the estimation of changes in biomass carbon during the transition phase, two methods are suggested. The
equations used are the same as those used for Tier 2 in Grasslands Remaining Grasslands section.
10
11
12
13
14
15
Gain-Loss Method (see Equation 2.7 in Chapter 2): This method involves estimating the area of each type of
land conversion and the average annual transfer into and out of biomass stocks. This requires (i) an estimate of
the area under Land Converted to Grassland according to different climate or ecological zones or grassland
types, disturbance regime, management regime, or other factors significantly affecting biomass carbon pools; (ii)
the quantity of biomass accumulating in the biomass stocks; and (iii) the quantity of biomass lost from the
biomass stocks on per hectare basis according to different grassland types.
16
17
18
19
20
21
Stock-Difference Method (see Equation 2.8 in Chapter2): This method involves estimating the area of land
converted to grassland and the biomass stocks at two periods of time, t1 and t2. The biomass stock changes for
the inventory year are obtained by dividing the stock changes by the period (years) between two measurements.
The Stock Difference Method is feasible for countries that have periodic inventories, and is more suitable for
countries adopting Tier 3 methods. This method may not be well suited to regions with very variable climates
and may produce spurious results unless annual inventories can be made.
22
23
24
25
26
27
Tier 3
Tier 3 methods are used where countries have country-specific emission factors, and substantial national data.
Country-defined methodology may be based on detailed inventories of permanent sample plots for their
grasslands and/or models. For Tier 3, countries should develop their own methodologies and parameters for
estimating changes in biomass. These methodologies may be derived from methods specified above, or may be
based on other approaches. The method used needs to be clearly documented.
28
29
30
31
32
33
Tier 3 involves inventory systems using statistically-based sampling of biomass over time and/or process
models, stratified by climate, grassland type and management regime. For example, validated species specific
growth models that incorporate management effects such as grazing intensity, fire, liming, and fertilization, with
corresponding data on management activities, could be used to estimate net changes in grassland biomass over
time. Models, together with periodic sampling-based biomass estimates, similar to those used in detailed forest
inventories, could be applied to estimate stock changes to make spatial extrapolations for grassland areas.
34
35
36
37
Key criteria in selecting appropriate models include the ability to represent all of the ecosystem conversions and
management practices that are represented in the activity data. It is critical that the model be validated with
independent observations from country or region-specific field locations that are representative of the variability
of climate, soil and grassland management systems in the country.
38
39
40
41
If possible, spatially explicit area estimates should be used to facilitate complete coverage of the grassland and
ensure that areas are not over- or underestimated. Furthermore, spatially explicit area estimates can be related to
locally relevant carbon accumulation and removal rates, and restocking and management impacts, improving the
accuracy of estimates.
42
6.3.1.2
43
44
45
46
Tier 1
C HOICE
OF
Tier 1 methods require estimates of the biomass of the land use before conversion and after conversion. It is
assumed that all biomass is cleared when preparing a site for grassland use, thus, the default for biomass
immediately after conversion is 0 tonnes ha-1. Default values for biomass can be found at:
47
Forest land prior to clearing: see Chapter 4 (Forest land)
48
For cropland containing woody perennial crops: see Chapter 5 (Cropland)
49
50
For cropland containing annual crops: Use default of 4.7 tonnes of carbon ha-1 or 10 tonnes of dry
matter ha-1. The error range associated with this default is 75%.
51
52
Table 6.4 provides default values for biomass following conversion; however, there is wide variation within any
region largely driven by rainfall and soil texture. These default values have high error rates and thus when better
6.26

1
2
country specific data are available, countries should use the best locally available data to estimate grassland
biomass.
3
TABLE 6.4
DEFAULT BIOMASS STOCKS PRESENT ON GRASSLAND , AFTER CONVERSION FROM OTHER LAND USE
Peak above-ground
biomass1
Error 3
(tonnes d.m. ha-1)
Total (above- and belowground) non-woody biomass2

(tonnes d.m. ha-1)
Boreal - Dry & Wet4
1.7
8.5
75%
Cold Temperate Dry
1.7
6.5
75%
Cold Temperate Wet
2.4
13.6
75%
Warm Temperate Dry
1.6
6.1
75%
Warm Temperate Wet
2.7
13.5
75%
Tropical Dry
2.3
8.7
75%
Tropical - Moist & Wet
6.2
16.1
75%
IPCC Climate zone
Data for standing biomass are compiled from multi-year averages reported at grassland sites registered in the ORNL DAAC NPP
database [http://www.daacsti.ornl.gov/NPP/html_docs/npp_summ.html].
2
Total above- and below-ground biomass values are based on the peak above-ground biomass values and the root:shoot ratios (Table
6.1)
3
Due to limited data, dry and moist zones for the boreal temperature regime and moist and wet zones for the tropical temperature
regime were combined.
Tier 2
5
6
7
8
9
10
It is good practice to use country-specific estimates for biomass stocks and emissions/removals due to land
conversion, and also include estimates of on- and off-site losses due to burning and decay following land
conversion to grassland. These improvements can take the form of systematic studies of carbon content and
emissions and removals associated with land uses and land-use conversions within the country or region and a
re-examination of default assumptions in light of country-specific conditions.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Region- or country-specific data on biomass for young grasslands are needed for a Tier 2 approach. These can be
obtained through a variety of methods, including estimating density (e.g., crown cover) of woody and
herbaceous vegetation from air photos or high resolution satellite imagery and ground-based measurement plots.
Species composition, density and above- vs. below-ground biomass can vary widely for different grassland types
and conditions and thus it may be most efficient to stratify sampling and survey activities by grassland types.
General guidance on survey and sampling techniques for biomass inventories is given in Chapter 3 in Annex
3A.3.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Accurately capturing the dynamics of below-ground biomass is necessary for accounting for carbon stock
changes when land is converted to grassland. In the case of abandonment of cropland, below-ground biomass
will increase continuously as ecosystem succession takes place. For lands converted from forest to pasture, there
will be a gradual decomposition of below-ground forest biomass and a gradual increase of below-ground
biomass of pasture grasses. Estimating below-ground biomass can be an important component of biomass
surveys of grassland but field measurements are laborious and difficult and thus expansion factors to estimate
below-ground biomass from above-ground biomass are often used.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Root-to-shoot ratios show wide ranges in values at both individual species (e.g. Anderson et al., 1972) and
community scales (e.g. Jackson et al., 1996; Cairns et al., 1997). Thus it is recommended to use, as far as
possible, empirically-derived root-to-shoot ratios specific to a region or vegetation type. Table 6.1 provides
default root-to-shoot ratios for major grassland ecosystems of the world; these data can be used as defaults when
countries do not have more regionally specific information to develop country-specific ratios. Ratios for
woodland/savannah and scrublands are also included for use by countries that include these lands in the
grassland section of their inventory.
32
33
34
35
36
Tier 3
Tier 3 approaches consist of using a combination of dynamic models and inventory measurements of biomass
stock changes. This approach does not employ simple stock changes or emission factors per se. Estimates of
emissions/removals using model-based approaches derive from the interaction of multiple equations that
estimate the net change of biomass stocks within the models. Models can be used, together with periodic
6.27
1
2
3
4
5
sampling-based stock estimates similar to those used in detailed forest inventories could be applied, to estimate
stock changes or inputs and outputs as in Tier 2 to make spatial extrapolations for grassland areas. For example,
validated species specific growth models that incorporate management effects such as grazing intensity, fire, and
fertilization, with corresponding data on management activities, could be used to estimate net changes in
grassland biomass over time.
6.3.1.3
C HOICE
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
All tiers require estimates of land areas converted to grassland. The same area data should be used for biomass
described in Chapter 3. Cross-checks should be made to ensure complete and consistent representation of
according to the general climatic categories and grassland types. Tier 3 inventories will require more
comprehensive information on the establishment of new grasslands, with refined soil classes, climates, and
spatial and temporal resolution. All changes having occurred over the number of years selected as the transition
period should be included with transitions older than the transition period (default 20 years) reported as a
subdivision of grassland remaining grassland. Higher tiers require greater detail but the minimum requirement
for inventories to be consistent with the IPCC Guidelines is that the areas of forest conversion can be identified
separately. This is because forest will usually have higher carbon density before conversion. This implies that at
least partial knowledge of the land-use change matrix, and therefore, where Approaches 1 and 2 from Chapter 3
are used to estimate land area are being used, supplementary surveys may be needed to identify the area of land
being converted from forest to grassland. As pointed out in Chapter 3, where surveys are being set up, it will
often be more accurate to seek to establish directly areas undergoing conversion, than to estimate these from the
differences in total land areas under particular uses at different times.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Tier 1
35
36
37
38
39
Tier 2
40
41
42
43
44
45
Tier 3
46
6.3.1.4
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

biomass (C B ) using the default methods
Estimates of areas converted to grassland from initial land uses (i.e., forest land, cropland, settlements, etc.) to
final grassland type are necessary. The methodology assumes that area estimates are based on a one-year time
frame, after which they are transferred to the category grassland remaining grassland. If area estimates are
assessed over longer time frames, they should be converted to average annual areas to match the carbon stock
values used. If countries do not have these data, partial samples may be extrapolated to the entire land base or
historic estimates of conversions may be extrapolated over time based on the judgement of country experts. At a
minimum, countries can rely on average deforestation rates and land-use conversions to grassland from
international sources, including the FAO (See FAOSTAT website). Tier 1 approaches may use average annual
rates of conversion and estimated areas in place of direct estimates.
It is good practice to use actual area estimates for all possible transitions from initial land use to final grassland
type. Complete reporting can be accomplished either through analysis of periodic remotely sensed images of
land-use and land-cover patterns, and/or periodic ground-based sampling of land-use patterns, or hybrid
inventory systems.
Activity data used in Tier 3 calculations should provide a full accounting of all land-use transitions to grassland
and be disaggregated to account for different conditions within a country. Disaggregation can occur along
political boundaries (county, province, etc.), biome area, climate zone, or on a combination of these parameters.
In many cases countries may have information on multi-year trends in land conversion (from periodic samplebased or remotely sensed inventories of land use and land cover).
C ALCULATION S TEPS
FOR
T IERS 1
AND
Worksheets have been provided for completing Tier 1 estimates of emissions and removals from this category
(see Annex 1). For this calculation, Equation 2.15 is simplified. The assumption for Tier 1 is that CG and CL
equal zero. Thus, the only term that requires calculation is the CCONVERSION, which is calculated with Equation
2.16. For lands converted to grassland, Equation 2.16 is computed twice, once for the herbaceous biomass and
once for the woody biomass. This is done because each of these components has a different carbon fraction.
54
6.28

Tier 1
1
2
3
4
For Tier 1, only the abrupt change needs to be calculated. The simplifying assumption is that all stock changes
occur in the year of conversion. Thus for conversions older than 1 year, but still in the transition period, the
assumption is that there are no net changes in biomass C stocks.
5
6
7
8
9
S t e p 1 . Determine the categories of land conversion to be used in this assessment and the representative areas.
Tier 1 requires estimates of areas converted to grassland from initial land uses (i.e., forest land, cropland,
settlements, etc.) to final grassland type. When calculating for lands in the transition phase, only the total area of
land converted during the previous 20 years is required as the Tier 1 assumption is that all changes in C stocks in
the biomass occur during the first year.
10
11
12
13
Step 2. Determine the activity categories to be used in this assessment and the representative areas. The activity
previous land cover and grassland management (e.g., conversion of logged tropical seasonal forest to cattle
pasture using exotic grasses).
14
15
16
17
Step 3. For each activity category, determine the biomass per hectare in herbaceous biomass and woody biomass
(separately) prior to conversion. Where data on below-ground biomass are lacking, use below-ground to aboveground biomass ratios to estimate the below-ground component of the biomass. Default values can be found in
the chapter that refers to the other land-use category.
18
19
20
21
Step 4. For each activity category, determine the biomass per hectare in herbaceous biomass and woody biomass
(separately) following one year of conversion to grassland. Where data on below-ground biomass are lacking,
use below-ground to above-ground biomass ratios to estimate the below-ground component of the biomass.
Default values for herbaceous biomass can be found in Table 6.4.
22
23
Step 5. Determine the appropriate carbon fractions for herbaceous and woody biomass. The default values are
0.50 for woody biomass and 0.47 for herbaceous biomass.
24
25
26
27
Step 6. Estimate the net change of carbon stocks in woody and herbaceous biomass (separately) by subtracting
the final biomass from the initial biomass and multiplying this difference by the representative area for the
activity and by the carbon fraction of the biomass component. A negative value indicates an increase of
biomass.
28
29
30
Step 7. Sum the changes in carbon stocks in woody and herbaceous biomass to determine the net change in
biomass C stocks for each activity category. Sub-totals for each type of conversion should be computed and a
grand total should be computed and entered at the bottom of the last column of the table.
31
32
33
34
35
Tier 2
36
37
38
39
40
Step 2 A brupt changes

Determine the activity categories to be used in this assessment and the representative areas. The
activity category consists of definitions of the type of conversion and, if applicable, the nature of
management of the previous land cover and grassland management (e.g., conversion of logged
tropical seasonal forest to cattle pasture using exotic grasses).
When calculating for lands in the transition phase, representative areas for each category at different stages of
conversion are required.
41
42
43
44
For each activity category, determine the biomass per hectare in herbaceous biomass and woody
biomass (separately) prior to conversion. Where data on below-ground biomass are lacking, use
below-ground to above-ground biomass ratios to estimate the below-ground component of the
biomass.
45
46
47
48
For each activity category, determine the biomass per hectare in herbaceous biomass and woody
biomass (separately) following one year of conversion to grassland. Where data on below-ground
biomass are lacking, use below-ground to above-ground biomass ratios to estimate the belowground component of the biomass.
49
50
Determine the appropriate carbon fractions for herbaceous and woody biomass. The default values
are 0.50 for woody biomass and 0.47 for herbaceous biomass.
51
52
53
54
Estimate the net change of woody and herbaceous biomass per hectare for each type of conversion
by subtracting the final biomass from the initial biomass and multiplying this difference by the
representative area for the activity and by the carbon fraction of the biomass component. A
negative value indicates an increase of biomass.
6.29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Sum the changes in carbon stocks in woody and herbaceous biomass to determine the net change in
biomass C stocks for each activity category. Sub-totals for each type of conversion should be
computed and a grand total should be computed.
Step 3 Transit iona l cha nges

Determine the categories and cohorts to be used in this assessment and the representative areas.
The category consists of definitions of the type of conversion and, if applicable, the nature of
9
10
11
12
Determine the annual change rate for herbaceous and woody biomass (separately) by activity type
using either the Gain-Loss method or the Stock Difference method (see below) for each cohort of
lands that are currently in the transition phase between conversion and a new steady-state grassland
system.
13
14
Determine the herbaceous and woody biomass in the cohort during the previous year (usually taken
from the previous inventory).
15
16
Estimate the change in herbaceous and woody biomass for each cohort by adding the net change
rate to the previous years stocks.
17
Gain-Loss Method (Equation 2.7 in Chapter 2)
18
Determine the average annual increment of herbaceous and woody biomass (separately).
19
Determine the average annual losses of herbaceous and woody biomass (separately).
20
21
Determine the net change rate in herbaceous and woody biomass by subtracting the loss from the
increment.
22
Stock Difference Method (Equation 2.8 in Chapter 2)
23
24
Determine the inventory time interval, the average stocks of herbaceous and woody biomass at the
initial inventory, and the average herbaceous and woody biomass at the final inventory.
25
26
27
Use these figures to estimate the net annual difference in herbaceous and woody biomass by
subtracting the initial stock from the final stock and dividing this difference by the number of years
between inventories. A negative value indicates a loss in the stock.
28
29
A Tier 2 approach requires country- or ecosystem-specific expansion factors and the best available local data
should be used (and documented).
30
6.3.1.5
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Uncertainty analyses for Land Converted to Grassland are fundamentally the same as Grassland Remaining
Grassland. Three sources of uncertainty exists: 1) uncertainties in land-use and management activity and
environmental data; 2) uncertainties in reference soil C stocks if using a Tier 1 or 2 approach (mineral soils
associated with a Tier 3 measurement-based inventories. See the uncertainty section in Grassland remaining
Grassland for additional discussion (Section 6.2.1.5).
38
6.3.2
39
40
41
42
43
In this section, changes in carbon stocks of dead organic matter pool are presented for the land category Land
Converted to Grassland. Cropland, forest land, rangelands, settlements, and other land categories could be
potentially converted to grassland. Methods are provided for two types of dead organic matter pools: 1) dead
wood and 2) litter. Chapter 1of this Volume provides detailed definitions of these pools. The features of
deadwood and litter are described in Section 6.2.2.
44
45
46
47
48
49
Estimating changes in carbon stocks in DOM for Land Converted to Grassland requires a two-phase approach,
similar to approach described in Biomass Section (Section 6.3.1). During the first phase, there is often an abrupt
change in DOM associated with the land-use change, particularly when the change is deliberate and associated
with land preparation operations (e.g. clearing and burning). The second phase accounts for decay and
accumulation processes during a transition period to a new steady-state system. At some point in time, the
grassland ecosystem should reach an equilibrium; at which time it can be considered Grassland Remaining
6.30
Dead Organic Matter

1
2
Grassland and accounted for under that category. A 20 year transition period following conversion is the
default period, but countries are free to determine the appropriate transition period at their discretion.
3
4
5
6
To account for the transition period, lands converted to grasslands should be treated as annual cohorts. That is,
land converted in a given year should be accounted for under Phase 1 in the year of conversion, and under Phase
2 for the subsequent 19 years. At the end of the 20 year period, the land area for that given year is added to the
land area being accounted under the grassland remaining grassland category.
7
8
9
10
It is likely that many land uses will not have a dead wood or a litter pool, so that corresponding carbon pools
prior to conversion can be assumed to be zero. Forest, agroforests, and wetlands converted to grassland, could
have significant carbon in these pools, as well as forest areas around settlements that may have been defined as
settlements based on nearby use rather than land cover.
11
12
13
14
It is also likely that a number of land areas converted to grassland will not have an abrupt transition (e.g.
cropland that is abandoned and that reverts to grassland). In this case, Phase 1 assumptions will not be
appropriate and there will be a gradual transition in DOM pools to a new equilibrium. When this type of
conversion occurs, the whole conversion accounting can be treated as Phase 2.
15
16
17
18
19
Conversion of lands to grasslands often involves clearing and burning. As land is cleared, DOM may be
removed for fuelwood or other uses. Countries may try to quantify these removals and account for the carbon in
other sectors (e.g. Energy). Additionally, burning the remaining vegetation does not completely remove the
DOM and some is converted to charcoal. At higher tiers, countries may wish to account for this transfer to a
long-term storage pool.
20
6.3.2.1
21
22
23
24
The decision tree in Figure 2.3 in Chapter 2 provides assistance in the selection of the appropriate tier level for
the implementation of estimation procedures. Estimation of changes in carbon stocks in DOM requires an
estimate of changes in stocks of dead wood and changes in litter stocks. Each of the DOM pools (deadwood and
litter) is to be treated separately, but the method for each poo l is th e same .
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Tier 1: A Tier 1 approach involves estimating the area of each type of land conversion using only the major
conversion categories (e.g. forest land to grassland). The immediate and abrupt carbon stock change (Phase 1) in
dead wood and litter due to conversion of other lands to grassland under Tier 1 is estimated using Equation 2.23
where C0 equals zero and Ton equals 1. The Tier 1 default assumes removal of all dead wood and litter during
conversion and that there is no dead wood or litter that remains or accumulates in land converted to grassland.
Countries where this assumption is known to be false (e.g. where slash and burn agriculture is widely practiced)
are encouraged to use a higher tier when accounting for lands converted to croplands. Additionally, it should be
assumed that grasslands achieve steady-state biomass during the first year following conversion. Thus, for Tier
1, there is no emissions or removals associated with Phase 2, though the lands converted to grasslands should be
retained in the conversion category for the 20 year transition period because the soil stocks will take longer to
reach equilibrium.
36
37
38
39
There are no default values available for dead wood or litter in most systems. For forests, there are no global
default values for deadwood, but there are values for litter (Table 2.2 in Chapter 2). Countries should make best
estimates and use local data from forestry and agricultural research institutes to provide best estimates of the
dead wood and litter in the initial system prior to conversion.
40
41
Tier 2: Tier 2 approaches require greater disaggregation than that used in Tier 1. Activity data should be
reported by ecological zone and management regimes.
42
43
44
45
46
47
As explained in the biomass section (Section 6.3.1), the immediate impacts of land conversion activities on the
five carbon stocks can be summarized in a disturbance matrix. The disturbance matrix describes the retention,
transfers and releases of carbon in the pools in the original ecosystem following conversion to grassland. A
disturbance matrix defines the proportion of the carbon stock that remains in that pool and the proportion that is
transferred to other pools. A small number of transfers are possible, and are outlined in the disturbance matrix in
Table 2.1 in Chapter 2. Use of a disturbance matrix ensures consistency of the accounting of all carbon pools.
48
49
50
51
52
53
The immediate and abrupt carbon stock change in dead wood due to conversion of other lands to grasslands
under Tier 2 and 3 will be estimated using Equation 2.23. During the transition period, pools that gain or lose C
often have a non-linear loss or accumulation curve that can be represented through successive transition
matrices. For Tier 2, a linear change function can be assumed; a Tier 3 approach based upon these methods
should use the true shapes of the curves. These curves should be applied to each cohort that is under transition
during the reporting year to estimate the annual change in the dead wood and litter carbon pools.
C HOICE
OF
M ETHOD
6.31
1
2
suggested:
3
4
5
6
7
8
Gain-Loss Method (Equation 2.18 in Chapter 2): This method involves estimating the area of each type of land
conversion and the average annual transfer into and out of dead wood and litter stocks. This requires an estimate
of area under land converted to grassland according to different climate or ecological zones or grassland types,
disturbance regime, management regime, or other factors significantly affecting dead wood and litter carbon
pools and the quantity of biomass transferred into dead wood and litter stocks as well as the quantity of biomass
transferred out of the dead wood and litter stocks on per hectare basis according to different grassland types.
9
10
11
12
13
14
Stock Difference Method (Equation 2.19 in Chapter 2): The Stock Difference Method involves estimating the
area of land converted to grassland and the dead wood and litter stocks at two periods of time, t1 and t2. The
annual deadwood and litter stock changes for the inventory year are obtained by dividing the stock changes by
the period (years) between two measurements. This method is feasible for countries, which have periodic
inventories. This method may not be well suited to regions with very variable climates and may produce
spurious results unless annual inventories can be made.
15
16
17
18
19
20
DOM. These methodologies may be derived from either of the methods specified above, or may be based on
other approaches. The method used needs to be clearly documented. Method 2 described above may be suitable
for countries adopting Tier 3 methods. Tier 3 methods are used where countries have country-specific emission
factors, and substantial national data. Country-defined methodology may be based on detailed inventories of
permanent sample plots for their grasslands and/or models.
21
6.3.2.2
22
23
24
25
decomposition. Wood is much less variable than litter and a value of 0.50 [tonnes C (tonne d.m.)-1] can be used
for the carbon fraction. Litter values in grasslands range from 0.30 to 0.50. When country- or ecosystemspecific data are not available, countries should use a carbon fraction value of 0.40 [tonnes C (tonne d.m.)-1].
26
27
28
29
Tier 1: For Tier 1, it is assumed that the dead wood and litter carbon stocks in lands converted to grasslands are
all lost during the conversion and that there is no accumulation of new DOM in the grassland after conversion.
Countries experiencing significant conversions of other ecosystems to grasslands are encouraged to develop
domestic data to quantify this impact and report it under Tier 2 or 3 methodologies.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Tier 2: It is good practice to use country level data on dead wood and litter for different grassland categories, in
combination with default values if country or regional values are not available for some conversion categories.
Country-specific values for transfer of carbon from live trees and grasses that are harvested to harvest residues
and decomposition rates, in the case of the Gain-Loss Method, or the net change in DOM pools, in the case of
the Stock Difference Method, can be derived from domestic expansion factors, taking into account the grassland
37
38
39
40
Tier 3: National level disaggregated DOM carbon estimates should be determined as part of a national
grasslands inventory, national level models, or from a dedicated greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory programme,
with periodic sampling according to the principles set our in Volume 1. Inventory data can be coupled with
modelling studies to capture the dynamics of all grassland carbon pools.
41
42
43
44
45
carbon budget are decay rates, which may vary with the type of wood, climatic conditions, and site preparation
procedures (e.g. controlled broadcast burning, or burning of piles).
46
6.3.2.3
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
All tiers require estimates of land areas converted to grassland. The same area data should be used for biomass
described in Chapter 3. Cross-checks should be made to ensure complete and consistent representation of
according to the general climatic categories and grassland types. Tier 3 inventories will require more
6.32
C HOICE
C HOICE
OF
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
comprehensive information on the establishment of new grasslands, with refined soil classes, climates, and
spatial and temporal resolution. All changes having occurred over the number of years selected as the transition
period should be included with transitions older than the transition period (default 20 years) reported as a
subdivision of grassland remaining grassland. Higher tiers require greater detail but the minimum requirement
for inventories to be consistent with the IPCC Guidelines is that the areas of forest conversion can be identified
separately. This is because forest will usually have higher carbon density before conversion. This implies that at
least partial knowledge of the land-use change matrix, and therefore, where Approaches 1 and 2 from Chapter 3
are used to estimate land area are being used, supplementary surveys may be needed to identify the area of land
being converted from forest to grassland. As pointed out in Chapter 3, where surveys are being set up, it will
often be more accurate to seek to establish directly areas undergoing conversion, than to estimate these from the
differences in total land areas under particular uses at different times.
12
13
14
15
Chapter 3 provides general guidance on approaches for obtaining and categorizing area by different land-use
classes. For estimating emissions and removals from this source, countries need to obtain area estimates for
conversions to grassland, disaggregated as required to correspond to the available emission factors and other
parameters.
16
6.3.2.4
17
18
19
20
21
For Tier 1, only the abrupt change needs to be calculated and this is done using Equation 2.23 where C0 equals
zero and Ton equals 1. The Tier 1 default assumes removal of all dead wood and litter during conversion and that
there is no dead wood or litter that remains or accumulates in land converted to grassland. Thus for conversions
older than 1 year, but still in the transition period, the assumption is that there are no net changes in biomass C
stocks.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Tier 1
30
31
32
33
Step 2. Determine the activity categories to be used in this assessment and the representative areas. The activity
previous land cover and grassland management (e.g., conversion of logged tropical seasonal forest to cattle
pasture using exotic grasses).
34
35
Step 3. For each activity category, determine the C stock per hectare in deadwood and litter (separately) prior to
conversion. Default values, if they exist, can be found in the chapter that refers to the other land-use category.
36
37
Step 4. For each activity category, the C stock per hectare in deadwood and litter (separately) following one year
of conversion to grassland is assumed to be 0.
38
39
Step 5. Determine the appropriate carbon fractions for deadwood and litter biomass. The default values are
0.50 for deadwood and 0.40 for litter.
40
41
42
Step 6. Estimate the net change of carbon stocks in deadwood and litter (separately) by subtracting the final
stock from the initial stock and multiplying this difference by the representative area for the activity and by the
carbon fraction of the biomass component.
43
44
45
Step 7. Sum the changes in carbon stocks in deadwood and litter to determine the net change in DOM C stocks
for each activity category. Sub-totals for each type of conversion should be computed and a grand total should
be computed and entered at the bottom of the last column of the table.
46
47
48
49
Tier 2
50
51
52
53
54
Step 2 A brupt changes

Determine the activity categories to be used in this assessment and the representative areas. The
activity category consists of definitions of the type of conversion and, if applicable, the nature of
C ALCULATION S TEPS
FOR
T IERS 1
AND
Tier 1 requires estimates of areas converted to grassland from initial land uses (i.e., forest land, cropland,
settlements, etc.) to final grassland type. When calculating for lands in the transition phase, only the total area of
land converted during the previous 20 years is required as the Tier 1 assumption is that there is no accumulation
of C stocks in the DOM during the first year. Note all grasslands older than 20 years should be accounted for in
Grasslands Remaining Grasslands. Thus, grassland areas that are 21 years old, must be transferred to this
category.
When calculating for lands in the transition phase, representative areas for each category at different stages of
conversion are required.
6.33
1
2
For each activity category, determine the mass per hectare of deadwood and litter (separately) prior
to conversion.
3
4
For each activity category, mass per hectare of deadwood and litter (separately) following one year
of conversion to grassland.
5
6
Determine the appropriate carbon fractions deadwood and litter. The default values are 0.50 for
deadwood and 0.4o for litter.
7
8
9
10
Estimate the net change of C stock in deadwood and litter (separately) for each type of conversion
by subtracting the final stocks from the initial stocks and multiplying this difference by the
representative area for the activity and by the carbon fraction of the biomass component. A
negative value indicates an increase of DOM.
11
12
13
Sum the changes in carbon stocks in deadwood and litter to determine the net change in C stocks
for each activity category. Sub-totals for each type of conversion should be computed and a grand
total should be computed.
14
15
16
17
18
Step 3 Transit iona l cha nges

Determine the categories and cohorts to be used in this assessment and the representative areas.
The category consists of definitions of the type of conversion and, if applicable, the nature of
19
20
21
Determine the annual change rate for deadwood and litter (separately) by activity type using either
the gain-loss method or the stock change method (see below) for each cohort of lands that are
currently in the transition phase between conversion and a new steady-state grassland system.
22
23
Determine the deadwood and litter in the cohort during the previous year (usually taken from the
24
25
Estimate the change in deadwood and litter for each cohort by adding the net change rate to the
26
Gain-Loss Method (Equation 2.18 in Chapter 2)
27
Determine the average annual inputs of deadwood and litter (separately).
28
Determine the average annual losses of deadwood and litter (separately).
29
Determine the net change rate in deadwood and litter by subtracting the loss from the increment.
30
Stock Difference Method (Equation 2.19 in Chapter 2)
31
32
Determine the inventory time interval, the average stocks of deadwood and litter at the initial
inventory, and the average deadwood and litter at the final inventory.
33
34
35
Use these figures to estimate the net change in deadwood and litter by subtracting the initial stock
from the final stock and dividing this difference by the number of years between inventories. A
negative value indicates a loss in the stock.
36
37
A Tier 2 approach requires country- or ecosystem-specific expansion factors and the best available local data
should be used (and documented).
38
6.3.2.5
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Uncertainty analyses for Land Converted to Grassland are fundamentally the same as Grassland Remaining
Grassland. Three broad sources of uncertainty exists: 1) uncertainties in land-use and management activity and
46
6.3.3
47
48
Grassland management involving drainage will generate emissions from organic soil, regardless of the previous
land use. However the impact on mineral soils is less clear-cut for lands converted to grasslands. Literature on
6.34
Soil Carbon

1
2
3
one of the dominant conversion types globally (from forest land to grassland in the tropics) provides evidence for
net gains as well as net losses in soil C, and it is known that the specific management of the grassland after
conversion is critical (e.g., Veldkamp 2001).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
General information and guidance for estimating changes in soil C stocks are provided in Chapter 2 Section 2.3.3
(including equations), and this section needs to be read before proceeding with a consideration of specific
guidelines dealing with grassland soil C stocks. The total change in soil C stocks for land converted to grassland
is estimated using Equation 2.24 for the change in soil organic C stocks for mineral soils and organic soils; and
stock changes associated with soil inorganic C pools (if estimated at Tier 3). This section provides specific
guidance for estimating soil organic C stock changes. There is a general discussion in Section 2.3.3 in Chapter 2
on soil inorganic C and no additional information is provided here.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
To account for changes in soil C stocks associated with Land Converted to Grassland, countries need to have, at
a minimum, estimates of the areas of land converted to grassland during the inventory time period, stratified by
climate region and soil type. If land-use and management data are limited, aggregate data, such as FAO statistics,
can be used as a starting point, along with country expert knowledge of the approximate distribution of land-use
types being converted and the management of those lands. If the previous land uses and conversions are
unknown, SOC stocks changes can still be estimated using the methods provided in Grasslands Remaining
Grasslands, but the land base area will likely be different for grasslands in the current year relative to the initial
year in the inventory. It is critical, however, that the total land area accounted across all land-use sectors be
equal over the inventory time period (e.g., if 3 Million ha are be converted from forests and croplands to
grasslands during the inventory time period, then grasslands will have an additional 3 Million ha in the last year
of the inventory, while croplands and forests will have a corresponding loss of 3 Million ha in the last year).
Land Converted to Grassland is stratified according to climate regions, management, and major soil types,
which could either be based on default or country-specific classifications. This can be accomplished with
overlays of suitable climate and soil maps, coupled with spatially-explicit data on the location of land
conversions.
26
6.3.3.1
27
28
29
30
31
32
resources than the previous one. It is possible that countries will use different tiers to prepare estimates for the
separate sub-categories of soil C (i.e., soil organic C stocks changes in mineral soils and organic soils; and stock
changes associated with soil inorganic C pools). Decision trees are provided for mineral (Figure 2.4) and
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Mineral Soils
Tier 1: Using Equation 2.25 (Chapter 2), the change in soil organic C stocks can be estimated for mineral soils
accounting for the impact of land-use conversion to grassland. The method is fundamentally the same as the one
used for Grasslands Remaining Grasslands, except pre-conversion C stocks are dependent on stock change
factors for another land use. Specifically, the initial (pre-conversion) soil organic C stock (SOC(0-T)) and stock in
the last year of inventory time period (SOC0) are computed from the default reference soil organic C stocks
(SOCREF) stock change factors (FLU, FMG, FI). Note that area of exposed bedrock in forestlands or the previous
land use are not included in the soil C stock calculation (assume a stock of 0). Annual rates of stock changes are
estimated based on the difference in stocks (over time) for the first and last year in the inventory time period
divided by the time dependence of the stock change factors (D, default is 20 years).
43
44
Tier 2: The Tier 2 method for mineral soils also uses Equation 2.25, but involves country or region-specific
reference C stocks and/or stock change factors and more disaggregated land-use activity and environmental data.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
approaches estimating soil C change from land-use conversions to grassland, employ models, data sets and/or
monitoring networks that are capable of representing transitions over time from other land uses, including
forests, croplands, and possibly settlements or other lands. If possible, it is also recommended for Tier 3 methods
to be integrated with estimates of biomass removal and the post-clearance treatment of plant residues (including
woody debris and litter), as variation in the removal and treatment of residues (e.g. burning, site preparation) will
affect C inputs to soil organic matter formation and C losses through decomposition and combustion. It is
important that models be evaluated with independent observations from country or region-specific field locations
that are representative of the interactions of climate, soil and grassland management on post-conversion change
in soil C stocks.
C HOICE
OF
M ETHOD
56
6.35
Organic Soils
1
2
3
4
5
Tier 1 and Tier 2: Land Converted to Grassland on organic soils within the inventory time period is treated the
same as Grassland Remaining Grassland on organic soils, i.e., they have a constant emission factor applied to
them, based on climate regime, and C losses are computed using Equation 2.26 (Chapter 2). Additional guidance
on the Tier 1 and 2 approaches are given in the Grassland Remaining Grassland section (Section 6.2.3.1).
6
7
8
Tier 3: Similar to mineral soils, a Tier 3 approach will involve more detailed and country-specific models and/or
measurement-based approaches along with highly disaggregated land-use and management data (see Mineral
Soils above for additional discussion).
6.3.3.2
C HOICE
OF
S TOCK C HANGE
AND
E MISSION F ACTORS
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Mineral Soils
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Note that it is good practice to use the management factor (FLU) for set-asides (Table 5.5) if dealing with
cultivated annual cropland converted into grassland (i.e., until the land is re-classified as grassland remaining
grassland) because recently converted annual cropland systems will typically gain C at a rate similar to set-aside
lands. Moreover, the Tier 1 set-aside factors were derived from empirical data to explicitly represent the
expected gain during the first 20 years for lands removed from cultivation. If countries decide to assume a faster
increase in C that raises levels to native conditions within 20 years, a justification should be provided in the
documentation.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Tier 2: Estimation of country-specific stock change factors is probably the most important development for the
Tier 2 approach. Differences in soil organic C stocks among land uses are computed relative to a reference
condition, using land-use factors (FLU). Input (FI) and management (FMG) factors are then used to further refine
the C stocks of the new grassland system. Additional guidance on how to derive these stock change factors is
given in Grasslands Remaining Grasslands, Section 6.2.3.2 as well as other general guidance in Section 2.3.3.1
(Chapter 2). See the appropriate section for specific information regarding the derivation of stock change factors
for other land-use sectors (Cropland in Section 5.2.3.2, Forest Land in 4.2.3.2, Settlements in 8.2.3.2, and Other
Land in 9.3.3.2).
33
34
35
values must be consistent across land-use sectors (i.e., cropland, grassland, forest land, settlements, other lands),
which requires coordination among the various teams conducting soil C inventories for AFOLU.
36
37
38
more accurately capture land-use and management effects. See Section 2.3.3.1 in Chapter 2 for further
discussion.
39
40
41
42
Organic Soils
43
44
accurately capture land-use and management effects. See Section 2.3.3 in Chapter 2 for further discussion.
45
6.3.3.3
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Mineral Soils
Tier 1: For unmanaged land, as well as for managed forest lands, settlements and nominally managed
grasslands with low disturbance regimes, soil C stocks are assumed equal to the reference values (i.e., land use,
disturbance (forests only), management and input factors equal 1), while it will be necessary to apply the
appropriate stock change factors to represent other systems such as improved and degraded grasslands, as well as
all cropland systems. Default reference C stocks are given in Chapter 2, Table 2.3. See the Choice in Stock
Change and Emission Factors in the appropriate land-use chapter for default stock change factors (Cropland in
Section 5.2.3.2, Grasslands in 6.2.3.2, Forests in 4.2.3.2, Settlements in 8.2.3.2, and Other Land in 9.3.3.2).
same as Grassland Remaining Grassland on organic soils. Tier 1 emission factors are given in Table 6.3, while
Tier 2 emission factors are derived from country or region-specific data.
C HOICE
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA
Grasslands should be stratified according to major climate regions and soil types. This can be based on overlays
with suitable climate and soil maps and spatially-explicit data of the location of land conversions. A detailed
description of the default climate and soil classification schemes is provided in Chapter 3. See corresponding
sections dealing with each land-use category for sector-specific information regarding the representation of landuse/management activity data (Cropland in Section 5.2.3.3, Grassland in 6.2.3.3, Forests in 4.2.3.3, and
Settlements in 8.2.3.3, and Other Lands in 9.3.3.3).
6.36

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
An important issue in evaluating the impact of Land Converted to Grassland on soil organic C stocks is the type
of land-use and management activity data. Activity data gathered using Approach 2 or 3 (Chapter 3 for
discussion about Approaches) provide the underlying basis for determining the previous land use for land
categorized as Land Converted to Grassland. In contrast, aggregate data (Approach 1) only provide the total
amount of area in each land use at the beginning and end of the inventory period (e.g. 1985 and 2005). Thus,
unless supplementary information can be gathered to infer the pattern of land-use change (as suggested in
Chapter 3) approach 1 data are insufficient to determine specific transitions between land-use categories.
Therefore the previous land use before conversion to grasslands will be unknown. Fortunately, this is not
problematic using a Tier 1 or 2 method because the calculation is not dynamic and assumes a step change from
one equilibrium state to another. Therefore, with aggregated data (Approach 1), changes in soil organic C stocks
may be computed separately for each land-use category and then combined to obtain the total stock change for
all land uses combined. The soil C stock change estimate will be equivalent to results using Approach 2 (or 3)
activity data (i.e. a full land-use change matrix), but evaluation of C stock trends will only be relevant after
combining the stock estimates for all land uses (i.e., stocks will increase or decrease with the changes in land
area within individual land uses, but this will offset by gains or losses in other land uses, and thus not an actual
stock change in the soil pool for a country. Thus with aggregate (Approach 1 data) it is important to achieve
coordination among all land sector to ensure the total land base is remaining constant over time, given that some
land area will be lost and gained within individual sectors during each inventory year due to land-use change.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Note that it will not be possible to determine the amount of cultivated annual croplands converted to grasslands
with aggregated activity data (Approach 1). Therefore, grassland stock change factors will be applied, without
consideration for the slower rate of C gain in recently converted annual croplands, which may lead to an overestimation of C gain over a 20 year time period, particularly using the Tier 1 method (See Choice of Stock
Change and Emission Factors for additional discussion). This caveat should be acknowledged in the reporting
documentation, and it is good practice for future inventories to gather additional information needed to estimate
the area of grassland recently converted from croplands, particularly if soil C is a key source category.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Organic Soils
33
34
35
36
6.3.3.4
37
38
39
Mineral Soils
The steps for estimating SOC0 and SOC(0-T) and net soil C stock change of land converted to grassland are as
follows:
40
41
1990 and 1995, 1995 and 2000, etc.)
42
43
44
or 20 years ago).
45
46
47
48
sectors.
49
50
51
52
Step 4: Select the land-use factor (FLU), management factor (FMG) and C input levels (FI) representing the landuse and management system present before conversion to grassland. Values for FLU, FMG and FI are given in the
respective section for the land-use sector (Cropland in Chapter 5, Grassland in Chapter 6, Settlements in Chapter
8, and Other land in Chapter 9).
53
54
same as Grassland Remaining Grassland on organic soils, and guidance on activity data is discussed in Section
6.2.3.3.
C ALCULATION S TEPS
FOR
T IER 1
6.37
1
2
3
Step 6: Estimate SOC0 by repeating steps 1 to 4 using the same native reference C stock (SOCREF), but with landuse, management and input factors that represent conditions (after conversion to grassland) in the last (year 0)
inventory year.
4
5
Step 7: Estimate the average annual change in soil organic C stock for the area over the inventory time period
(CCCMineral)
A numerical example is given below for afforestation of cropland soil.
8
9
Using Equation 2.25 (Chapter 2), default stock change factors and reference C stocks, a case example is given
below for estimating changes in soil organic C stocks associated with Land Converted to Grassland.
10
Example: For tropical moist, volcanic soil that has been under long-term annual cropland, with
intensive tillage and where crop residues are removed from the field, carbon stocks at the
beginning of the inventory time period (1990 in this example), SOC(0-T) are 70 tonnes C ha-1 0.48
1 0.92 = 30.9 tonnes C ha-1. Following conversion to improved (e.g. fertilised) pasture, carbon
stocks in the last year of inventory (2010 in this example) (SOC0) are 70 tonnes C ha-1 0.82
1.17 1 = 67.2 tonnes C ha-1. Thus the average annual change in soil C stock for the area over the
inventory time period is calculated as (67.2 tonnes C ha-1 36.9 tonnes C ha-1) / 20 yrs =1.5 tonnes
C ha-1 yr-1. Note that the set-aside factor (0.82) from croplands was used for the FLU because
grasslands do not gain the full complement of the native C stock in 20 years. After the first 20
years, a factor of 1 would be used for FLU in the Tier 1 approach.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Organic Soils
24
6.3.3.5
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Uncertainty analyses for Land Converted to Grassland are fundamentally the same as grassland remaining
grassland. Three broad sources of uncertainty exists: 1) uncertainties in land-use and management activity and
32
6.3.4
33
34
35
36
37
Greenhouse gas emissions from Land converted to Grassland occur from combustion of biomass and DOM in
Land converted to Grassland. Emissions are accounted for in the new land category. The most significant
greenhouse gas emissions in this section arise from conversion of Forest Land to Grassland, but important
emissions may also occur as a result of the conversion of Cropland to Grassland. It is very unlikely that
Grassland originates from conversion of the other land-use categories (Settlements, Wetlands, or Other Land).
38
39
40
41
42
In the tropics, it is common practice to burn repeatedly until most (or all) of the forest residues and DOM is
cleared, and pasture can be established. In some places, up to three or four fires are necessary. Part of the aboveground forest biomass removed during the process of conversion of forest land to grassland may be transferred to
harvested wood products, and an amount may be removed from the site to be used as fuel wood (hence, burned
off-site). Whatever remains is normally burned on-site.
43
44
Greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning in unmanaged forest land, if followed by a land-use
conversion, needs to be reported, since the converted land is considered to be managed land.
45
46
The conversion of cropland to grassland does not normally result in biomass burning. However, whenever it is
practiced, countries should report the corresponding greenhouse gas emissions, on an annual basis.
47
48
The approach to be used to estimate non-CO2emissions from biomass burning in Land converted to Grassland is
essentially the same as that presented for Grassland Remaining Grassland.
Calculation steps are the same as described in Section 6.2.3.4 above.
6.38

6.3.4.1
C HOICE
2
3
The decision tree in Figure 2.6 in Chapter 2 provides guidance on the choice of the Tier level to be applied by
countries when reporting greenhouse gas emissions from Land Converted to Grassland.
4
5
6
7
The choice of method is directly related to the availability of national data on the area of converted land burned,
the mass of fuel available, and combustion and emission factors. When using higher tiers, country specific data
on the mass of available fuel is used to take account of the amount of biomass transferred to harvested wood
product (if applicable), removed for fuel use and burned off-site.
8
9
Countries should report using a Tier 2 or Tier 3 method whenever greenhouse gas emissions from biomass
burning in Land converted to Grassland is a key category.
C HOICE
OF
M ETHOD
10
6. 3.4.2
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Tier 1: The mass of fuel available for combustion (quantity MB in Equation 2.27) is critical for estimating
greenhouse gas emissions. Default data to support estimation of emissions under a Tier 1 approach are provided
in Tables 2.4 to 2.6 in Chapter 2. Countries need to judge how their different vegetation types map onto the
broad vegetation categories described in the default tables. For Tier 1, it should be assumed that all aboveground biomass and DOM in the previous land category is lost immediately after conversion. Default values for
biomass prior to conversion can be found in the chapters relating to the respective land uses (e.g. default factors
for forest land are to be found in the chapter dealing with biomass in forest land).
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Tier 2: in a Tier 2 method, country-specific estimates of fuel combustion should be used. Data should be
disaggregated according to forest types, in the case of forest land converted to grassland. Combustion and
emission factors that better reflect the national conditions (climate zone, biome, burning conditions) should be
developed and uncertainty ranges provided. In addition, unlike Tier 1, where it is assumed that all the carbon in
above-ground biomass and DOM is lost immediately after conversion, in a Tier 2 method the transfers of
biomass to harvested wood products and fuelwood (burned off-site) should be estimated to provide a more
reliable estimate of the mass of fuel available.
25
Tier 3: Under a Tier 3, all the parameters should be country defined.
26
6.3.4.3
27
28
29
The activity data needed to estimate greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning refers to the area affected
by this activity. Countries shall stratify the area converted to grassland by forest land and cropland converted,
since the amount of fuel available for burning may vary markedly from one category of land use to another.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Tier 1: countries applying a Tier 1 approach should estimate the areas converted to grassland from initial land
uses (forest land, cropland etc.). The conversion should be estimated on a yearly basis. The estimates can be
derived from several approaches: (1) applying a rate of conversion to grassland to the total annual area
converted. The rate can be estimated on the basis of historical knowledge, judgement of country experts, and/or
from samples of converted areas and assessment of the final land use; or (2) using data from international
sources, such as FAO, to estimate the area of forest land and cropland annually converted, and using expert
judgement to estimate the portion of this area converted to grassland.
37
38
39
40
41
Tier 2: countries should, wherever possible, use actual area estimates for all possible conversions to grassland.
Multi-temporal remotely sensed data of adequate resolution should provide better estimates of land-use
conversion than the approaches introduced in Tier 1. The analysis may be based on full coverage of the territory
or on representative samples selected, from where estimates of the area converted to grassland in the entire
territory can be derived.
42
43
44
45
Tier 3: the activity data in Tier 3 should be based on the Type 3 method presented in Chapter 3, where the total
annual area converted to grassland (from forest land, cropland, or other land category) is estimated. The data
should be disaggregated according with type of biome, climate, political boundaries, or a combination of these
parameters.
46
6.3.4.4
47
48
49
Tier 1: The sources of uncertainty in this method arises from many sources: (i) use of global or national average
rates of conversion and coarse estimates of land areas converted to grassland; (ii) estimate of the area converted
that is burned as part of a management practice (disposal of the biomass in the initial land use to establish the
C HOICE
OF
OF
E MISSION F ACTORS
A CTIVITY D ATA
6.39
1
2
3
4
5
agriculture land); (iii) mass of available fuel; and (iv) combustion and emission factors. Uncertainties associated
with emission and combustion factors are provided, and those related to items (i) and (ii) can vary significantly
depending on the method used in their estimation. As a result of these uncertainties it is unlikely that the
estimate of area burnt will be known to better than 20% and the emissions per unit area to within a factor of 2
using Tier 1 methods.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Tier 2: The use of area estimates produced from more reliable sources (remotely sensed data, sample approach)
will improve their accuracy relative to Tier 1 and Approach 1 (of Chapter 3). These sources will also provide
better estimates of the areas that are converted and burnt. Disregarding the biomass transferred to harvested
wood product or removed from the site as fuelwood, and the biomass left on site to decay will also eliminate a
bias (overestimation) in the estimates. Estimates of emission or combustion factors at national level, if
accompanied by error ranges (in the form of standard deviation), will allow uncertainty associated with land
converted to cropland to be assessed.
13
14
Tier 3: the uncertainty associated with activity data in Tier 3 is likely to be smaller than that in Tiers 1 or 2, and
is dependent on the remote sensing and field surveys and modelling approach used and the data inputs.
15
17

REPORTING
18
6.4.1
19
20
21
22
23
Tier 1: A complete grassland inventory for Tier 1 has three elements: 1) carbon stock changes and non-CO2
(CH4, N2O, NOx) emissions from biomass burning have been estimated for all Land Converted to Grassland and
Grassland Remaining Grassland during the inventory time period 2) inventory analysis addressed the impact of
all management practices described in the Tier 1 methods; and 3) the analysis accounted for climatic and soil
variation that affects emissions and removals (as described for Tier 1).
24
25
26
27
28
29
The latter two elements require assignment of management systems to grassland areas and stratification by
climate regions and soil types. It is good practice for countries to use the same area classifications for biomass
and soil pools in addition to biomass burning (to the extent that classifications are needed for these source
categories). This will ensure consistency and transparency, allow for efficient use of land surveys and other data
collection tools, and enable the explicit linking between changes in carbon stocks in biomass and soil pools, as
well as non-CO2 emissions from biomass burning.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
For biomass and soil C stock estimations, a grassland inventory should address the impact of land-use change
(Land Converted to Grassland) and management. However, in some cases, activity data or expert knowledge
may not be sufficient to estimate the effects of management practices, such as extent and type of silvopastoral
management, fertilizer management, irrigation, grazing intensity, etc. In those cases, countries may proceed
with an inventory addressing land use alone, but the results will be incomplete and omission of management
practices must be clearly identified in the reporting documentation for purposes of transparency. If there are
omissions, it is good practice to collect the additional activity data on management for future inventories,
particularly if biomass or soil C is a key source category.
38
39
40
41
C stock changes may not be computed for some grassland areas if greenhouse gas emissions and removals are
believed to be insignificant or constant through time, such as non-woody grasslands where there are no
management or land-use changes. In this case, it is good practice for countries to document and explain the
reason for omissions.
42
43
44
45
46
47
For biomass burning, non-CO2 greenhouse gases should be reported for all controlled burns and wildfires on
managed grasslands. This includes conversion of forest land to grassland, where the amount of fuel available for
burning is usually more significant than in the other land-use categories; emissions from burning of DOM and
cleared tree biomass should be included in these estimates. Savannah burning also constitutes a large source of
non-CO2 emissions from biomass burning. Biomass burning should be reported where wildfire on unmanaged
land is followed by transition to managed land during the inventory reporting period.
48
49
50
51
Estimation of the area actually burned is critical to the reliable calculation of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions.
Remotely- sensed estimates of the area burned need to be rigorously tested against ground data to ensure that
areas burned are accurately estimated. The use of regionally average statistics is likely to be highly unreliable for
estimating the area burnt in a specific country.
16
6.40
Completeness

1
2
3
In grasslands where fire management is changing the balance between grass and woody vegetation, the
emissions of CO2 in fire may not be balanced by the re-fixation of an equivalent amount of C into biomass in the
short-term. In such situations, net release of CO2 caused by burning should also be reported.
4
5
6
7
8
9
Tier 2: A complete Tier 2 inventory has similar elements as Tier 1, but incorporates country-specific data to
estimate C stock change factors, reference soil C stocks, biomass density estimates (fuel load), and combustion
and emission factors for biomass burning; to develop climate descriptions and soil categories; and to improve
management system classifications. Moreover, it is good practice for a Tier 2 inventory to incorporate countryspecific data for each component. Inventories are still considered complete, however, if they combine country
specific data with Tier 1 defaults.
10
11
12
13
14
15
Tier 3: In addition to the Tier 1 and 2 considerations, completeness of Tier 3 inventories will depend on the
components of the country-specific evaluation system. In practice, Tier 3 inventories are likely to more fully
account for emissions and removals for grasslands using more finely resolved data on climate, soils, biomass
burning and management systems. It is good practice for inventory compilers to describe and document the
elements of the country-specific system, demonstrating the completeness of the approach and data sources. If
gaps are identified, it is good practice to gather additional data and further develop the country-specific system.
16
6.4.2
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Tier 1: Consistent time series are essential for evaluating trends in emissions and removals. In order to maintain
consistency, compilers should apply the same classifications and factors over the entire inventory time period,
including climate, soil types, management system classifications, C stock change factors, reference soil C stocks,
biomass density estimates (fuel load), combustion factors, and non-CO2 emission factors. Defaults are provided
for all of these components, so consistency should not be an issue. In addition, the land base should remain
consistent through time, with the exception of Land Converted to Grassland or grassland converted to other land
uses.
24
25
26
27
Countries should use consistent sources of activity data on land use, management and biomass burning, over the
entire reporting time period where possible. Sampling approaches, if used, should be maintained for the duration
of the inventory time period to ensure a consistent approach. If sub-categories are created, countries should keep
transparent records of how they are defined and apply them consistently throughout the inventory.
28
29
30
31
In some cases, sources of activity data, definitions or methods may change over time with availability of new
information. Inventory compilers should determine the influence of changing data or methods on the trends; and
if deemed significant, emissions and removals should be re-calculated for the time series using methods provided
in Chapter 5 of Volume 1.
32
33
34
35
36
37
For C stock changes, one key element in producing a consistent time series is to ensure consistency between
carbon stocks for Land Converted to Grassland that were estimated in previous reporting periods and the state of
those stocks reported for those lands that are remaining grasslands in the current reporting period. For example,
if 10 tonnes of the above-ground live biomass was transferred to the dead organic matter pool from Forest Land
converted to Grasslands in the previous reporting period, reporting in the current period must assume that the
starting C stocks in the dead organic matter pool was 10 tonnes for those lands.
38
39
40
41
42
43
Tier 2: In addition to the issues discussed under Tier 1, there are additional considerations associated with
introduction of country-specific information. Specifically, it is good practice to apply new factor values or
classifications derived from country-specific information across the entire inventory and re-calculate the time
series. Otherwise, positive or negative trends in C stocks or biomass burning emissions may be partly due to
changes associated with inventory methods at some point in the time series, and not representative of actual
trends.
44
45
46
It is possible that new country-specific information may not be available for the entire time series. In those
cases, it is good practice to demonstrate the effect of changes in activity levels versus updated country-specific
data or methods; guidance on recalculation for these circumstances is presented in Chapter 5 of Volume 1.
47
48
49
Tier 3: Similar to Tiers 1 and 2, it is good practice to apply the country-specific estimation system throughout
the entire time series; inventory agencies should use the same measurement protocols (sampling strategy,
method, etc.) and/or model throughout the inventory time period.
50
6.4.3
51
52
Tier 1: It is good practice to implement Quality Assurance/Quality Controls with internal and external review of
grassland inventory data. Internal review should be conducted by the agency in charge of the inventory, while
6.41
1
2
external review is conducted by other agencies, experts or groups who are not directly involved with the
compilation.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Internal review should focus on the inventory implementation process to ensure that 1) activity data have been
stratified appropriately by climate regions and soil types, 2) management classifications/descriptions have been
applied appropriately, 3) activity data have been properly transcribed into the worksheets or inventory
computation software, and 4) C stock change factors, soil reference C stocks, biomass densities (fuel load), and
biomass burning combustion and emission factors have been assigned appropriately. Quality Assurance/Quality
Control measures may involve visual inspection as well as built-in program functions to check data entry and
results. Summary statistics can also be helpful, such as summing areas by strata within worksheets to determine
if they are consistent with land-use statistics. Total areas should remain constant over the inventory period, and
areas by strata should only vary by land-use or management classification (climate and soil areas should remain
constant).
13
14
15
16
17
18
External reviews need to consider the validity of the inventory approach, thoroughness of inventory
documentation, methods explanation and overall transparency. It is important to evaluate if the total area of
managed grassland is realistic, taking into account the total grassland area of the territory. Cross-checking area
estimates across land-use categories (i.e., cropland, grassland, forest land etc.) will also be necessary.
Ultimately, the sum of the entire land base for a country, which includes each sector, must be equal across every
year in the inventory time period.
19
20
21
For biomass burning, specific attention should be given to country-specific estimates of annual area burned.
When estimating area burned from global datasets, it is important to validate the information using field data or
high resolution remotely sensed data.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Tier 2: In addition to the Quality Assurance/Quality Controls measures under Tier 1, the inventory agency
should review the country-specific climate regions, soil types, management system classifications, C stock
change factors, reference soil C stocks, biomass densities (fuel load), combustion factors and/or non-CO2
emission factors for biomass burning. If using factors based on direct measurements, the inventory agency and
external reviewers should review the measurements to ensure that they are representative of the actual range of
environmental and management conditions, and were developed according to recognized standards (IAEA,
1992). If accessible, it is good practice to compare the country-specific factors with Tier 2 stock change,
combustion and emission factors used by other countries with comparable circumstances, in addition to the IPCC
defaults.
31
32
Given the complexity of emission and removal trends, specialists in the field should be involved in the external
review to critique country-specific factors and/or classifications.
33
34
35
36
measures beyond those listed for Tiers 1 and 2, but this will depend on the systems that are developed. It is good
practice to develop a Quality Assurance/Quality Control protocol that is specific to the countrys advanced
inventory system, archive the reports, and include summary results in reporting documentation.
37
6.4.4
38
39
40
41
42
Tier 1: In general, it is good practice to document and archive all information required to produce national
inventory estimates. For Tier 1, inventory compilers should document activity data trends and uncertainties in
grasslands. Key activities include land-use change, biomass burning, use of silvopastoral practices, grazing
intensity, use of mineral fertilizers or organic amendments, irrigation practices, liming, inter-seeding with
legumes or planting more productive species, and biomass burning (wildfires and controlled burns).
43
44
45
46
It is good practice to archive actual databases, such as census data, burning records and pastoral statistics, and
procedures used to process the data (e.g., statistical programs); definitions used to categorize or aggregate
activity data; and procedures used to stratify activity data by climate and soil types. The worksheets or inventory
software should be archived with input/output files that were generated to produce the results.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
It is good practice to document and explain trends in biomass and soil C stocks, as well as biomass burning
emissions in terms of the land-use and management activity. Changes in biomass stocks should be linked
directly to land use, changes in silvipastoral practices or woody plant encroachment, while trends in soil C stocks
may be due to land use or shifts in key management activities as described above. Biomass burning emissions
6.42

1
2
will depend on the extent and frequency of controlled burns and wildfires. Significant fluctuations in emissions
between years should be explained.
3
4
Countries need to include documentation on completeness of their inventory, issues related to time series
consistency or lack thereof, and a summary of Quality Assurance/Quality Control measures and results.
5
6
7
8
9
Tier 2: In addition to the Tier 1 considerations, inventory compilers should document the underlying basis for
country-specific C stock change factors, reference soil C stocks, biomass density estimates (fuel load),
combustion and emission factors for biomass burning, management system classifications, climate regions
and/or soil types. Furthermore, it is good practice to archive metadata and data sources for information used to
estimate country-specific values.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Reporting documentation should include the new factors (i.e., means and uncertainties), and it is good practice
to include a discussion in the inventory report about differences between country-specific factors and Tier 1
defaults as well as Tier 2 factors from regions with similar circumstances as the reporting country. If different
emission factors, parameters and methods are used for different years, the reasons for these changes should be
explained and documented. In addition, inventory agencies should describe country-specific classifications for
management, climate and/or soil types, and it is recommended that improvements to the inventory estimates
based on the new classifications be documented. For example, grassland condition may be subdivided into
additional categories beyond the Tier 1 classes (i.e., nominal, improved, degraded and severely degraded), but
further subdivisions will only improve inventory estimates if the stock change or emission factors differ
significantly among the new categories.
20
21
When discussing trends in emissions and removals, a distinction should be made between changes in activity
levels and changes in methods from year to year, and the reasons for these changes need to be documented.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Tier 3: Tier 3 inventory needs similar documentation about activity data and emission/removal trends as lower
tier approaches, but additional documentation should be included to explain the underlying basis and framework
of the country-specific estimation system. With measurement-based inventories, it is good practice to document
the sampling design, laboratory procedures and data analysis techniques. Measurement data should be archived,
along with results from data analyses. For Tier 3 approaches using models, it is good practice to document the
model versions and provide model descriptions, as well as permanently archive copies of all model input files,
source code and executable programs.
29
30
6.43
1
2
Annex 6A.1 Estimation of Default Stock Change Factors for

Mineral Soil C Emissions/Removals for Grassland
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Default soil C stock change factors are provided in Table 6.2 that were computed from a global dataset of
experimental studies for three general types of grassland condition: degraded, nominally managed, and improved
grassland. An additional input factor was included for application to improved grassland. The management
improvements considered here were limited to fertilization (organic or inorganic), sowing legumes or more grass
species, and irrigation. Overgrazed grassland and poorly managed (i.e., none of the management improvements
were applied) tropical pastures were classified as degraded grassland. Native or introduced grasslands that were
unimproved were grouped into the nominal grassland classification. Grasslands with any single type of
management improvement were classified as improved grassland with medium C input rates. For improved
grassland in which multiple management improvements were implemented, C input rates were considered high.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Experimental data (citations provided in reference list) were analyzed in linear mixed-effects models, accounting
for both fixed and random effects. Fixed effects included depth, number of years since the management change,
and the type of management change (e.g., reduced tillage vs. no-till). For depth, we did not aggregate data but
included C stocks measured for each depth increment (e.g., 0-5 cm, 5-10 cm, and 10-30 cm) as a separate point
in the dataset. Similarly, we did not aggregate data collected at different points in time from the same study.
Consequently, random effects were used to account for the dependence in times series data and among data
points representing different depths from the same study. If significant, a country level random effect was used
to assess an additional uncertainty associated with applying a global default value to a specific country (included
in default uncertainty). We estimated factors for the effect of the management practice at 20 years for the top 30
cm of the soil. Variance was calculated for each of the factor values, and used with simple error propagation
methods or to construct probability distribution functions with a normal density.
23
24
25
6.44

References
2
3
4
Anderson D.J., Perry R.A., and Leigh J.H. (1972). Some perspectives on shrub/environment interactions. In:
McKell C.M., Blaisdell J.P., Goodon J.R. (eds), Wildland Shrubs Their Biology and Utilization. ). USDA
Forest Service, General Tech. Report INT-1.
5
6
7
8
Conant R.T. and Paustian K. (2002). Potential soil carbon sequestration in overgrazed grassland ecosystems.
Global Biogeochemical Cycles 16: pp. 90_1-90_9.
9
10
Conant R.T., Paustian K., and Elliott E.T. (2001). Grassland management and conversion into grassland: Effects
on soil carbon. Ecological Application 11: 343-355.
11
12
13
improved long-term data sets to reduce uncertainty in model projections. Soil Use and Management 19:265269.
14
15
16
Follett, R. F., J.M. Kimble, and R. Lal. (2001) The potential of U.S. grazing lands to sequester soil carbon. Pages
401-430 in R. F. Follett, J.M. Kimble, and R. Lal, editor. The Potential of U.S. Grazing Lands to Sequester
Carbon and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
17
18
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2003. Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use
Change and Forestry. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Japan.
19
20
Kauffman B., Cummings D.L., and Ward D.E. (1998). Fire in the Brazilian Amazon. 2. Biomass, nutrient pools
and losses in cattle pastures. Oecologia 113 pp 415-427.
21
22
23
24
25
26
McKeon, G.M., Hall, W.B., Henry, B.K., Stone, G.S. and Watson, I.W. (2004). Pasture Degradation and
Recovery in Australias Rangelands: Learning from History. Queensland Department of Natural Resources,
Mines and Energy. pp. 256.
27
28
29
30
31
Naeth, M.A., Bailey, A.W. Pluth, D.J., Chanasyk, D.S., and Hardin, R.T. (1991)Grazing impacts on litter and
soil organic matter in mixed prairie and fescue grassland ecosystems of Alberta. Journal or Range
Management 44 pp 7-12.
32
33
Nusser S.M. and Goebel J.J. (1997). The National Resources Inventory: a long-term multi-resource monitoring
programme. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 4:181-204.
34
35
36
Biology 9:1521-1542.
37
38
Ogle, S.M., F.J. Breidt and Paustian K. (2006) Bias and variance in model results due to spatial scaling of
measurements for parameterization in regional assessments. Global Change Biology, in review.
39
40
41
Ogle, S.M., R.T. Conant, and K. Paustian. (2004) Deriving grassland management factors for a carbon
accounting approach developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Environmental
Management 33:474-484.
42
43
Ojima D.S., Parton W.J., Schimel D.S., Scurlock J.M.O., and Kittel T.G.F. (1993). Modeling the effects of
climatic and CO2 changes on grassland storage of soil C. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 70: pp. 643-657.
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Smith P., Powlson D.S., Smith J.U., and Elliott E.T. (eds) (1997). Evaluation and comparison of soil organic
6.45
1
2
3
4
5
Veldkamp E. (2001). Changes in soil carbon stocks following conversion of forest to pasture in the tropics. In:
Holland E.A. (ed.): Notes from Underground: Soil Processes and Global Change. NATO ASI Series Berlin:
Springer.
6
7
8
CHANGE IN CARBON STOCKS IN SOILS (REFERENCES USED FOR ANALYSIS OF

MINERAL SOIL DEFAULT FACTORS IN ANNEX 6A)
9
10
Abril, A., and E. H. Bucher. (1999). The effects of overgrazing on soil microbial community and fertility in the
Chaco dry savannas of Argentina. Applied Soil Ecology 12:159-167.
11
12
Aina, P. O. (1979). Soil changes resulting from long-term management practices in Western Nigeria. Soil Science
13
14
Arnold, P. W., F. Hunter, and P. Gonzalez Fernandez. (1976). Long-term grassland experiments at Cockle Park.
Annales Agronomiques 27:1027-1042.
15
16
Banerjee, M. R., D. L. Burton, W. P. McCaughey, and C. A. Grant. (2000). Influence of pasture management on
soil biological quality. Journal of Range Management 53:127-133.
17
18
Bardgett, R. D., C. Frankland Juliet, and J. B. Whittaker. (1993). The effects of agricultural practices on the soil
biota of some upland grasslands. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 45:25-45.
19
20
Barrow, N. J. (1969). The accumulation of soil organic matter under pasture and its effect on soil properties.
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 9:437-445.
21
22
Biondini, M. E., B. D. Patton, and P. E. Nyren. (1998). Grazing intensity and ecosystem processes in a northern
mixed-grass prairie, USA. Ecological Applications 8:469-479.
23
24
25
26
Cantarutti, R. B., J. M. Brage, R. M. Boddey, and S. d. P. Resende. (1995). Caracterizacao do status de

nitrogenio em solosob pastagm de Brachiaria humidicola pura e consorciada com Desmodium ovalifolium
cv. Itabela. Pages 733-735 in Proceedings of the XXV Congresso Brasileiro do Ciencia do Solo, Micosa,
MG, Brazil.
27
28
Carr, S. C. M., and J. S. Turner. (1959). The ecology of the Bogong high plains II. Fencing experiments in
grassland C. Australian Journal of Botany 7:34-83.
29
30
Carter, M. R., D. A. Angers, and H. T. Kunelius. (1994). Soil structural for and stability, and organic matter
under cool-season perennial grasses. Soil Science Society of America Journal 58:1194-1199.
31
32
33
Cerri, C. C., B. Volkoff, and F. Andreaux. (1991). Nature and behavior of organic matter in soils under natural
forest, and after deforestation, burning and cultivation, near Manaus. Forest Ecology and Management
38:247-257.
34
35
36
37
Chone, T., F. Andreuz, J. C. Correa, B. Volkhoff, and C. C. Cerri. (1991). Changes in organic matter in an
Oxisol from the central Amazonian forest during eight years as pasture determined by 13C isotopic
composition. Pages 397-405 in J. Berthelin, editor. Diversity of Environmental Biogeochemistry. Elsiver,
Amsterdam.
38
39
40
Chuluun, T., L. L. Tieszen, and D. Ojima. (1999). Land use impact on C4 plant cover of temperate east Asian
grasslands. Pages 103-109 in K. Otsubo, editor. NIES Workshop on Information Bases and Modeling for
Land-use and Land-cover Changes Studies in East Asia. Center for Global Environmental Research.
41
42
43
Desjardins, T., F. Andreauz, B. Volkoff, and C. C. Cerri. (1994). Organic carbon and 13C content in soils and
soil size-fractions, and their changes due to deforestation and pasture installation in eastern Amazonia.
Geoderma 61:103-118.
44
45
Eden, M. J., D. F. M. McGregor, and N. A. Q. Viera. (1990). Pasture development on cleared forest land in
northern Amazonia. The Geographical Journal 156:283-296.
46
47
Escobar, C. J., and J. L. Toriatti Dematte. (1991). Distribution of organic matter and natural carbon-13 in an
Ultisol in the Amazon piedmont. Pasturas Tropicales 13:27-30.
48
49
Feigl, B. J., J. Melillo, and C. C. Cerri. (1995). Changes in the origin and quality of soil organic matter after
pasture introduction in Rondonia (Brazil). Plant and Soil 175:21-29.
50
51
Fisher, M. J., I. M. Tao, M. A. Ayarza, C. E. Lascano, J. I. Sanz, R. J. Thomas, and R. R. Vera. (1994). Carbon
storage by introduced deep-rooted grasses in the South American savannas. Nature 371:236-238.
6.46

1
2
Frank, A. B., D. L. Tanaka, L. Hofmann, and R. F. Follett. (1995). Soil carbon and nitrogen of Northern Great
Plains grasslands as influenced by long-term grazing. Journal of Range Management 48:470-474.
3
4
5
Franzluebbers, A. J., J. A. Stuedmann, H. H. Schomberg, and S. R. Wilkinson. (2000). Soil organic C and N pools
under long-term pasture management in the Southern Piedmont USA. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 32:469478.
6
7
8
Franzluebbers, A. J., N. Nazih, J. A. Stuedmann, J. J. Fuhrmann, H. H. Schomberg, and P. G. Hartel. (1999).

Soil carbon and nitrogen pools under low- and high-endophyte-infected tall fescue. Soil Science Society of
America Journal 63:1687-1694.
9
10
Garcia-Oliva, F., I. Casar, P. Morales, and J. M. Maass. (1994). Forest-to-pasture conversion influences on soil
organic carbon dynamics in a tropical deciduous forest. Oecologia 99:392-396.
11
12
Goh, K. M., J. D. Stout, and T. A. Rafter. (1977). Radiocarbon enrichment of soil organic matter fractions in
New Zealand soils. Soil Science 123:385-391.
13
14
15
Jackman, R. H. (1964). Accumulation of organic matter in some New Zealand soils under permanent pasture I.
Patterns of change of organic carbon, nitrogen, sulphur, and phosphorous. New Zealand Journal of
Agricultural Research 7:445-471.
16
17
18
Kohn, G. D., G. J. Osborne, G. D. Batten, A. N. Smith, and W. J. Lill. (1977). The effect of topdresed
superphosphate on changes in Nitrogen : Carbon : Sulphur : Phosphorous and pH on a red earth soil during a
long term grazing experiment. Australian Journal of Soil Research 15:147-158.
19
20
21
Koutika, L. S., F. Bartoli, F. Andreux, C. C. Cerri, G. Burtin, T. Chone, and R. Philippy. (1997). Organic matter
dynamics and aggregation in soils under rain forest and pastures of increasing age in the eastern Amazon
Basin. Geoderma 76.
22
23
Loiseau, P., and C. Grignani. (1991). Status of organic nitrogen and fate of mineral nitrogen in mid-mountain
pastures. Agronomie 11:143-150.
24
25
Lovell, R. D., S. C. Jarvis, and R. D. Bardgett. (1995). Soil microbial biomass and activity in long-term
grassland: effects of management changes. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 27:969-975.
26
27
Lytton Hitchins, J. A., A. J. Koppi, and A. B. McBratney. (1994). The soil condition of adjacent bio-dynamic
and conventionally managed dairy pasture in Victoria, Australia. Soil Use and Management 10:79-87.
28
29
30
Malhi, S. S., J. T. Harapiak, M. Nyborg, K. S. Gill, and N. A. Flore. (2002). Autumn and spring applications of
ammonium nitrate and urea to bromegrass influence total and light fraction organic C and N in a thin Black
Chernozem. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 82:211-217.
31
32
Malhi, S. S., M. Nyborg, J. T. Harapiak, K. Heier, and N. A. Flore. (1997). Increasing organic C and N in soil
under bromegrass with long-term N fertilization. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 49:255-260.
33
34
Manley, J. T., G. E. Schuman, J. D. Reeder, and R. H. Hart. (1995). Rangeland soil carbon and nitrogen
responses to grazing. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 50:294-298.
35
36
Moulin, A. P., D. H. McCartney, S. Bittman, and W. F. Nuttall. Long-term effects of fertilizer on soil carbon in a
pasture soil.
37
38
Naeth, M. A., A. W. Bailey, D. J. Pluth, D. S. Chanasyk, and R. T. Hardin. (1991). Grazing impacts on litter and soil organic matter
in mixed prairie and fescue grassland ecosystems of Alberta. Journal of Range Management 44:7-12.
39
40
41
Neill, C., J. M. Melillo, P. A. Steudler, C. C. Cerri, J. F. L. d. Moraes, M. C. Piccolo, and M. Brito. (1997). Soil
carbon and nitrogen stocks following forest clearing for pasture in the Southwestern Brazilian Amazon.
Ecological Applications 7:1216-1225.
42
43
44
Nyborg, M., S. S. Malhi, E. D. Solberg, and R. C. Izaurralde. (1999). Carbon storage and light fraction C in a
grassland dark gray chernozem soil as influenced by N and S fertilization. Canadian Journal of Soil Science
79:317-320.
45
46
47
Oberson, A., D. K. Friesen, H. Tiessen, C. Morel, and W. Stahel. (1999). Phosphorus status and cycling in native
savanna and improved pastures on an acid low-P Colombian oxisol. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems
55:77-88.
48
49
Reiners, W. A., A. F. Bouwman, W. F. J. Parsons, and M. Keller. (1994). Tropical rain forest conversion to
pasture: Changes in vegetation and soil properties. Ecological Applications 4:363-377.
50
51
Ridley, A. M., W. J. Slattery, K. R. Halyar, and A. Cowling. (1990). The importance of the carbon cycle to
acidification of grazed animal pasture. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 30:529-537.
6.47
1
2
Rixon, A. J. (1966). Soil fertility changes in a redbrown earth under irrigated pastures. Australian Journal of
Agricultural Research 17:303-316.
3
4
5
Russell, J. S. (1960). Soil fertility changes in the long term experimental plots at Kybybolite, South Australia. I.
Changes in pH, total nitrogen, organic carbon and bulk density. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research
11:902-926.
6
7
8
Schuman, G. E., J. D. Reeder, J. T. Manley, R. H. Hart, and W. A. Manley. (1999). Impact of grazing
management on the carbon and nitrogen balance of a mixed-grass rangeland. Ecological Applications 9:6571.
9
10
Shiel, R. S. (1986). Variation in amounts of carbon and nitrogen associated with particle size fractions of soils
from the Palace Leas meadow hay plots. Journal of Soil Science 37:249-257.
11
12
Skjemstad, J. O., V. R. Catchpoole, R. P. l. Feuvre, and R. P. Le Feuvre. (1994). Carbon dynamics in Vertisols
under several crops as assessed by natural abundance 13C. Australian Journal of Soil Research 32:311-321.
13
14
Smoliak, S., J. F. Dormaar, and A. Johnston. (1972). Long-term grazing effects on Stipa-Bouteloua prairie soils.
Journal of Range Management 25:246-250.
15
16
17
Trumbore, S. E., E. A. Davidson, P. Barbosa De Camargo, D. C. Nepstad, and L. A. Martinelli. (1995). Belowground cycling of carbon in forests and pastures of Eastern Amazonia. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 9:515528.
18
19
Veldkamp, E. (1994). Organic carbon turnover in three tropical soils under pasture after deforestation. Soil
Science Society of America Journal 58:175-180.
20
21
22
Walker, T. W., B. K. Thapa, and A. F. R. Adams. (1959). Studies on soil organic matter. 3. Accumulation of
carbon, nitrogen, sulphur, organic and total phosphorous in improved grassland soils. Soil Science 87:135140.
23
24
Wang, Y., and Z. Chen. (1998). Distribution of soil organic carbon in the major grasslands of Xilinguole, Inner
Mongolia, China. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica 22:545-551.
25
26
Wood, K. M., and W. H. Blackburn. (1984). Vegetation and soil responses to cattle grazing systems in the Texas
rolling plains. Journal of Range Management
27
28
6.48
Chapter 7: Wetlands

CHAPTER 7
WETLANDS
7.1
1
Authors
2
3
Dominique Blain (Canada), Eric Duchemin (Canada), Jari T. Huttunen (Finland), Clark Row (USA), and Alain
Tremblay (Canada)
Jukka P. Alm (Finland), Kenneth Byrne (Ireland), Robert Delmas (France), Faizal Parish (Global Environment
5
6
Centre, Malaysia), and Carlos Frederico Silveira Menezes (Brazil)
8
9
Tatiana Minayeva (Russia), Luis Pinguelli Rosa (Brazil), and Andrey Sirin (Russia)
7.2
Chapter 7: Wetlands

Content
7.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 5
7.2
Managed Peatlands...................................................................................................................................... 8
7.2.1
Peatlands Remaining Peatlands.......................................................................................................... 8
7.2.1.1
CO2 emissions from peatlands remaining peatlands ....................................................................... 9
7.2.1.2
Non-CO2 Emissions from Peatlands Remaining Peatlands........................................................... 15
7.2.1.3
Uncertainty assessment ................................................................................................................. 17
7.2.2
Land Being Converted for Peat Extraction ....................................................................................... 17
7.2.2.1
CO2 Emissions on Lands Being Converted for Peat Extraction.................................................... 17
10
7.2.2.2
Non-CO2 Emissions from Lands Being Converted to managed peatlands.................................... 19
11
7.2.2.3
12
7.3
13
7.3.1
Flooded land Remaining Flooded land ............................................................................................ 20
14
7.3.2
Lands Converted to Flooded land .................................................................................................... 20
Flooded Land ........................................................................................................................................ 19
15
7.3.2.1
CO2 Emissions from land converted to Flooded land ................................................................... 20
16
7.3.2.2
Non-CO2 Emissions from land converted to Flooded lands.......................................................... 26
17
7.3.2.3
Uncertainty assessment ................................................................................................................. 26
18
7.4
Completeness, Time-series consistency, and QA/QC............................................................................... 26
19
7.4.1
Completeness ................................................................................................................................... 26
20
7.4.2
Developing a Consistent Time Series .............................................................................................. 27
21
7.4.3
Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) ........................................................................... 27
22
7.4.4
Reporting and Documentation ......................................................................................................... 27
23
7. 5 Future Methodological Development............................................................................................................. 27
24
25
Equations
26
Equation 7.1 CO2 emissions from wetlands..................................................................................................7
27
Equation 7.2 CO2 emissions in peatlands during peat extraction..................................................................9
28
Equation 7.3 CO2 C emissions from managed peatlands (Tier 1)...............................................................9
29
Equation 7.4 On-site Soil CO2-C emissions from managed peatlands (Tier 1) .........................................10
30
Equation 7.5 Off-site CO2-C emissions from managed peatlands (Tier 1)................................................10
31
Equation 7.6 On-site CO2-C Emissions from managed Peatlands (Tiers 2 and 3) ....................................11
32
Equation 7.7 N2O emissions from peatlands during peat extraction.........................................................15
33
Equation 7.8 CO2 C emissions in peatland being drained for peat extraction .........................................18
34
Equation 7.9 CO2 C emissions from soils in peatland being drained for peat extraction ........................18
7.3
1
Equation 7.10 CO2 emissions from land converted to flooded land (Tier 1) ..............................................22
Equation 7.11 CO2 emissions from land converted to flooded land (Tier 2) ..............................................24
Figures
Figure 7.1 Decision tree to estimate CO2-C and N2O emissions from peatlands remaining peatlands.......12
Figure 7.2 Decision Tree for CO2 Emissions from land converted to flooded land..................................23
Tables
Table 7.1 Sections Addressing major greenhouse gas emissions from managed wetlands ........................5
10
Table 7.2 Guidance on Emissions from Wetlands Managed for other uses.................................................6
11
Table 7.3 RAMSAR Classes of Human-Made Wetlands .............................................................................6
12
13
Table 7.4 Emission factors for CO2-C and associated uncertainty for Lands managed for
peat extraction, by Climate Zone .......................................................................................13
14
Table 7.5 Conversion factors for CO2-C for volume and weight production data.....................................13
15
Table 7.6 Default emission factors for N2O emissions from managed peatlands .......................................16
16
Table 7.7 Tiers and CO2 Emission Pathways for land converted to flooded Land .....................................22
17
Table 7.8 Default CO2 emission factors for flooded land ........................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
18
Boxes
19
20
Box 7.1 Derivation of country-specific emission factors............................................................................21
21
7.4
Chapter 7: Wetlands

7.1 INTRODUCTION
2
3
4
5
6
This chapter provides guidance on estimating and reporting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from managed
wetlands. Wetlands include any land that is covered or saturated by water for all or part of the year, and that does
not fall into the forest land, cropland, or grassland categories. Managed wetlands will be restricted to wetlands
where the water table is artificially changed (e.g. drained or raised) or those created through human activity (e.g.
damming a river). Emissions from unmanaged wetlands are not estimated.
Methodologies are provided for:
8
9
10
11
Peatlands cleared and drained for production of peat for energy, horticultural and other uses (Section 7.2).
The estimation methodology, although essentially the same as in the IPCC report on Good Practice
Guidance for Land use, Land-used Change and Forestry (GPG-LULUCF), now includes emissions from the
use of horticultural peat.
12
13
14
15
Reservoirs or impoundments, for energy production, irrigation, navigation, or recreation (Section 7.3). The
scope of the assessment now includes CO2 emissions from all lands converted to flooded lands, and the
recommended approach relies on emission factors derived from actual flux measurements. Flooded lands
exclude regulated lakes and rivers unless a substantial increase in water area has occurred.
16
17
18
For simplicity, the remainder of this section will refer to peatlands managed for peat extraction as peatlands, and
lands flooded in reservoirs as flooded lands. Table 7.1 clarifies the scope of the assessment, and the
corresponding sections of this chapter.
19
SECTIONS ADDRESSING
TABLE 7.1
MAJOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED WETLANDS
Peatlands
Flooded Lands
CO2
Section 7.2.1.1
No Guidance1
CH4
No Guidance2
Appendix 2
N2O
Section 7.2.1.2
No Guidance3
CO2
Section 7.2.2.1
Section 7.3.2
CH4
No Guidance
N2O
Section 7.2.2.2
Wetlands remaining wetlands
Lands converted to wetlands
Appendix 2
No Guidance3
NOTES:
1. CO2 emissions from flooded lands remaining flooded lands are covered by carbon stock change estimates
of land uses and land-use change (e.g., soils) upstream of the flooded land.
2. Methane from peatlands is negligible after drainage during conversion and peat extraction.
3. N2O emissions from flooded lands are included in the estimates of indirect N2O from agricultural or other
run-off, and waste water.
20
21
22
23
Wetlands are frequently managed for other uses, such as forest and grassland management, or croplands. Table
7.2 indicates where to find the guidance relative to these managed wetlands.
24
7.5
1
TABLE 7.2
GUIDANCE ON EMISSIONS FROM WETLANDS MANAGED FOR
Land-use Categories
OTHER USES
Volume/Section in these Guidelines
Wetlands already converted or being converted to:

Cropland, including bogs for cranberry and other
ericaceous fruits
Volume 4, Chapter 5 (Section 5.3)
Managed grassland
Managed forest land, including drained or undrained

forested wetlands according to national definitions
Rice cultivation
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Some uses of wetlands are not covered, because adequate methodologies are not available. These include manure
management ponds, industrial effluent ponds; aquaculture ponds; rewetting of previously drained wetlands or
wetland restoration (see Section 7.5, Future Methodological Development). Countries where these activities are
significant should consider research to assess their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions or removals. N2O
emissions from wetlands managed for the filtration of non-point source agricultural effluents, such as fertilizers
and pesticides, are included in indirect emissions from soil amendments (Volume 4, Chapter 11).
9
10
11
12
Most ecological classifications of wetlands, including those of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands consider
many of these lands, even those disturbed by human activities or artificially built, as wetlands. The Wetlands
classification adopted by the Ramsar Convention (Ramsar, 1996) is widely used to address management issues.
Table 7.3 relates wetland classes in this report to selected definitions in the Ramsar Convention.
13
TABLE 7.3
RAMSAR CLASSES OF HUMAN-MADE WETLANDS
RAMSAR Class
Corresponding wetlands sub-categories

in the IPCC terminology
Methodological
guidance
Aquaculture
Flooded lands
No1
Ponds
Flooded lands
No1
Irrigated land (if cultivated)
Cropland
No2
Seasonally flooded agricultural land
Rice Cultivation
Yes (Vol. 4, Chapter

5)
Salt exploitation sites
---
No1
Water storage areas
Flooded lands
Yes (this chapter)
Excavations (partly)
Peatlands managed for peat extraction
Yes (this chapter)
Wastewater treatment areas
Constructed wetlands or waste sector
No3
Canals and drainage channels, ditches.
--
No3
Source: Ramsar, 1996

NOTES:
1. No suitable default methodologies are available for these sources.
2. The Cropland Chapter includes this source.
3. Emissions of CH4 and N2O from wastewater discharges to canals, rivers, lakes and drainage channels, ditches as well as the sea as
well as wastewater treatment areas are covered in Volume 5 Chapter 3 though any additional emissions from new wetlands are not.
Emissions of N2O from leachate of nitrogenous fertilisers are covered in Volume 4 Chapter 11.
14
7.6
Chapter 7: Wetlands

1
2
3
4
Wetlands are ecosystems where the biological and geochemical processes, and resulting greenhouse gas
emissions and removals, are controlled by the degree of water saturation, as well as climate and nutrient
availability.
5
6
7
8
9
As in other ecosystems, a net carbon flux to or from the atmosphere is a result from the balance between carbon
uptake from the atmosphere by photosynthesis and its release as a result of decomposition. Both the rates of C
uptake and decay losses are influenced by climate, nutrient availability, water saturation or oxygen availability.
In aerobic conditions (abundant oxygen), prevalent in most upland ecosystems, decomposition releases CO2,
while CH4 emissions prevail in anaerobic conditions (Moore and Knowles, 1989).
10
11
12
In most wetlands, some 90 percent of the carbon in gross primary production returns to the atmosphere by decay
(Cicerone and Oremland, 1988). The undecayed material sinks to the bottom of the water body and accumulates
on top of previously deposited material.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Under saturated conditions 1 or in flooded environments, the activity of aerobic bacteria and other decay
organisms is limited by oxygen availability. Anoxic (oxygen-depleted) conditions commonly found at the
bottom of water bodies prevent further organic matter decomposition by these organisms. Other bacteria,
methanogens, sulfurgens and others, are able to decompose at least part of the organic matter, which results in
emissions of CH4 and other gases. If the methane diffuses up through the water column or top layer of aerated
soil, still another group of bacteria, methanotrophs, partially oxidize the methane into CO2, before it escapes.
Generally, wetlands are a natural source of CH4, with estimated emissions of 55-150 Tg CH4/yr (Watson et al.,
2000).
21
22
23
24
25
Generally, N2O emissions from saturated ecosystems are very low, unless there is a sustained supply of
exogenous nitrogen. When wetlands, especially peatlands, are drained, N2O emission rates are largely controlled
by the provision of nitrogen by mineralization, hence by soil fertility. In minerotrophic (nutrient-rich) conditions,
other controls such as pH, temperature and water level will regulate the nitrification of mineral nitrogen, and its
subsequent reduction into N2O (Klemedtsson et al., 2005; Martikainen et al, 1995).
26
27
In summary, wetland drainage results in a reduction of CH4 emissions, an increase in CO2 emissions due to
increased oxidation of soil organic material, and an increase in N2O emissions in minerotrophic wetlands.
28
29
30
31
Conversely, the creation of wetlands through flooding alters the pattern of greenhouse gas emissions towards
greater CH4 emissions and less CO2. Depending on climate and reservoir characteristics, both CO2 and CH4 can
be emitted from the decay of submerged biomass, and the decomposition of inundated soil organic matter and
other dissolved organic matter particles.
32
33
Methodological issues more specific to the two types of managed wetlands are discussed in the corresponding
sections of this chapter.
34
35
36
Summary of what to report
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals from Wetlands
Total CO2 emissions from wetlands are estimated as the sum of emissions from the two types of managed
wetlands (Equation 7.1).
37
38
39
EQUATION 7.1
CO2 EMISSIONS FROM WETLANDS
40
CO2 _ WW = CO2 _ WWpeat + CO2 _ WWflood
41
Where:
42
CO2 WW = CO2 emissions from wetlands, Gg CO2 yr-1
43
CO2 WW peat = CO2 emissions from peatlands managed for peat production, Gg CO2 yr-1
44
CO2 WW flood = CO2 emissions from (lands converted to) flooded lands, Gg CO2 yr-1
45
46
47
48
Because of the nature of organic soils, saturated soils, and water-covered surfaces, the CO2 estimation
methodology generally relies on the development of emission factors. Some activities, e.g. vegetation removal
and its subsequent burning on lands being converted for peat extraction, result in emissions that can be estimated
as carbon stock changes, in which case reference is provided to the generic methods of Chapter 2.
The soil is saturated when all the air space between soil particles is filled with water, resulting in anaerobic conditions.
7.7
1
A default methodology for N2O emissions is provided only for peatlands managed for peat extraction.
7.2 MANAGED PEATLANDS
3
4
5
6
7
8
Peat accumulates in wetlands when the annual generation of dead organic matter exceeds the amount that decays.
The pattern of peat deposit development varies with climate and hydrology and the succession of peatland types
on any area may be complex (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000). Carbon sequestration may be only 20 to 50 kg/ha per
year (Watson et al., 2000), which is rather small compared with crop harvest yields. Most peat deposits have
been accumulating for several thousand years, and many have been accumulating since the last ice age glacial
retreat more than 8000 years ago
9
10
The production cycle on a peatland area has three phases (Canadian Sphagnum Peat Moss Association 2004,
Nilsson and Nilsson 2004):
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
(i)
Land conversion in preparation for peat extraction: Conversion begins by constructing main and secondary
draining ditches that allow the water to drain out of the area. Once the water table starts dropping, the
surface biomass, including any trees or shrubs and the living layer of peat-producing vegetation, is removed
and destroyed. This phase may take several years. Peat extraction areas are also established on areas drained
previously for other purposes). In general this needs only some improvement or refining of the drainage
pattern. The major greenhouse gas flux in this process is CO2 emission from the removal of biomass and the
decay of the drained peat. This phase correspond to land conversion to peatlands, and is covered in Section
7.2.2.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
(ii)
Extraction: One type of extraction annually mills or breaks up the surface of the peat into particles, which
then dry during the summer months. The air-dried peat particles are then collected and transported from the
area to stockpiles. An older type of extraction cuts the surface of the peat deposit into small blocks that are
allowed to dry. Regardless of the extraction technology, the rate of drying and annual peat production
increase with the frequency of dry weather conditions. Extraction may continue 20 to 50 years before the
economic depth of the peat deposit is reached. The major greenhouse gas emissions in this phase are those
from the decay of peat, both on-site (drained, exposed peat) and off-site (peat extracted and used elsewhere).
This phase correspond to peatlands remaining peatlands, and is treated in Section 7.2.1.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Since emissions from peatlands undergoing extraction differ substantially in scale and type from emissions
from lands being converted to peat extraction, countries with an active peat industry should separate their
managed peatlands accordingly.
(iii)
Abandonment, restoration or conversion to other use: Peat extraction stops when it is no longer profitable to
extract peat from the deposit. Generally greenhouse gas emissions from these lands continue, and should be
reported following the guidance of Section 7.2.1 as long as the land is not converted to another use. Since
no methodology is provided to estimate greenhouse gas emissions or removals from restored peatlands,
countries with extensive restored peatlands may consider developing or gathering the scientific information
to support the development of greenhouse gas estimation methodologies (see Section 7.4.5 Future
Methodological Development). Cut-over peatlands that are afforested or cultivated should be reported under
Lands Converted to Forest land (Chapter 4, Section 4.3) and Lands Converted to Cropland (Chapters 5
Section 5.3).
39
40
Peatlands undergoing extraction (i.e. Peatlands remaining Peatlands) will be considered first, similar to other
chapters but contrary to the usual sequence of peat production as mentioned above.
41
7.2.1
42
43
44
45
46
47
This section covers emissions from peatlands undergoing active peat extraction. Use of peat is widely distributed;
about half is used for energy; the remainder for horticultural, landscape, industrial waster water treatment, and
other purposes (International Peat Society, 2004). Techniques for extracting the peat from deposits are similar,
and all on-site sources of greenhouse gas emissions should be reported under this category regardless of the enduse of peat2. Emissions from the off-site energy use of peat should be reported in the Energy sector, and are not
considered in this chapter.
7.8
Peatlands Remaining Peatlands
Chapter 7: Wetlands

7.2.1.1 CO 2
1
2
3
4
5
EMISSIONS FROM PEATLANDS REMAINING PEATLANDS
Estimating CO2 emissions from lands undergoing peat extraction has two basic elements: on-site emissions from
peat deposits during the extraction phase, and off-site emissions from the horticultural (non-energy) use of peat
(Equation 7.2). Peat extraction starts with vegetation clearing (Section7.1), which prevents further carbon
sequestration, so only CO2 emissions are considered.
6
7
8
EQUATION 7.2
CO2 EMISSIONS IN PEATLANDS DURING PEAT EXTRACTION
44
CO2WW peat = CO2 CWW peatoff site + CO2 CWW peatonsite
12
10
Where:
11
CO2 WWpeat = CO2 emissions from land undergoing peat extraction, Gg CO2 yr-1
12
CO2-CWW peatoff-site = off-site CO2-C emissions from peat removed for horticultural use, Gg C yr-1
13
CO2-CWWpeat on-site = on-site CO2-C emissions from drained peat deposits, Gg C yr-1
14
15
16
Off-site CO2-C emissions are associated to the horticultural (non-energy) use of peat extracted and removed.
Off-site emissions from peat used for energy should be reported in the Energy Sector, and is therefore not
included here.
17
18
19
Regardless of the end-use of peat, the choice of method, emission factors, and activity data for estimating the onsite emissions can be the same, so long as the data are disaggregated for type of peat, which is closely associated
with nutrient level (rich and poor), and if appropriate climate zone.
20
21
CHOICE OF METHOD
22
Figure 7.1 presents the decision tree to estimate greenhouse gas emissions from peatlands.
23
Tier 1
24
25
A default methodology is provided that covers on-site CO2 emissions (without distinction between the phases of
peat production), and the horticultural use of peat (Equations 7.3 to 7.5).
26
27
28
29
EQUATION 7.3
CO2 C3 EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED PEATLANDS (TIER 1)
30
CO2 CWWpeat = CO2 CWWpeatoff site + CO2 CWWpeaton site
31
Where:
32
CO2 -CWWpeat = CO2 C emissions from managed peatlands, Gg C yr-1
33
CO2-C WW peat on-site = on-site emissions from peat deposits (all production phases), Gg C yr-1
34
CO2-C WW peat off-site = off-site emissions from peat removed for horticultural use, Gg C yr-1
35
36
37
38
Equation 7.4 is applied to the total area of managed peatlands, including land being converted to peatlands and
abandoned peatlands, unless abandoned peatlands were converted to another use, in which case emissions should
be attributed to the new use, e.g. cropland or forest land.
CO2-C refers to carbon emitted as CO2
7.9
1
2
3
4
5
The Tier 1 methodology considers only emissions from biomass clearing. When the total area of managed
peatlands increases, conversion to peatland is occurring. The conversion of peatlands for peat extraction involves
clearing and removal of vegetation. The term CWW peat B of Equation 7.3 is estimated as Cconversion, using
Equation 2.16 (Chapter 2 of this Volume). Other changes in C stocks in living biomass on managed peat lands
are assumed to be zero.
6
7
8
9
EQUATION 7.4
ON-SITE SOIL CO2-C EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED PEATLANDS (TIER 1)
( ApeatRich EFCO2 peatRich ) + ( ApeatPoor EFCO2 peatPoor )

CO2 CWW peatonsite =
CWW peatB
1000
10
11
Where:
12
CO2-C WW peat on-site = on-site CO2-C emissions from peat deposits (all production phases), Gg C yr-1
13
Apeat rich =
14
Apeat poor = area of nutrient-poor peat soils managed for peat extraction (all production phases), ha
15
16
EFCO2Peat Rich = CO2 emission factors for nutrient-rich peat soils managed for peat extraction or abandoned
after peat extraction, tonnes C ha-1 yr-1
17
18
EFCO2Peat Poor = CO2 emission factors for nutrient-poor peat soils managed for peat extraction or abandoned
19
20
CWW peat B = CO2 C emissions from change in carbon stocks in biomass due to vegetation clearing, Gg
C yr-1
21
22
23
area of nutrient-rich peat soils managed for peat extraction (all production phases), ha
Off-site emission estimates are derived by converting the annual peat production data (either volume or air-dry
weight) to the weight of carbon (Equation 7.5). All carbon in horticultural peat is assumed to be emitted during
the extraction year. Countries may modify this assumption at higher tiers.
24
25
26
27
EQUATION 7.5
OFF-SITE CO2-C EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED PEATLANDS (TIER 1)
CO2 CWW peat
28
off site
(Wdry _ peat Cfraction wt _ peat )
29
1000
or
CO2 CWWpeatoff site =
30
(Voldry _ peat Cfractionvol _ peat )

1000
31
32
Where:
33
CO2-C WW peat off-site = off-site CO2-C emissions from peat removed for horticultural use, Gg C yr-1
34
Wt dry peat = air-dry weight of extracted peat, tonnes
35
Vol dry peat = volume of air-dry peat extracted, m3
36
Cfraction wt
37
Cfraction vol peat = carbon fraction of air-dry peat by volume, tonnes C (m3 of air-dry peat)-1
peat
= carbon fraction of air-dry peat by weight, tonnes C (tonne of air-dry peat)-1
38
39
Tier 2
7.10
Chapter 7: Wetlands

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Tier 2 calculations use country-specific emission factors and parameters, spatially disaggregated to reflect
regionally important practices and dominant ecological dynamics. It may be appropriate to subdivide activity
data and emission factors according to extraction practices (e.g. the technology used to dry and extract peat),
peat fertility and composition as influenced by previous vegetation cover, and the carbon fraction of air-dry peat
under local climates. Generally, peatland drainage leads to peat compaction and subsidence, as well as oxidation,
and carbon losses other than as CO2. The acrotelm (upper, oxic zone of the peat) is susceptible to seasonal
variations in volumetric moisture content, especially if the peat structure has been altered (Waddington & Price,
2000). Hence measurements of carbon stock changes in peat soils are difficult to make and are unlikely to
estimate correctly CO2 fluxes from these soils, and are therefore not recommended, unless data are carefully
calibrated.
11
12
13
Tier 2 methodologies involve separating peatlands being converted for peat extraction, from those already
producing commercial peat. Section 7.2.2 describes estimation methodologies for lands being converted for peat
extraction. Care should be taken not to double-count CO2 emissions from biomass clearing.
14
Tier 3
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A Tier 3 approach involves a comprehensive understanding and representation of the dynamics of CO2 emissions
and removals on managed peatlands, including the effect of site characteristics, peat type and depth, extraction
technology, and the phases of peat extraction described at the beginning of Section 7.2. The methodology will
include all the known on-site sources of CO2 (Equation 7.6). The term CO2-C WW peatconversion of Equation 7.6
refers to emissions from the land conversion, including changes in biomass carbon stock and soil emissions. The
term CO2-C WW peatextraction corresponds to on-site emissions to be reported under Tier 1 (less the biomass term,
now included in CO2-C WW peatconversion). Emissions from stockpiles of drying peat (variable CO2-C WW peat stockpiling)
are much more uncertain. Higher temperatures may cause stockpiles to release more CO2 than the excavation field,
but data are not at present sufficient to provide guidance. CO2 emission patterns from abandoned peatlands (CO2-C
WW peatpost) vary with restoration techniques and the rates of soil respiration and vegetation regrowth (Petrone et
al., 2003; Waddington & McNeil, 2002; Komulainen et al., 1999); these patterns are therefore quite site-specific.
As in Tier 2, direct measurements of soil C stock changes are not recommended. Countries with a significant
peat extraction industry and restoration activities should undertake to document separately the three on-site
sources of CO2 of Equation 7.6.
29
30
31
EQUATION 7.6
ON-SITE CO2-C EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED PEATLANDS (TIERS 2 AND 3)
32
CO2 CWWpeatconversion + CO2 CWWpeatextraction +
CO2 CWWpeaton site =

CO2 CWWpeat
+ CO2 CWWpeat
stockpiling
post
33
Where:
34
CO2-C WW peat on-site = on-site CO2-C emissions from peat deposits, Gg C yr-1
35
CO2-C WW peatconversion = on-site CO2-C emissions from lands conversion for peat extraction, Gg C yr-1
36
CO2-C WW peatextraction = CO2-C emissions from the surface of peat extraction area, Gg C yr-1
37
CO2-C WW peatstockpiling= CO2-C emissions from peat stockpiles prior to off-site removal, Gg C yr-1
38
CO2-C WW peatpost
= CO2-C emissions from soils of abandoned, cut-over peatlands, Gg C yr-1
39
7.11
1
2
Figure 7.1 Decision tree to estimate CO 2 -C and N 2 O emissions from peatlands remaining
peatlands
3
START
4
5
6
Box 4: Tier 3
Is detailed
information available on land conversion
for peat extraction, extraction methods, peat
use, fertility, and on-site
emissions?
7
8
9
Estimate emissions using

country-specific
methodology and
emission factors (Tier 3)
YES
10
NO
11
Box 3: Tier 2
Are
historical and current data
available on the area of
managed peatlands and on
peat production?
YES
Were
domestic studies done
on GHG emissions/
removals on industrial
peatlands?
YES

default method and
country-specific data (Tier
2)
NO
NO
Are
managed peatlands a
key category?
(Note 1)
YES
Collect or compile historical and

current data from the national
peat industry, government
agency, or from the International
Peat Society

default method and
emission factors and
national activity data (Tier
1)
Box 2: Tier 1
NO
Estimate emissions
using default emission
factors and activity data
(Tier 1)
Box 1: Tier 1
Note 1: See Volume 1 Chapter 4, "Methodological Choice and Identification of Key Categories" (noting Section 4.1.2
on limited resources), for discussion of key categories and use of decision trees.
7.12
Chapter 7: Wetlands

CHOICE OF EMISSION FACTORS
Tier 1
Implementation of the Tier 1 method requires the application on default on-site emission factors EFCO2Peat Rich and
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
EFCO2Peat Poor , and default carbon fractions of peat by weight (Cfraction wt peat ) or by volume (Cfraction vol peat,) to
estimate off-site emissions from production data in weight or volume respectively. Default values of EFCO2Peat Rich
and EFCO2Peat Poor are provided in Table 7.4. Default carbon fractions of peat are provided in Table 7.5. Nutrientpoor bogs predominate in boreal regions, while in temperate regions, nutrient-rich fens and mires are more
common. Types of peatlands can be inferred from the end-use of peat: sphagnum peat, dominant in oligotrophic
(nutrient-poor) bogs, is preferred for horticultural uses, while sedge peat, more common in minerotrophic
(nutrient rich) fens, is more suitable for energy generation. Boreal countries that do not have information on
areas of nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor peatlands should use the emission factor for nutrient-poor peatlands.
Temperate countries that do not have such data should use the emission factor for nutrient-rich peatlands. Only
one default factor is provided for tropical regions, so disaggregating peatland area by soil fertility is not
necessary for tropical countries using the Tier 1 method.
15
TABLE 7.4
EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO2-C AND ASSOCIATED UNCERTAINTY FOR LANDS MANAGED FOR PEAT EXTRACTION, BY
CLIMATE ZONE
Climate Zone
Emission Factor
Boreal and Temperate

Nutrient - Poor
EFCO2 peat poor
Nutrient - Rich
EFCO2 peat rich
0.2
1.1
Uncertainty a
0 to 0.63
0.03 to 2.9
Reference/Comment b
Laine and Minkkinen, 1996; Alm et al.,
1999; Laine et al., 1996; Minkkinen et al.,
Laine et al., 1996; LUSTRA, 2002;
Minkkinen et al., 2002; Sundh et al., 2000
Tropical
EFCO2 peat
a
2.0
0.06 to 7.0
Calculated from the relative difference

between temperate (nutrient-poor) and
tropical
Range of underlying data
The boreal and temperate values have been developed as the mean from a review of paired plot measurements, assuming that
conditions on organic soils converted to peat extraction are lightly drained only. Most of the data are from European peatlands not
necessarily under production.
16
17
CONVERSION
Climate zone
TABLE 7.5
FACTORS FOR CO2-C FOR VOLUME AND WEIGHT PRODUCTION DATA
Cfraction wt
peat
Cfraction vol peat
(tonnes C / tonne air-dry peat)
(tonnes C / m3 air-dry peat)
Nutrient Poor
0.45
0.07
Nutrient Rich
0.40
0.24
0.34
0.26
Boreal and Temperate
Tropical
Tropical humus
Computed from: US Geological Survey (2004) survey average bulk density, and typical moisture content and carbon contents. Based on a
35-55% moisture content of air-dry peat.
18
19
Tiers 2 and 3
20
21
The uncertainty of emission factors can be reduced by measuring the moisture content and carbon fraction of
extracted peat under local climates and extraction practices, taking into account interannual climate variability.
7.13
1
2
3
4
5
6
Spatially disaggregated CO2 flux measurements should be used to develop more precise on-site emission factors,
correcting for carbon losses through leaching of dissolved organic carbon leaching or runoff. In boreal zones,
winter emissions can account for 10-30% of net annual emissions (Alm et al., 1999); and should be estimated.
Disaggregated CO2 flux measurements from peat stockpiles, abandoned and restored peat excavation sites would
assist in reducing further estimate uncertainties. The literature is sparse countries are encouraged to share data,
when peat quality, environmental conditions and extraction practices are similar.
7
8
CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA
9
10
All Tiers require data on areas of peatlands managed for peat extraction (Apeat Rich and/or Apeat Poor ) and peat
production data by weight or volume of air-dry peat (Wdry peat or Voldry peat).
11
Tier 1
12
13
14
15
16
The default methodology assumes that a country has estimates of the total area on which peat is currently and
was extracted, including former commercial peatlands that have not been converted to other uses. In temperate
and boreal regions this area should where possible be separated into nutrient-rich and nutrient poor with the
default assumption consistent with the advice above on selection of emission factors. In addition, the quantity
(by dry weight or volume) or peat extracted annually must be known to estimate off-site CO2 emissions.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
International data sets on peat extraction sites and production vary in quality and consistency. The sources of
production and area data may not be the same and different definitions and years between sources and countries
will likely introduce inconsistencies. Because peat extraction methods rely on dry and sunny days for drying
peat, the annual production varies depending on suitable summer weather. For the purpose of estimating off-site
emissions, peat production data should be separated according to end-use, i.e. horticultural peat and combustion
peat, since the estimation methods of this Chapter only require the production of horticultural peat. If it is
impossible to separate the quantity of peat produced by end-use, emissions from peat consumption should be
accounted under the inventory sector corresponding to the predominant end-use of domestically produced peat.
Useful area data can be found in Joosten (2004); Joosten & Clarke (2002); Sirin & Minayeva (2001);
Lappalainen (1996); and inventories published by Wetlands International (http://www.wetlands.org). Data on
peat production are available from World Energy Council (2004) (for combustion peat) and the United States
Geological Survey (http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/peat/). Additional information may be
obtained from the International Peat Society (http://www.peatsociety.org/) or the International Mire
Conservation Group (http://www.imcg.net/).
31
32
33
34
35
When either areas or production data are missing, it may be possible to derive one from the other by using a
default conversion factor equal to an average production rate, provided by local industry. In a mature,
industrialized peat industry, block-cut methods can yield up to 1750 tonnes of air-dry peat per hectare annually,
while the vacuum method can extract up to 100 tonnes per hectare per year (Cleary, 2005). Air-dry peat contains
between 35% and 55% moisture (World Energy Council, 2004).
36
Tiers 2 and 3
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Countries using higher Tiers should obtain national peat production data and the corresponding peatland areas.
In boreal and temperate regions, these area data need to be disaggregated by soil fertility to correspond to
appropriate emission factors. Possible sources of such data are national energy statistics, peat extraction firms,
peat industry associations, landscaping industry associations, and government ministries responsible for land use
or geological surveys. If it is not possible to stratify by peat fertility, countries may rely on expert judgment.
Boreal climates tend to promote nutrient-poor raised bogs, while temperate and oceanic climates tend to promote
the formation of nutrient-rich peatlands. Priorities for the development of country-specific activity data include
areas of organic soils currently and formerly managed for peat extraction, disaggregated based on nutrient status
if relevant; peat production data; local moisture content that will reflect ambient conditions at the time of peat
extraction; and country-specific carbon content, preferably by peat type.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
More sophisticated estimation methodologies will require the determination of areas in each of the three phases
of the peat extraction cycle, including abandoned areas on which drainage or the effects of former peat extraction
are still present; and if warranted, areas characterized by different peat extraction technology, peat types and
extraction depths. If site restoration is underway, countries are encouraged to report separately the areas of
restored organic soils formerly managed for peat extraction and estimate emissions and removals from these
lands. In addition, countries with a significant production of horticultural peat may develop data to monitor the
off-site fate of extracted peat in order to develop time-sensitive decay curves.
7.14
Chapter 7: Wetlands

7.2.1.2 N ON -CO 2 E MISSIONS

P EATLANDS
METHANE
4
5
6
7
8
9
When peatlands are drained in preparation for peat extraction, the natural production of CH4 is largely reduced,
but not entirely shut down (Strack et al., 2004), as the methanogen bacteria thrive only in anaerobic conditions.
Under Tier1, methane emissions are assumed to be insignificant in these drained peatlands. At higher tiers,
countries are encouraged to examine the pattern of CH4 emissions from topographic lows and drainage ditches,
which can contribute a significant proportion of the total greenhouse gas emissions from these managed
peatlands (Sundh et al., 2000).
FROM
P EATLANDS R EMAINING
10
NITROUS OXIDE
11
12
13
14
15
16
Methodological issues
Depending on site fertility, peat deposits may contain significant amounts of organic nitrogen in inactive form.
Drainage allows bacteria to convert the nitrogen into nitrates, which then leach into the surface where they are
reduced to N2O. In drained peatlands, the potential quantity of N2O emitted depends on the nitrogen content of
the peat. At C:N ratios exceeding 25, the N2O emissions may be considered insignificant (Klemedtsson et al.,
2005).
17
18
19
20
21
Currently, there are no estimation methods that would allow separation of N2O emissions from organic matter
decay during the off-site use of horticultural peat. Nitrogen fertilizers are commonly added to horticultural peat
before use, and this source would likely dominate N2O emission patterns. In order to avoid double-counting N2O
emitted from the use of fertilizers, the default approach for estimating N2O emissions from lands managed for
peat extraction excludes emissions from the decay of organic nitrogen in horticultural peat.
22
23
Choice of Method
24
Tier 1
25
26
27
The Tier 1 method for estimating N2O emissions from drained wetlands is similar to that described for drained
organic soils for agriculture or forestry, but emission factors are generally lower. The default methodology only
considers nutrient-rich peatlands.
Use the decision tree of Figure 7.1 to determine the appropriate methodological tier for N2O emissions.
28
29
30
31
32
N2O EMISSIONS FROM
EQUATION 7.7
PEATLANDS DURING PEAT EXTRACTION
N 2OWWpeatExtraction = Apeat
33
Rich
EFN2O N peatRich
44
10 6
28
34
Where:
35
N2OWWpeat Extraction = direct N2O emissions from peatlands managed for peat extraction, Gg N2O yr-1
36
37
ApeatRich = area of nutrient-rich peat soils managed for peat extraction, including abandoned areas in which
drainage is still present, ha
38
EFN2O Peat Rich = emission factor for drained nutrient-rich wetlands organic soils, kg N2O-N ha-1 yr-1
39
40
Tier 2
41
42
43
44
Under Tier 2, the activity data are disaggregated by additional factors such as peat type and fertility, phase of
peat extraction, and time since the onset of drainage activities. The corresponding emission factors are countryspecific and take into account conditions and practices of peat extraction, drainage depth, and changes in the C:N
ratio down the peat profile.
45
Tier 3
7.15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Tier 3 methods involve a comprehensive understanding and representation of the dynamics of N2O emissions
and removals on managed peatlands, including the effect of site characteristics, peat type and depth, extraction
technology, and the phases of peat extraction described at the beginning of Section 7.2. The methodology will
include all the relevant sources of N2O. Both on-site and off-site emissions will be considered, and take into
account the rate of peat decay under common extraction and utilization conditions. Methods should be consistent
with the estimation procedures for CO2 emissions, e.g. the same off-site decay rates should be used. If processbased models are used, they should be calibrated and validated against independent measurements,
representative of the national conditions.
9
10
Tier 1
11
Default emission factors for the Tier 1 method are provided in Table 7.6.
TABLE 7.6
DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS FOR N2O EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED PEATLANDS
Climate Zone
Emission Factor
EFN2O
(kg N2O-N ha-1 yr-1)
Boreal and
Temperate Climate
Nutrient-poor
Organic Soil
Nutrient-rich
Organic Soil
Tropical Climate
Uncertainty range
negligible
Negligible
1.8
0.2 to 2.5
3.6
0.2 to 5
Reference/ Comments
Alm et al., 1999; Laine et al., 1996;

Martikainen et al., 1995; Minkkinen et al.,
2002; Regina et al., 1996
The value for tropical areas is twice that for
northern climates, based on the relative
difference between temperate and tropical
N2O EF in Table 11.1 (Chapter 11).
Most of the data are from European peatlands not necessarily under production. Climate zones are as described in Chapter 3.
12
13
Tiers 2 and 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Countries applying Tier 2 methods develop country-specific emission factors, which may be able to differentiate
emission rates during land conversion to peat land and the ongoing emissions during peat extraction. Tiers 2 and
3 require country-specific emission data that account for site characteristics, peat type and depth, extraction
technology, the phases of peat extraction or other relevant factor. Peat type is especially relevant to its
decomposability and the ensuing N2O emissions. Emissions from the off-site use of horticultural peat should be
included in Tier 3 methods. Currently, the literature is sparse and results are sometimes contrasting. Countries
are encouraged to share comparable data, when environmental conditions and extraction practices are similar.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
The same activity data should be used for estimating CO2 and N2O emissions from managed peatlands.
Information on obtaining these data is provided in Section 7.2.1 above. For countries in boreal and temperate
regions using the Tier 1 method, area data should be stratified by soil fertility, since only nutrient-rich peat soils
are considered. If the available information does not allow stratification by peat fertility, countries may rely on
expert judgment. Boreal climates tend to promote nutrient-poor raised bogs or fens, while temperate and oceanic
climates tend to promote the formation of nutrient-rich peatlands. Low fertility peatlands are generally acidic
(with low pH). Under Tier 1, additional uncertainty arises from the use of unique default CO2 and N2O emission
factors, applied to both lands converted for peat extraction and peatlands remaining peatlands, as the nitrogen
content and bioavailability of organic C and N may change with depth.
33
Tiers 2 and 3
34
35
36
37
Priorities for the development of country-specific activity data include areas of organic soils managed for peat
extraction, disaggregated based on nutrient status, if relevant, and annual peat production data. More
sophisticated estimation methodologies will require the determination of areas in each of the three phases of the
peat extraction cycle, including abandoned areas on which drainage or the effects of former peat extraction are
Tier 1
7.16
Chapter 7: Wetlands

1
2
3
4
5
still present; and if warranted, areas characterized by different peat extraction technology, peat types and
extraction depths. If site restoration is underway, countries should report separately the areas of restored organic
soils formerly managed for peat extraction and estimate emissions and removals from these lands. In addition,
countries with a significant production of horticultural peat may develop data to monitor the off-site fate of
extracted peat in order to develop time-sensitive decay curves (see also Section 7.2.1).
7.2.1.3 U NCERTAINTY
Emission Factors
ASSESSMENT
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
For both CO2 and N2O, the key uncertainties in Tier 1 estimation procedures are the default emission factors
(Tables 7.4 and 7.6), and other parameters such as moisture content of air-dry peat. Emission factors and
parameters have been developed from only a few (less than 10) data points, mostly in temperate and boreal
regions, and may not be representative for large areas or climate zones. The standard deviation of the emission
factors easily exceeds 100% of the mean, but underlying probability functions are likely to be non-normal. The
variability in peat specific gravity and its moisture holding capacity accounts for a significant component of this
uncertainty. Depending on peat characteristics, the interannual variability in precipitation can alter the rate of
organic matter decay by 25% to 100% (Waddington et al., 2002). Variability in peat moisture content and peat
quality accounts for a 20% uncertainty on the carbon content of air-dry peat. In general, countries are encouraged
to use the range rather than the standard deviation.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Many organic soils have been drained and converted to other uses, e.g. agricultural or forestry production. These
soils are frequently on more fertile sites, and thus emission factors are higher. In addition to drainage,
management activities will alter the distribution of organic matter along the soil profile, and consequently the
greenhouse gas emission patterns. Hence greenhouse gas emission patterns from organic soils under different
land management practices are expected to differ. When country-specific factors are developed, countries should
use sufficient sample sizes and techniques to minimize standard errors. Ideally, probability density functions (i.e.
providing mean and variance estimates) should be derived for all country-defined parameters. At a minimum,
Tier 2 approaches should provide error ranges for each country-defined parameter. Such data can be used in
advanced uncertainty analyses such as Monte Carlo simulations.
27
28
29
30
31
Under Tier 3, emission factors and their associated probability density functions are used to develop means and
confidence intervals for the entire category, with advanced procedures (e.g. Monte-Carlo). Process-based
models will in principle provide more realistic estimates but need to be calibrated and validated against
measurements. Uncertainties arising from the use of models need to be quantified with similar procedures. Refer
to Volume 1, Chapter 3 of these Guidelines for guidance on developing such analyses.
32
Activity Data
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Countries that used aggregated activity data, for managed peatlands should factor in an uncertainty of 50% in
Europe and North America, but a factor of 2 in the rest of the world. Uncertainty can be higher if managed
peatland areas are based on total (managed and unmanaged) peatlands, or on production data, since peat
production strongly depends on good weather conditions. Under Tiers 2 and 3, the spatial disaggregation of
peatland areas by relevant eco-climatic parameters and/or management practices, information on the end-use of
peat, and the distinction between recently converted peatlands and those under ongoing production and
restoration, will enable more accurate estimation procedures.
40
7.2.2
Land Being Converted for Peat Extraction
41
42
43
44
45
Under a Tier 1 approach, the activity data do not distinguish between peatlands under peat extraction (peatlands
remaining peatlands), and those being converted for peat extraction (see the beginning of Section 7.2 for a
description of the three phases of peat extraction). Countries using such an approach should refer to Section 7.2.1
for methodological guidance. Countries using a Tier 2 methodology should make the separation. This section
provides guidance specific to peatlands being drained and converted for peat extraction.
46
47
7.2.2.1 CO 2 E MISSIONS
E XTRACTION
48
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
49
50
As described in the introduction of Section 7.2, the peat extraction cycle has three phases, the first one of which
being the development or conversion for peat extraction, characterized by extensive drainage works (if the area
ON
L ANDS B EING C ONVERTED
FOR
P EAT
7.17
1
2
3
was not already drained for other purposes), but little peat extraction. This conversion phase typically lasts for 2
to 5 years. In contrast with other land-use conversions then, in these Guidelines the recommended default
transition period for land converted for peat extraction is five years.
4
5
6
7
8
Greenhouse gas emissions from lands being cleared and drained for peat extraction are significantly different
from the emissions of lands currently undergoing peat extraction or have been exhausted and abandoned. The
major emissions during the conversion process arise from the removal and destruction of the living biomass of
the peatland ecosystem, and from soils during drainage. Since these lands are not yet into production, there is no
peat extraction and therefore no off-site emissions from extracted peat.
Equation 7.8 represents the main sources of CO2-C emissions during land conversion for peat extraction.
10
11
12
EQUATION 7.8
CO2 C EMISSIONS IN PEATLAND BEING DRAINED FOR PEAT EXTRACTION
13
CO2 CLW peat _ onsite = CWW peatB + CWW peatDOM + CO2 CLW peat _ drainage
) (
14
Where:
15
CO2-C LW peat on-site = CO2-C emissions from land being converted for peat extraction Gg C yr-1
16
CWW peat B = CO2 C emissions from change in carbon stocks in living biomass, Gg C yr-1
17
CWW peatDOM = CO2 C emissions from change in carbon stocks in dead organic matter pool, Gg C yr-1
18
CO2-C LW peat drainage = CO2 C emissions from soils during drainage, Gg C yr-1
19
20
CHOICE OF METHOD
21
Tier 2
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
None of the procedures for estimating these quantities is unique to this category, except for emissions from soils
during drainage. If pre-clearing standing vegetation is forest land or grassland, the estimation procedures for
emissions from the living biomass from the conversion of forest land or grassland to cropland is discussed in
Chapter 5, Section 5.3. Where fires are used to clear vegetation, emissions of non-CO2 gases, i.e., CH4 and N2O
will also occur. These emissions can be estimated following guidance also provided in Chapter 2. Biomass
burning and decay of unburned biomass and dead organic matter can be estimated, if country-specific emission
factors are available. The areas of land being drained can be broken down according to peat fertility, peat type,
and previous land-use or land cover. Countries may be able to refine emission factors accordingly.
30
31
Equation 7.9 provides the general approach to estimate emissions from soil during drainage. Conceptually, it is
the same as Equation 7.6 used to determined CO2-C WW peat on-site for managed peatlands.
32
33
EQUATION 7.9
CO2 C EMISSIONS FROM SOILS IN PEATLAND BEING DRAINED FOR
CO2 C LW peat _ drainage
34
(
(
PEAT EXTRACTION
)
)
Adrained _ peatRich EFCO2drained _ peatRich +
Adrained _ peatPoor EFCO2drained _ peatPoor
1000
35
Where:
36
CO2-C LW peat drainage = CO2 C emissions from soils on lands converted for peat extraction, in Gg C yr-1
37
Adrained peat Rich =
area of nutrient-rich peat soils being drained, ha
38
Adrained peat Poor =
area of nutrient-poor peat soils being drained, ha
39
EFCO2drained peat Rich = emission factors for CO2-C from nutrient-rich peat soils being drained, tonnes C ha-1 yr-1
40
EFCO2 drained peat Poor = emission factors for CO2-C from nutrient-poor peat soils being drained, tonnes C ha-1 yr-1
41
7.18
Chapter 7: Wetlands

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Tier 3: Tier 3 methods involve a comprehensive understanding and representation of the dynamics of CO2
emissions and removals on lands being converted for peat extraction, including the effect of peat type and
fertility, site characteristics such as blanket or raised bogs, and previous land-use or land cover if relevant, which
could be combined with appropriate emission factors, and/or process-based models. The methodology includes
the fate of C in all pools, C transfers between pools upon conversion (e.g. biomass to dead organic matter), and
distinguishes immediate and delayed emissions. Estimates based on changes in stocks should be corrected for
carbon losses due to the leaching of dissolved organic carbon, losses of dead organic matter through runoff, or as
CH4 emissions.
CHOICE OF EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS
10
11
12
13
Tier 2: Countries applying Tier 2 methods will develop country-specific emission factors EFCO2drained peat Rich and
EFCO2 drained peat Poor to differentiate emission rates during land conversion, from the ongoing emissions during the
peat extraction phase. It may be possible to differentiate emission factors further by type of peat, its fertility, and
drainage depth, previous land use or land cover, and climatic zones.
14
15
16
Tier 3: Under Tier 3, all parameters should be country specific. The literature is sparse and it is good practice
to derive country-specific emission factors and share data should be shared between countries with similar
environmental conditions.
17
18
19
20
21
22
Tier 2: The basic activity data required is the area of organic soils converted for peat extraction, disaggregated
by nutrient status (or fertility). Possible sources of area data are peat extraction firms, peat industry associations,
and government ministries responsible for land information. Under Tier 2, countries can also incorporate
information based on the original land use, peat type and peat fertility of the lands being converted. This
information could be gathered from regular updates of the national peatland inventory.
23
24
25
Tier 3: Under Tier 3, detailed information on the original land use, peat type and peat fertility areas converted
for peat extraction will be needed. More specific data needs may be defined depending on the estimation
procedures.
26
FROM
MANAGED PEATLANDS
27
L ANDS B EING C ONVERTED
TO
28
29
30
31
32
Please refer to the discussion of methodological issues under Section 7.2.1.2 Non- CO2 Emissions from
Peatlands Remaining Peatlands. The entire section will also apply here, with the exception of non- CO2
emissions from the off-site decay of horticultural peat, since there is no peat extraction during the phase of land
conversion and preparation. Under higher tiers methane emissions may no longer be assumed negligible on lands
being drained. Equation 7.7 of Section 7.2.1 also describes the default approach to estimate N2O emissions.
33
7.2.2.3 U NCERTAINTY A SSESSMENT
34
Emission Factors
35
Please see the discussion on emission factor uncertainties in Section 7.2.1.3
36
37
38
39
40
Uncertainty attached to the carbon content of pre-conversion vegetation cover, as affected by the previous land
use, should be included in the uncertainty assessment of CO2 estimates. The uncertainty probability distribution
of the emissions is likely to be non-normal, so the 95% interval of a log-normal distribution is assumed here as
default uncertainty (see Tables 7.4 and 7.6). It is recommended to use this range rather than a symmetrical
standard deviation.
41
Activity data
42
43
Agencies providing area data should provide an indication on area uncertainties; otherwise default uncertainty
data associated with the advice on area estimation in Chapter 3 can be used.
44
45
7.3 Flooded Land
46
47
Flooded lands are defined as water bodies where human activities have caused changes in the amount of surface
area covered by water, typically through water level regulation. Examples of flooded lands include reservoirs for
7.19
1
2
3
4
the production of hydroelectricity, irrigation, and navigation. Regulated lakes and rivers that do not have
substantial changes in water area in comparison with the pre-flooded ecosystem are not considered as flooded
lands. Some rice paddies are cultivated through flooding of land, but because of the unique characteristics of rice
cultivation, rice paddies are addressed in Chapter 5 (Cropland) chapter of the Guidelines.
5
6
7
Flooded lands may emit CO2, CH4 and N2O in significant quantities, depending on a variety of characteristic
such as age, land-use prior to flooding, climate, and management practices. Emissions vary spatially and over
time.
8
9
10
11
12
13
The time elapsed since flooding has a significant influence on greenhouse gas fluxes from flooded lands and also
on the partition of the gases. Recent statistical analyses on reservoirs worldwide indicate that there is a rapid
surge of emissions immediately after flooding, after which emissions return to a relative stable level (Tremblay
et al., 2005; Therrien et al., 2005; Soumis et al. 2005; and Huttunen et al., 2002, 2003). The rate of the postflooding decrease in emissions may depend on the region in which the reservoir is located, but seems to vary in
about a 10-year period (Delmas et al, 2005; Abril et al., 2005; Tremblay et al., 2005).
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Evidence suggests that CO2 emissions for approximately the first ten years after flooding are the results of decay
of some of the organic matter on the land prior to flooding. The easily degradable carbon and nutrients are made
available to producer organisms upon flooding and metabolized. Beyond this time period, CO2 emissions are
sustained by the input of organic material transferred into the flooded area from the watershed (Houel, 2003;
Hlie, 2004; Cole and Caraco, 2001). To avoid double-counting CO2 emissions, which may already been
captured in the greenhouse gas budget of managed lands in the watershed and in the absence of conclusive
evidence on the longer term impact of flooding on these emissions, the default methodology only considers the
first 10 years post flooding.
22
23
24
While there is evidence, especially in tropical areas, of increased CH4 emissions due to flooding, the high
temporal and spatial variability of CH4 emissions has so far precluded the development of default emission
factors for all climatic regions. The available information regarding CH4 emissions is provided in Appendix 2.
25
26
27
28
29
30
Nitrous oxide emissions from flooded lands are typically very low, unless there is a significant input of organic
or inorganic nitrogen from the watershed. It is likely that such inputs would result from anthropogenic activities
such as land-use change, wastewater treatment or fertilizer application in the watershed. In order to avoid
double-counting N2O emissions already captured in the greenhouse gas budget of these anthropogenic sources,
and in light of the very limited contribution of N2O emissions from flooded lands reported in the literature, the
current section will not consider these emissions.
31
7.3.1
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
No methodologies are provided for flooded land remaining flooded land. As explained above, it is assumed that
CO2 and N2O emissions occurring on flooded lands are already covered by methodologies described in other
sectors. The default methodology for lands converted to flooded lands provides guidance for estimation of CO2
emission due to flooding and assumes these emissions last for 10 years after flooding. Available information on
CH4 emissions is provided in Appendix 2 but it is not possible, at present, to recommend a default methodology.
Countries seeking to report CH4 emissions from flooded lands should, where feasible, develop domestic
emission factors. Guidance on the development of such factors is provided in Box 7.1.
39
7.3.2
40
41
42
43
For reasons already explained, this section provides guidance only on estimation of CO2 emissions from lands
converted to flooded lands. Any emissions caused by land-use change activity itself (e.g., CO2 or non- CO2
emissions due land clearance before flooding of the land) should be estimated using the methodologies provided
elsewhere in this volume.
44
7.3.2.1 CO 2 E MISSIONS
45
46
47
48
Prior to flooding land may be cleared. Organic material may be burnt or may be harvested (e.g. for timber). The
resultant emissions should be estimated using the appropriate methodologies in this volume for estimating the
change in the carbon stock before flooding. These emissions should be estimated in the year they occur.
49
50
Subsequent to flooding and any land clearing, carbon dioxide emissions from land converted to flooded lands
can occur via the following pathways:
7.20
Flooded land Remaining Flooded land
Lands Converted to Flooded land
FROM LAND CONVERTED TO
F LOODED
LAND
Chapter 7: Wetlands

1
2
Diffusive Emissions, due to molecular diffusion across the air-water interface; this is the major pathway for
CO2 emissions;
3
4
Bubble Emissions, or gas emissions from the sediment through the water column via bubbles; this is a very
minor pathway for CO2 emissions;
5
6
7
Degassing Emissions, or emissions resulting from a sudden change in hydrostatic pressure, as well as the
increased air/water exchange surface after reservoir waters flow through a turbine and/or a spillway
(Duchemin, 2000; Hlie, 2004; Soumis et al., 2004; and Delmas et al., 2005)
8
9
10
BOX 7.1
DERIVATION OF COUNTRY-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
11
12
13
14
Programs to derive country-specific emission factors should carefully consider the potential
overlap with other sectors and the proper attribution of emissions. For example, N2O emissions
ultimately due to fertilizer application or sewage treatment in the watershed should not be reported
in the flooded lands category.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
In general, the derivation of country-specific emission factors requires actual measurements of

greenhouse gas fluxes from reservoir surfaces. Separate emission factors should be developed for
the predominant types of reservoirs in the national territory. To minimize the required effort,
reservoirs should first be grouped into categories that take into account the main factors
responsible for variability among reservoirs, especially climate zone and geological basement
(which strongly affects pH). Maps and national ecological stratification can be useful to carry out
this task.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Within each reservoir category, a measurement strategy should be designed to obtain

representative flux values by reservoir age, morphology, management regime, nutrient status and
other relevant factors if necessary. Finally, within any single reservoir, a rigorously designed flux
sampling scheme should be applied to take into account the spatial variability caused by variations
in depth and water current, proximity to the shore, and presence of aquatic vegetation; and the
temporal variability caused by diurnal and seasonal cycles. Flux measurements should be taken
over an entire year, preferably over several years.
29
30
31
32
Useful information can be obtained from the following references: Therrien et al. 2005; Duchemin
et al., 2005; Delmas et al. 2005, Abril et al. 2005, Rosa et al. 2004; Soumis et al., 2004; Tavares
de lima, 2002, Huttunen et al., 2002; Duchemin, 2000; Duchemin et al., 1999; Rosa et al. 1996;
Duchemin et al., 1995.
33
34
35
36
The development of emission factors should take into account predominant emission types:
diffusive, bubbles, and degassing. Measurements of CH4 and CO2 aqueous concentrations at
various points upstream and downstream of the reservoir are needed to estimate degassing
emissions.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Tiers 1 and 2 estimate diffusive emissions only. A Tier 3 method, based on detailed measurements, includes all
relevant fluxes of carbon dioxide emissions from flooded lands. Tier 3 includes degassing emissions and
considers the age, and the geographical location and the water temperature of the reservoir. The Tier 3 method is
not outlined further in this chapter, but countries should refer to the Box 7.1 on derivation of country-specific
emission factors as a resource for implementing Tier 3. When using Tier 3, all relevant emissions from flooded
lands should be estimated for the life-time of the reservoir. Table 7.7 summarizes the coverage of the three tiers
with respect to CO2 emission pathways.
7.21
1
TABLE 7.7
TIERS AND CO2 EMISSION PATHWAYS FOR LAND
CONVERTED TO FLOODED LAND
CO2
Tier 1
Diffusive Emissions
Tier 2
Diffusive Emissions
Tier 3
All Emissions
2
3
4
CHOICE OF METHOD
5
6
7
8
9
10
The decision tree in Figure 7.2 guides inventory compilers through the processes of selecting the appropriate
good practice approach for CO2 emissions from land converted to flooded land. Tier selection and the level of
spatial and temporal disaggregation implemented by inventory agencies will depend upon the availability of
activity and emissions factor data, as well as the importance of reservoirs as contributors to national greenhouse
gas emissions. Representative country-specific scientific evidence and data are preferable to the default data for
Tier 1.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Tier 1
Tier 1 provides a simplified approach to estimating CO2 emissions from reservoirs using default emission factors
and highly aggregated area data. The only CO2 emission pathway included under Tier 1 is diffusion during icefree period. CO2 diffusive emissions related to ice-cover period are assumed to be zero. The default assumption
is that CO2 emissions are limited to the first 10 years after the flooding took place, and any subsequent emissions
of CO2 come from carbon entering the reservoir from other land areas (e.g., upstream agriculture). Equation 2.16
of Chapter 2 can be used to estimate the carbon stock change in above-ground living biomass due to land
conversion to flooded land if above-ground biomass is cleared before flooding. If the above-ground biomass is
burned, one should use Equation 2.14 or 2.27 of Chapter 2 (Emissions from biomass burning). In addition, the
flux equation, as described below, should be used in all cases to estimate CO2 emissions from carbon not cleared.
21
22
Decay of above-ground biomass left on site and soil organic matter will both contribute to the emissions.
Equation 7.10 shows the Tier 1 method for these CO2 emissions.
23
24
25
26
EQUATION 7.10
CO2 EMISSIONS FROM LAND CONVERTED TO FLOODED LAND (TIER 1)
27
CO2 Emissions LWflood = P E (C2O) diff A flood ,total _ surface f A 10 6
28
Where:
29
CO2 EmissionsLW flood = total CO2 emissions from land converted to flooded land, Gg CO2 yr-1
30
P = number of days without ice cover during a year, days yr-1
31
E(CO2)diff = averaged daily diffusive emissions, kg CO2 ha-1 day-1
32
Aflood, total surface = total reservoir surface area, including flooded land, lakes and rivers, ha
33
fA = fraction of the total reservoir area that was flooded within the last 10 yrs
34
7.22
Chapter 7: Wetlands

Figure 7.2 Decision Tree for CO 2 Emissions from land converted to flooded land
2
3
4
START
5
6
Box 4: Tier 3
Are detailed
information on reservoirs
and seasonally integrated
CO2 emission factors
available ?
Estimate emissions from all

relevant emission pathways
using country-specific data
and emission factors
YES
NO
Box 3: Tier 2
Are historical
and current data available
on the reservoir
areas?
YES
Were
domestic studies
done on CO2
emissions on
reservoirs?
YES

default and country-specific
data
NO
NO
Are flooded
lands a key category (Note 1)
and is CO2 significant
(Note 2)?
YES
Collect or compile data on

reservoir surface area and
determine seasonally
integrated CO2 emission
factors for reservoirs
NO
Estimate diffusive emissions

using default emission
factors and activity data

default method and default
emission factors and national
activity data
Box 2: Tier 1
Box 1: Tier 1
7.23
1
2
3
4
5
The CO2 emissions estimated by Equation 7.10 are highly uncertain because the default emission factor does not
account for differences in site-specific conditions and time since flooding. The use of the Equation 7.10 may also
lead to overestimating emissions when used in conjunction with Equations 2.14, 2.16, or 2.27 in Chapter 2.
Countries using a Tier 2 method can more accurately represent the proper time profile of the CO2 emissions
following flooding. Guidance on Tier 2 methods is given below.
6
7
8
9
10
Under Tier 2, country-specific emission factors are used to estimate CO2 diffusive emissions. In Tier 2, CO2
emissions can be estimated from reservoirs following the approach shown in Equation 7.11. As with Tier 1, the
CO2 emissions from land converted to flooded lands should be estimated only for ten years after flooding when
using Tier 2 method unless country-specific research indicates otherwise.
11
12
13
14
The estimation of diffusive emissions can also be extended to distinguish between periods in which the
reservoirs are ice-free and those in which they are ice-covered (Duchemin et al., 2005). This may be a significant
improvement in accuracy for countries in colder climates. The flooded land area may be further disaggregated
by climatic zone, geological basement, or any relevant parameter listed in Box 7.1.
Tier 2
15
16
17
18
EQUATION 7.11
{( Pf E f (CO2 ) diff ) + ( Pi Ei (CO2 ) diff )}

CO2 EmissionsLWflood =
6
(A flood ,surface f A 10 )
19
20
Where:
21
CO2 emissionsLW flood = total CO2 emissions from land converted to flooded land, Gg CO2 yr-1
22
Pf = ice-free period, days yr-1
23
Pi = period with ice cover, days yr-1
24
25
Ef(CO2)diff = averaged daily diffusive emissions from air water-interface during the ice-free period,
kg CO2 ha-1 day-1
26
Ei(CO2)diff = diffusive emissions related to the ice-covered period, kg CO2 ha-1 day-1
27
Aflood, surface= total reservoir surface area, including flooded land, lakes and rivers, ha
28
fA = fraction of the total area flooded within the last 10 yrs, dimensionless
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
The Tier 3 methods for estimating CO2 emissions are comprehensive and must include additional country-specific
data on all relevant CO2 emission pathways, such as degassing emissions. Emission factors are disaggregated to
reflect all relevant sources of temporal and spatial variability (see Box 7.1). To avoid double counting, Tier 3 also
requires partitioning emissions from the degradation of flooded organic matter and from the decay of organic matter
originating from the watershed.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The key default values needed to implement Tier 1 method are emission factors for CO2 via the diffusion
pathways. Table 7.8 provides default emission factors for various climate zones that can be used under Tier 1.
These default emission factors integrate known spatial (intra-reservoir and regional variations) and temporal
variations (dry/rainy and other seasonal variations, inter-annual variations) in the emissions from reservoirs, as
well as fluxes at the water-air interface of reservoirs. Default emission factors should be used in Tier 1 for the
ice-free period only. During complete ice-cover period, CO2 emissions are assumed to be zero, although in
reality emissions do occur. All default data have been obtained from measurements in hydroelectric or flood
control reservoirs. When default data are not available for a specific region, countries should use the closest
default emission factors (e.g. the most similar climatic region ).
46
47
48
49
For Tier 2, country-specific emission factors should, to the extent possible, be used instead of default factors, and
should include emissions during the winter (ice-cover) period. It is anticipated that a mix of default values and
country-specific emission factors will be used when the latter do not cover the full range of environmental and
management conditions. The development of country-specific emission factors is discussed in Box 7.1. The
Tier 3
7.24
Chapter 7: Wetlands

1
2
derivation of country-specific factors should be clearly documented, and ideally published in peer reviewed
literature. Guidance in Box 7.1 is applicable also for derivation of emission factors for Tier 3.
3
TABLE 7.8
DEFAULT CO2 EMISSION FACTORS FOR FLOODED LAND
Diffusive emissions (Ice-free period)
Ef(CO2)diff (kg ha-1 d-1)
Climate
References
Median
Min
Max
Nm
Nres
Polar/Boreal Wet
11.8
0.8
34.5
1011
20
Bergstrm et al., 2004, berg et al.,

2004; Huttunen et al., 2002
15.2
2.0
86.3
633
20
Duchemin, 2000; Schlellhase et al.,

1994, Duchemin et al., 1999, Duchemin
et al., 1995 ; Tremblay et al., 2005
Warm Temperate,
moist
8.1
-10.3
57.5
507
33
Warm temperate, dry
5.2
-12.0
31.0
390
43
Duchemin, 2000; Duchemin 2002a, StLouis et al., 2000; Smith and Lewis,
1992, Tremblay et al., 2005,
Soumis et al., 2004, Therrien et al.,
2005
Tropical, Wet
44.9
4.5
241.4
642
Keller and Stallard, 1994; Galy-Lacaux

et al., 1997; Galy-Lacaux, 1996 ;
Duchemin et al., 2000; Pinguelli Rosa
et al., 2002; Tavares de lima et al.,
2002; Tavares de lima, 2005
Tropical Dry
39.1
11.7
158.1
197
Pinguelli Rosa et al., 2002; Dos Santos,

2000
Countries should use the median values as default EF. These values represent the medians of CO2 emissions reported in the
literature, which themselves are arithmetic means of flux measured above individual reservoirs. The medians are used because
the frequency distributions of underlying flux measurements are not normal, and their arithmetic means are already skewed by
extreme values. Min and Max values are, respectively, the lowest and highest of all individual measurements within a given
climate region; these are provided as an indication of variability only. Nm: number of measurements; Nres: number of reservoirs
sampled.
4
5
6
7
Several different types of activity data may be needed to estimate flooded land emissions, depending on the tier
being implemented and the potential sources of spatial and temporal variability within the national territory.
Flooded land area
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
For Tier 1, the total reservoir area is required, and the proportion flooded in the last ten years (fA). The use, in a
higher tier, of more detailed emission profiles over time will require corresponding information on the age
distribution of flooded lands. Countries can obtain their flooded land area from a drainage basin cover analysis,
from a national dam database, from the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD, 1998) or from the
World Commission on Dams report (WCD 2000). Since flooded land area could change rapidly, and because of
the 10-year time limit, countries should use updated and recent data of reservoir surface area. Under Tier 2, this
activity data should be disaggregated by relevant categories (see Box 7.1). For Tier 2 and Tier 3, countries
should create a national reservoir database with relevant data or information on reservoir names, types,
geographical coordinates, year of impoundment, surface area, depth, outflow rate, and other relevant parameters
as described in Box 7.1.
19
Period of ice-free cover/Period of ice-cover
20
21
Under all tiers the periods during which the reservoirs are ice-free or completely ice-covered are required to
estimate CO2 emissions. This information can be obtained from national meteorological services.
22
Outflow/Spillway Volume
23
Under Tier 3, flooded land outflow and spillway volume are required to estimate degassing emissions of CO2.
24
CO2 concentrations upstream and downstream of dams
25
26
27
Under Tier 3, CO2 concentrations upstream and downstream of dams would be needed for estimation of the
degassing emissions. Information on measurement techniques can be obtained from the references cited in Box
7.1.
7.25
1
FROM LAND CONVERTED TO
F LOODED
LANDS
Available information on CH4 emissions for land converted to flooded lands can be found in Appendix 2.
7.3.2.3 U NCERTAINTY
5
6
7
The two largest sources of uncertainty in the estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from reservoirs are the
emission factors from the various pathways (diffusive, bubble and degassing) and the estimates of reservoir
surface areas.
8
9
10
11
Emission factors: The default CO2 diffusive emissions shown in Table 7.8 vary by one to two orders of
magnitude in boreal and temperate regions, and by one to three in tropical regions. Therefore, the use of any
default emission factor will result in high uncertainty. Since the age of reservoirs has a significant influence on
CO2 fluxes during the first 10 years, the used of default EF, may result in an underestimation of CO2 emissions.
12
13
14
15
16
CO2 degasssing emissions, which are typically significant in temperate and tropical regions, are an important
source of uncertainty for Tier 3. Research demonstrated that these CO2 emissions accounted for all the
greenhouse gas emissions from a reservoir in a temperate dry region, and for up to 30% in temperate moist
region (Soumis et al., 2004). In cold temperate regions, degassing CO2 emissions accounted for less than 5% of
the total greenhouse gas emissions from reservoirs (Duchemin, 2000; Hlie, 2003).
17
18
19
To reduce the uncertainties on emissions factors, countries should develop appropriate, statistically valid
sampling strategies that take into account factors underlying the temporal and spatial variability of the ecosystem
studied (see Box 7.1).
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Flooded land surface area: National statistical information on the flooded area retained behind large dams (>
100km2) should be available and will probably be accurate to within 10 percent. Where national database on
dams are not available, and other information is used, the flooded land areas retained behind dams will probably
have an uncertainty of more than 50 percent, especially for countries with large flooded land areas. Detailed
information on the location, type and function of smaller dams may be also difficult to obtain, though statistical
inference may be possible based on the size distribution of reservoirs for which data are available. Reservoirs are
created for a variety of reasons that influence the availability of data, and, consequently, the uncertainty on
surface area is dependent on country specific conditions.
28
29
7.4 COMPLETENESS, TIME-SERIES CONSISTENCY,

AND QA/QC
30
7.4.1
31
32
33
Complete greenhouse gas inventories will include estimates of emissions from the two types of managed
wetlands as described in Sections 7.2 and 7.3 above, unless these wetland types do not occur on the national
territory.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
As in other land categories, countries are encouraged to monitor the fate of managed wetlands, and avoid doublecounting with lands in other categories. It is good practice to document the extent of reservoir areas, even though
under the default approach the reporting of CO2 emissions is no longer applicable after 10 years. Once peatlands
are brought under peat extraction, they remain managed peatlands even after peat extraction activities have
ceased, until they are converted to another use. Rewetting of soils, or the return of the water table to pre-drainage
levels, do not change the status of peatlands. See Section 7.5 Future Methodological Development for
additional discussion of restored peatlands.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Countries using advanced methods and data should take care not to report greenhouse gas emissions already
accounted for in other AFOLU chapters, or in other Volumes of these guidelines. In particular, wetlands may
receive non-point source effluents and sediments with high nutrient contents; organic or inorganic N, and
organic C emitted from these wetlands may have already been included in the estimation methodologies for
Forest land or Cropland, or the Waste sector. When there is evidence of such non-point source of carbon or
nitrogen to wetlands, it is good practice to ensure that the associated greenhouse gas emissions are reported
under the proper inventory sectors and categories; countries are encouraged to develop, compile or use the
available information in order to avoid biased estimates.
7.26
ASSESSMENT
Completeness
Chapter 7: Wetlands

7.4.2
Developing a Consistent Time Series
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
General guidance on consistency in time series can be found in Volume 1, Chapter 5 (Time Series Consistency).
The emission estimation method should be applied consistently to every year in the time series, at the same level
of spatial disaggregation. Moreover, when country-specific data are used, national inventories agency should use
the same measurement protocol (sampling strategy, method, etc.) throughout the time series. If this is not
possible, the guidance on interpolation techniques and recalculation in Volume 1 Chapter 5 should be followed.
Differences in emissions between inventory years should be explained, e.g., by demonstrating changes in areas
of peatlands or flooded lands, by updated emission factors. The exclusion from the accounting of reservoirs 10
years post-flooding may create apparent discontinuities; these should be properly explained in the National
Inventory Report.
11
7.4.3
12
13
14
15
16
17
Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures should be developed and implemented as outlined in
Volume 1 Chapter 6 of this report. The development of additional, category-specific quality control and quality
assurance activities may also be applicable (Volume 1, Chapter 6), particularly if higher tier methods are used to
quantify emissions from this source category. Where country-specific emission factors are being used, they
should be based on high quality experimental data, developed using a rigorous measurement programme, and be
adequately documented.
18
19
20
It is, at present, not possible to crosscheck emissions estimates from organic soils managed for peat extraction
with other measurement methods. However, the inventory agency should ensure that emission estimates undergo
quality control by:
21
22
Cross-referencing reported country-specific emissions factors with default values, and values published in
the scientific literature or reported by other countries;
23
Checking the accuracy of activity data with data of peat industries and peat production;
24
Assessing the plausibility of estimates against those of other countries with comparable circumstances.
25
7.4.4
26
27
It is appropriate to document and archive all information required to produce the national emission/removal
inventory estimates as outlined in Volume 1 Chapter 8 of these Guidelines.
28
EMISSION FACTORS
29
30
31
The scientific basis of new country-specific emission factors, parameters and models should be fully described
and documented. This includes defining the input parameters and describing the process by which the emission
factors, parameters and models were derived, as well as describing sources of uncertainties.
32
ACTIVITY DATA
33
34
35
36
Sources of all activity data used in the calculations (data sources, databases and soil map references) should be
recorded, plus (subject to any confidentiality considerations) communication with industry. This documentation
should cover the frequency of data collection and estimation, and estimates of accuracy and precision, and
reasons for significant changes in emission levels.
37
TREND ANALYSIS
38
39
40
41
Significant fluctuations in emissions between years should be explained. A distinction should be made between
changes in activity levels and changes in emission factors, parameters and methods from year to year, and the
reasons for these changes documented. If different emission factors, parameters and methods are used for
different years, the reasons for this should be explained and documented.
42
7. 5 FUTURE METHODOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT
43
44
45
46
47
Other types of managed wetlands may emit or sequester significant amounts of greenhouse gases, notably
restored or constructed wetlands. Restored wetlands are wetlands which have been drained and perhaps
converted to other uses in the past, but have recently been restored back to functioning wetland ecosystems by
raising the water table to pre-drainage levels. In recent decades, public, non-profit and other programs in
numerous countries have begun to restore former wetlands and construct others from uplands. A primary
Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)
7.27
1
2
3
4
purpose is to reduce the runoff from agricultural fields and settlements which causes eutrophication, algal
blooms, and hypoxic dead zones in lakes, estuaries, and enclosed bays and seas. Other important benefits
include reducing flood damage, stabilizing shorelines and river deltas, retarding saltwater seepage, recharging
aquifers, and improving wildlife, waterfowl, and fish habitat.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Most operational wetland restorations have occurred since 1990. The technical literature describes programs or
projects in some 15 countries in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia and New Zealand, in particular the
river deltas. This literature suggests that wetland ecosystems can be restored, but over variable periods of time
and with variable resemblance to natural wetland ecosystems. Currently there is no available compilation of the
global area of wetland restoration and construction. The IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land-use Change
and Forestry estimates that maximum areas available for restoration are in the range of 30 to 250 Mha (Watson
et al. 2000).
12
13
14
15
16
At the time of preparation of these Guidelines, published studies based on observational data are too recent and
limited to develop default emission factors for any of the major greenhouse gases--- CO2, CH4 or N2O. Better
understanding of the biogeochemical fluxes within drainage basins will be needed to prevent double-counting
emissions due to fertilizer application and waste treatment. Hence the estimation of greenhouse gas emissions
and removals from restored or constructed wetlands remains an area for further development.
17
18
19
20
21
An increase in CH4 emissions is expected to occur upon the rewetting of organic soils. A first approximation of
CH4 emissions on rewetted organic soils with a forest cover is from 0 to 60 kg CH4 ha-1 yr-1 in temperate and
boreal climates, and from 280 to 1260 kg CH4 ha-1 yr-1 in tropical climates (Bartlett and Harriss, 1993).
However, in the short term these emissions may not return to their pre-drainage levels (Tuittila et al., 2000;
Komulainen et al, 1998).
22
23
24
25
26
27
The effect of non-point nutrient sources to flooded lands (reservoirs) also remains poorly documented. Countries
using advanced, domestic approaches should implement cross-sectoral checks, ideally using mass-balance, to
ensure that the fate of all carbon and nitrogen released in a watershed is properly accounted for. The lack of
observational data from reservoirs in Asia is a notable gap in the data samples used to develop CO2 emission
factors for flooded land. It may be possible, in future editions of these guidelines, to incorporate more
information from this region.
28
7.28
Chapter 7: Wetlands

References
2
3
SECTION 7.2
EXTRACTION
4
5
Alm J., Saario S., Nyknen N., Silvola J. and Martikainen P. J. (1999) Winter CO2, CH4, and N2O fluxes on
some natural and drained boreal peatlands. Biogeochemistry. 44: 163-186.
6
7
Bartlett K.B. and R.C. Harriss (1993) Review and assessment of methane emissions from wetlands.
Chemosphere 26:261-320.
8
9
Canadian Sphagnum Peat Moss Association (2004) Harvesting Peat in Canada http://www.peatmoss.com/pmharvest.html
10
11
Cicerone R. J. and Oremland R. S. (1988) Biogeochemical aspects of atmospheric methane. Global

Biogeochemical Cycles. 2: 288-327.
12
13
Cleary J., Roulet N.T. and Moore T.R. (2005) Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Canadian Peat Extraction, 19902000: A life-cycle analysis. Ambio 34(6):456-461.
14
International Peat Society (2004), Environmental Assessment of Peat Production www.peatsociety.fi
15
Joosten, H. 2004. The IMCG Global Peatland Database. [chapter, date]. www.imcg.net/gpd/gpd.htm
16
17
Joosten H. and Clarke D. (2002) Wise Use of Mires and Peatlands.Internation Mire Conservation Group and
International Peat Society, Saarijarvi, Finland, 304 p.
18
19
Klemedtsson, L., Von Arnold K., Weslien P., and Gundersen, P. (2005) Soil CN ratio as a scalar parameter to
predict nitrous oxide emissions. Global Change Biology 11:1142-1147
20
21
22
Komulainen V.-M., H. Nyknen , P.J. Martikainen and J. Laine (1998) Short-term effect of restoration on
vegetation change and methane emissions from peatlands drained for forestry ins outhern Finland. Can. J. For.
Res. 28:402-411.
23
24
Komulainen V-M., Tuittila E-S., Vasander H. and Laine J. (1999) Restoration of drained peatlands in southern
Finland : initial effects on vegetation change and CO2 balance. J. Appl. Ecol. 36:634-648.
25
26
Laine J. and Minkkinen K. (1996) Effect of forest drainage on the carbon balance of a mire--a case study.
Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. 11: 307-312.
27
28
29
Laine J., Silvola J., Tolonen K., Alm J., Nyknen N., Vasander H., Sallantaus T., Savolainen I., Sinisalo J. and
Martikainen P. J. (1996) Effect of water-level drawdown on global climatic warming--northern peatlands.
Ambio. 25: 179-184.
30
Lappalainen E. (1996) Global Peat Resources.International Peat Society Saarijarvi, Finland, 368 p.
31
32
LUSTRA (2002) Land-use Strategies for Reducing Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions Secondary Land Use
Strategies for Reducing Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions Annual Report 2002 Uppsala, Sweden.162 p.
33
34
Martikainen P. J., Nyknen N., Alm J. and Silvola J. (1995) Change in fluxes of carbon dioxide, methane, and
nitrous oxide due to forest drainage of mire sites of diferent trophy, . Plant and Soil. 169: 571-577.
35
36
Minkkinen K., Korhonen R., Savolainen I. and Laine J. (2002) Carbon balance and radiative forcing of Finnish
peatlands 1990-2100 the impact of forestry drainage. Global Change Biology. 8: 785-799.
37
Mitsch W. J. and Gosselink J. G. (2000) Wetlands.3rd ed, . Wiley, New York, 920 p.
38
39
Moore T. R. and Knowles R. (1989) The influence of water table levels on methane and carbon dioxide
emissions from peatland soils. Canadian journal of soil science. 69 (1): p. 33-38.
40
41
42
Nilsson, K., Nillson, M. (2004) The Climate Impact of Energy Peat Utilsation in Sweden--the Effect of Former
Land-Use and After Treatment. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute. Report
B1606. Stockholm, 91 p.
43
44
Petrone R.M., Waddington J.M., Price J.S. (2003) Ecosystem-scale flux of CO2 from a restored vacuum
harvested peatland. Wetlands Ecology and Management 11:419-432.
45
46
47
48
Ramsar, 1996. The Ramsar Convention definition of "wetland" and classification system for wetland
type. Appendix A of Strategic framework and guidelines for the future development of the list of wetlands of
international Importance of the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971). Available at
www.ramsar.org/key_guide_list_e.htm.
PEATLANDS
MANAGED
OR
BEING
CONVERTED
FOR
PEAT
7.29
1
2
3
Regina K., Mykanen N., Silvola J. and Martikainen P. J. (1996) Nitrous oxide production in boreal peatlans of
different hydrolog and nutrient status. In: Northern Peatlands in Global Climatic Change, Proceedings of the
International Workshop
4
5
Sirin A and Minayeva T. eds (2001) Peatlands of Russia: towards the analyses of sectoral information GEOS,
Moscow, 190 pp. (in Russian).
6
7
Strack M. J.M. Waddington and E.-S. Tuittila (2004) Effect of water table drawdown on northern peatland
methane dynamics: implications for climate change. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 18, GB4003.
8
9
Sundh I., Nilsson M., Mikkala C., Granberg G. and Svensson B. H. (2000) Fluxes of methane and carbon
dioxide on peat-mining areas in Sweden, . Ambio. 29: 499-503.
10
US Geological Survey (2004) US Minerals Yearbook. www.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/peat
11
12
Waddington J.M. and P. McNeil (2002) Peat oxidation in an abandoned cutover peatland. Can.J.Soil Sci.
82:279-286.
13
14
Waddington J.M., Warner K.D. and Kennedy G.W. (2002) Cutover peatlands: a persistent source of atmospheric
CO2. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 16(1) 10:10292001GB001398
15
16
Waddington J.M. and Price J.S. (2000) Effect of peatland drainage, harvesting, and restoration on atmospheric
water and carbon exchange. Physical Geography 21(5):433-451.
17
18
19
20
21
Watson , R. T., Ian R. Noble, Bert Bolin, N. H. Ravindranath, David J. Verardo and David J. Dokken (Eds.)
2000. Special Report of the IPCC on Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry. Cambridge University
Press, UK. pp 375
World Energy Council (2004): http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/peat/peat.asp
22
23
SECTION 7.3 FLOODED LANDS
24
25
26
berg J., A.K. Bergstrm, G. Algesten, K. Sderback, M. Jansson, 2004, A comparison of the carbon balances
of a natural lake (L. strsket) and a hydroelectric reservoir (L. Skinnmuddselet) in northern Sweden, Water
Research, 28, 531-538.
27
28
29
Abril, G., F. Gurin, S. Richard, R. Delmas, C. Galy-Lacaux, P. Gosse, A. Tremblay, L. Varfalvy, M. Aurelio
Dos Santos et B. Matvienko, 2005. Carbon Dioxide and Methane Emissions and the carbon budget of a
10-years old Tropical Reservoir (Petit-Saut, French Guiana). In press in Global Biogeochemical Cycle.
30
31
Bergstrm, A.K., G. Algesten, S. Sobek, L. Tranvik, M. Jansson, 2004, Emission of CO2 from hydroelectric
reservoirs in northern Sweden, Arch. Hydrobiol., 159,1, 25-42.
32
33
Cole, J.J. and N.F. Caraco, 2001, Carbon in catchments: connecting terrestrial carbon losses with aquatic
metabolism. Marine and Freshwater Research. 52:101-110
34
35
36
37
38
Delmas, R.. S. Richard, F. Gurin, G. Abril, C. Galy-Lacaux, C. Delon and A. Grgoire, 2005. Long Term
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Hydroelectric Reservoir of Petit Saut (French Guiana) and Potential
Impacts. In Tremblay, A., L. Varfalvy, C. Roehm and M. Garneau (Eds.). Greenhouse gas Emissions: Fluxes
and Processes, Hydroelectric Reservoirs and Natural Environments. Environmental Science Series, Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp. 293-312.
39
40
Dos Santos, M.A., 2000, Inventrio emisses de gases de efeito estufa derivadas de Hidrletricas, PhD.
Dissertation, University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 154p.
41
42
43
Duchemin, E., M. Lucotte, R. Canuel and N Soumis,, 2005, First assessment of CH4 and CO2 emissions from
shallow and deep zones of boreal reservoirs upon ice break-up, accepted in Lakes and reservoirs: research
and management.
44
45
46
Duchemin, , 2000, Hydroelectricity and greenhouse gases: Emission evaluation and identification of
biogeochemical processes responsible for their production, PhD. Dissertation, Universit du Qubec
Montral, Montral (Qubec), Canada, 321 p (available on CD-ROM).
47
48
Duchemin, ., M. Lucotte, R. Canuel and A. Chamberland, 1995, Production of the greenhouse gases CH4 and
CO2 by hydroelectric reservoirs of the boreal region, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 9, 4, 529-540.
49
50
51
Duchemin, ., M. Lucotte, R. Canuel, D. Almeida Cruz, H. C. Pereira, J. Dezincourt and A. G. Queiroz, 2000,
Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from an Old Tropical Reservoir and from other Reservoirs
Worldwide, Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol., 27, 3, 1391-1395.
7.30
Chapter 7: Wetlands

1
2
3
Duchemin, ., R. Canuel, P. Ferland, and M. Lucotte, 1999, tude sur la production et lmission de gaz effet
de serre par les rservoirs hydrolectriques dHydro-Qubec et des lacs naturels (Volet 2), Scientific report,
Direction principal Planification Stratgique - Hydro-Qubec, 21046-99027c, 48p.
4
5
Fearnside, P.M., 2002, Greenhouse gas emissions from a hydroelectric reservoir (Brazils Tucurui dam) and the
energy policy implications, Water Air and Soil Pollution 133, 1-4, 69-96.
6
7
8
Galy-Lacaux, C. 1996. Modifications des changes de constituants mineurs atmosphriques lies la cration
d'une retenue hydrolectrique. Impact des barrages sur le bilan du mthane dans l'atmosphre, PhD
dissertation, Universit Paul Sabatier, Toulouse (France), 200 p.
9
10
11
Galy-Lacaux, C., R. Delmas, C. Jambert, J.-F. Dumestre, L. Labroue, S. Richard and P. Gosse, 1997, Gaseous
emissions and oxygen consumption in hydroelectric dams: a case study in French Guyana, Global
Biogeochemical Cycles, 11, 4, 471-483.
12
13
14
Hlie, J.F., 2004, Geochemistry and fluxes of organic and inorganic in aquatic systems of eastern Canada:
examples of the St-Lawrence River and Robert-Bourassa reservoir: Isotopic approach, PhD. Dissertation,
Universit du Qubec Montral, Montral (Qubec), Canada, 205p.
15
16
Houel, 2003, Dynamique de la matire organique terrigne dans les rservoirs boraux, PhD. Dissertation,
17
18
19
Huttunen J.T., J. Alm, A. Liikanen, S. Juutinen, T. Larmola, T. Hammar, J. Silvola, P. J. Martikainen, 2003,
Fluxes of methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide in boreal lakes and potential anthropogenic effects on
the aquatic greenhouse gas emissions, Chemosphere, 52, 609-621
20
21
22
23
Huttunen, J.T., T.S. Visnen, S. K. Hellsten, M. Heikkinen, H. Nyknen, H. Jungner, A. Niskanen, M.O.
Virtanen, O.V. Lindqvist, O.S. Nenonen, and P.J. Martikainen, 2002, Fluxes of CH4, CO2, and N2O in
hydroelectric reservoir Lokka and Porttipahta in the northern boreal zone in Finland, Global Biogeochemical
Cycles, 16, 1, doi:10.1029/2000GB001316.
24
25
International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD). 1998. World register of Dams 1998. Paris. International
Comittee on large Dams (Ed.). Metadatabase.
26
27
Keller, M. and R.F. Stallard. 1994. Methane emission by bubbling from Gatun lake, Panama, J. Geophys. Res.,
99, D4, 8307-8319.
28
29
Rosa, L.P., Schaeffer, R. and Santos, M.A., 1996. Are Hydroelectric Dams in the Brazalian Amazon Significant
Sources of Greenhouse Gases ? Environmental Conservation, 66, No. 1: 2-6. Cambridge University Press.
30
31
Rosa, L.P., Santos, M.A., Matvienko, B., Santos, E.O. and Sikar, E., 2004. Greehouse Gas Emissions from
Hydroelectric Reservoirs in tropical Regions, Climatic Change, 66: 9-21.
32
33
34
Rosa, L. P., B. Matvienko Sikar, M.A. dos Santos, E. Matvienko Sikar, 2002, Emissoes de dioxido de carbono e
de metano pelos reservatorios hydroelectricos brasileiros, Relatorio de referencia Inventorio brasileiro de
emissoes antropicas de gase de efeito de estufa, Ministerio da Ciencia e tecnologia, Brazil, 199p.
35
36
Schlellhase, H.U. 1994. B.C. Hydro Strategic R&D; Carbon project - Reservoir case study, Powertech Labs inc.,
Final Report, 1-57.
37
38
Smith, L.K., W.M. Lewis, 1992, Seasonality of methane emissions from five lakes and associated wetlands of
the Colorado Rockies, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 6, 4, 323-338
39
40
41
42
Soumis, N., M. Lucotte, . Duchemin, R. Canuel, S. Weissenberger, S. Houel, et C. Larose. 2005.

Hydroelectric reservoirs as anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases. In Water Encyclopedia. Volume 3:
Surface and agricultural water, sous la dir. de J. H. Lehr et J. Keeley. p. 203-210. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons.
43
44
Soumis, N., . Duchemin, R. Canuel, et M. Lucotte, 2004, Greenhouse gas emissions from reservoirs of the
western United States, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 18, GB3022, doi:10.1029/2003GB002197.
45
46
St-Louis, V., C. A. Kelly, . Duchemin, J. W. M. Rudd and D.M. Rosenberg, 2000, Reservoir surfaces as
sources of greenhouse gases: a global estimate, Bioscience, 50, 9, 766-775.
47
48
Tavares de Lima I, 2005, Biogeochemical distinction of methane releases from two Amazon hydroreservoirs,
Chemosphere, In Press
49
50
51
Tavares de Lima I. 2002. Emissoa de metano em reservatorio hidreletricos amazonicos atraves de leis de
potencia (Methane emission from Amazonian hydroelectric reservoirs through power laws), PhD Dissertation,
Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 119 p.
7.31
1
2
3
Therrien, J., 2005. Amnagement hydrolectrique de l'Eastmain-1 tude des gaz effet de serre en milieux
aquatiques 2003-2004. Rapport de GENIVAR Groupe Conseil Inc. la Socit d'nergie de la Baie
James. 48 p. et annexes.
4
5
Therrien, J., 2004. Flux de gaz effet de serre en milieux aquatiques - Suivi 2003. Rapport de GENIVAR
Groupe Conseil Inc. prsent Hydro-Qubec. 52 p. et annexes.
6
7
8
9
Therrien, J., A. Tremblay and R. Jacques, 2005, CO2 Emissions From Semi-arid Reservoirs and Natural Aquatic
Ecosystems. In Tremblay, A., L. Varfalvy, C. Roehm et M. Garneau (Eds.). Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
Fluxes and Processes, Hydroelectric Reservoirs and Natural Environments. Environmental Science Series,
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp. 233-250.
10
11
12
13
Tremblay, A., J. Therrien, B. Hamlin, E. Wichmann and L. LeDrew, 2005, GHG Emissions from Boreal
Reservoirs and Natural Aquatic Ecosystems. In Tremblay, A., L. Varfalvy, C. Roehm and M. Garneau (Eds.).
Greenhouse gas Emissions: Fluxes and Processes, Hydroelectric Reservoirs and Natural Environments.
Environmental Science Series, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp. 209-231.
14
15
WCD, 2000, Dams and Development a new framework for Decision-Making, The report of the World
Commission on Dams, Earthscan Publications Ltd, London and Sterling, VA, 356 p.
16
7.32
Chapter 8: Settlements

2
3
CHAPTER 8
SETTLEMENTS
8.1
1
Authors
2
3
Jennifer C. Jenkins (USA), Hector Daniel Ginzo (Argentina), Stephen M. Ogle (USA), and Louis V. Verchot
(ICRAF/USA)
4
5
Mariko Handa (Japan), and Atsushi Tsunekawa (Japan)
8.2

Contents
8.1
Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 5
8.2
Settlements Remaining Settlements ............................................................................................................ 6
8.2.1
Biomass .......................................................................................................................................... 6
8.2.1.1
Choice of Method............................................................................................................................ 6
8.2.1.2
Choice of Emission Factors............................................................................................................. 8
8.2.1.3
8.2.1.4
10
8.2.2
11
8.2.2.1
Choice of Method.......................................................................................................................... 12
12
8.2.2.2
13
8.2.2.3
14
8.2.2.4
15
8.2.3
Soil Carbon .................................................................................................................................. 14
16
8.2.3.1
Choice of Method.......................................................................................................................... 15
17
8.2.3.2
18
8.2.3.3
19
8.2.3.4
20
21
8.3
Land Converted to Settlements ................................................................................................................. 17
8.3.1
Biomass ........................................................................................................................................ 18
22
8.3.1.1
Choice of Method.......................................................................................................................... 18
23
8.3.1.2
24
8.3.1.3
25
8.3.1.4
26
8.3.2
27
8.3.2.1
Choice of Method.......................................................................................................................... 20
28
8.3.2.2
29
8.3.2.3
30
8.3.2.4
31
8.3.3
Soil Carbon .................................................................................................................................. 22
32
8.3.3.1
Choice of Method.......................................................................................................................... 23
33
8.3.3.2
Choice of Emission Factor ............................................................................................................ 24
34
8.3.3.3
35
8.3.3.4
36
8.4
Completeness, Time Series, QA/QC, and Reporting ................................................................................ 25
37
8.4.1
Completeness ............................................................................................................................... 25
38
8.4.2
Developing a Consistent Time Series .......................................................................................... 25
8.3
1
8.4.3
Inventory Quality Assurance/Quality Control.............................................................................. 25
8.4.4
Reporting and Documentation...................................................................................................... 26
8.5
Basis For Future Methodological Development........................................................................................ 26
Equations
Equation 8.1 Annual carbon change in live biomass pools in settlements remaining settlements................6
Equation 8.2 Annual biomass increment based on total crown cover area ...................................................7
Equation 8.3 Annual biomass growth based on number of individual woody plants in broad classes ........7
Tables
10
11
12
Table 8.1 Tier 2a default crown cover area-based growth rates

(tonnes C ha-1 yr-1) (CRW) for urban tree crown cover by region .......................................9
13
14
Table 8.2 Tier 2b default average annual carbon accumulation per tree (tonnes C yr-1)
in urban trees by species classes ........................................................................................10
15
16
Table 8.3 Default activity data by potential natural vegetation (PNV) type
(Kuchler 1969) for percent tree cover ................................................................................11
17
Table 8.4 Default biomass carbon stocks removed due to land conversion to settlements.......................18
18
8.4

8.1
INTRODUCTION
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
This Chapter provides methods for estimating carbon stock changes and greenhouse gas emissions and removals
associated with changes in biomass, dead organic matter (DOM), and soil carbon on lands classified as
settlements. Settlements are defined in Chapter 3 as including all developed land -- i.e. residential, transportation,
commercial, and production (commercial, manufacturing) infrastructure of any size, unless it is already included
under other land-use categories. The land-use category Settlements includes soils, herbaceous perennial
vegetation such as turf grass and garden plants, trees in rural settlements, homestead gardens and urban areas.
Examples of settlements include land along streets, in residential (rural and urban) and commercial lawns, in
public and private gardens, in golf courses and athletic fields, and in parks, provided such land is functionally or
administratively associated with particular cities, villages or other settlement types and is not accounted for in
another land-use category. See Chapter 3 for area reporting guidelines and for definitions of the six land-use
categories.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Roughly 2% of Earths terrestrial surface is covered by urban areas, which are home over 3 billion people. Over
half of the world population currently lives in cities; this number is projected to double within 50 years (Crane
and Kinzig, 2005). In many regions land classified as urban, based on population density or city boundaries, is
just a subset of land that can be classified as settlements using the criteria described above. These areas of lessdense settlement may extend well beyond the officially-defined border of a city, and in many regions their areas
are expanding quickly (Elvidge et al., 2004; Gallo et al., 2004; Theobald, 2004). In areas that are primarily rural,
even if land uses are not changing quickly, land devoted to residential uses can occupy a significant portion of
the landscape. Transitions of Forest land, Cropland, and Grassland to Settlements can have important impacts on
carbon stocks and fluxes (Imhoff et al., 2000; Milesi et al., 2003).
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Vegetation management in settlements may result in gains, losses, or transfers of carbon amongst the relevant
pools. For example branches removed during pruning or turfgrass clippings (biomass losses) may be left on site
(transfer to litter), disposed of as solid waste (transfer to waste), or burned (emitted). Emissions of the relevant
greenhouse gases are accounted for in the appropriate sections of the present guidance. For example, Table 2.3 in
Chapter 2 Volume 5 (Waste), includes wood/ yard waste in national-scale statistics describing the fate of
municipal solid waste at the national scale. Biomass removed as fuelwood from trees in settlements and used as
fuel is accounted for in the Energy Sector. The net effect of conversion or management leading to increment, on
the one hand, or to loss (such as from burning and decay), on the other, determines the overall C balance in
settlements.
31
32
33
34
35
Soils and DOM in Settlements remaining Settlements or in land converted to Settlements may be sources or
sinks of CO2, depending on previous land use, topsoil burial or removal during development, current
management, particularly with respect to nutrient and water applications, and the type and amount of vegetation
cover interspersed among roads, buildings and associated infrastructure (Goldman et al., 1995; Jo, 2002; Pouyat
et al., 2002; Qian and Follett, 2002; Kaye et al., 2004; Kaye et al., 2005).
36
37
The 1996 Guidelines covered above-ground biomass in trees in rural settlements, but not other settlement
categories and pools.
38
The 2006 Guidelines differ from those in the GPG-LULUCF as follows:
39
40
The discussion and detailed methodologies has been moved from the Appendix to the main text and
considered as a greenhouse gas emission source or removal sector;
41
42
The discussion and methodologies have been expanded to include the five biomass pools described in
Chapter 1;
43
Tier 1 default methodologies are presented;
44
45
Additional data appropriate for Tiers 2 and 3 have been published since the GPG-LULUCF and are included
here; and
46
47
An expanded discussion on developing and applying country-specific Tier 2 and Tier 3 methodologies and
values is included, including methods to work with more detailed activity data.
48
49
50
51
The carbon pools estimated for Settlements are above-ground and below-ground biomass, DOM, and soils.
Sections 8.2 and 8.3 respectively describe methodology to estimate changes in carbon stocks for Settlements
remaining Settlements, and to estimate carbon stocks on land converted to Settlements. The methodology in the
second section is broadly applicable to land converted to Settlements from any other type of land.
8.5
1
8.2
2
3
4
5
6
This category refers to all classes of urban formations that have been in use as settlements (e.g., areas that are
functionally or administratively associated with public or private land in cities, villages, or other settlement
types), since the last time data were collected. Emissions and removals of CO2 in this category are estimated by
the subcategories of changes in carbon stocks in biomass (both woody and perennial non-woody components), in
DOM, and in soils, as summarized in Equation 2.3 in Chapter 2.
7
8
9
10
The biomass pool in settlements has woody and herbaceous components. For woody biomass, carbon stock
change is calculated as the difference between biomass increment and biomass loss due to management activities.
For herbaceous biomass (such as turfgrass or garden plants) in Settlements remaining Settlements, the carbon
stock change in biomass can usually be assumed to be zero.
11
12
13
14
15
16
The DOM pool in settlements contains dead wood and litter from both woody and herbaceous components. For
the woody vegetation, changes in this pool can be quantified as production of coarse and fine litter from woody
plants. For herbaceous vegetation, annual production of DOM is estimated as the accumulation of thatch plus
production of herbaceous material such as garden waste and yard trimmings. Greenhouse gas emissions
associated with waste sector are estimated in Volume 5 (Waste) and therefore the methods in this Chapter
describe only those components of annual production that can reasonably be expected to stay on-site.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Soil C pools vary with time depending on the balance between C inputs from plant litter and other forms of
organic matter and C outputs resulting from decomposition, erosion and leaching. Estimating the impact of
settlement management on soil C storage will be particularly important in countries with a large portion of land
in cities and towns, or high rates of settlement expansion. For mineral soils, the impact of settlement land use
and management on soil C stocks can be estimated based on differences in storage among settlement cover
classes relative to a reference condition, such as native lands. Although organic soils are less commonly used for
settlements, C is emitted from these soils if they are drained for development due to enhanced decomposition,
similar to the effect of drainage for agricultural purposes (Armentano, 1986). In addition, peat may be harvested
from organic soils during settlement development, which will also generate emissions to the atmosphere.
26
8.2.1
Biomass
27
8.2.1.1
C HOICE
28
29
30
31
32
The general method for biomass carbon stock change in Settlements remaining Settlements follows the approach
in Equation 2.7 in Chapter 2. This method estimates changes in biomass carbon stocks, accounting for gains in
carbon stocks in biomass as a result of growth minus losses in carbon stocks as a result of pruning and mortality.
Depending on the relative magnitudes of the increment and loss terms, the average annual changes in biomass
carbon stocks in settlements may be positive or negative.
33
34
Biomass change in Settlements remaining Settlements is the sum of biomass change in three components: trees,
shrubs, and herbaceous perennials (e.g. turfgrass and garden plants), as described in Equation 8.1.
35
36
EQUATION 8.1
ANNUAL CARBON CHANGE IN LIVE BIOMASS POOLS IN SETTLEMENTS REMAINING SETTLEMENTS
37
C B = CTrees + C Shrubs + C Herbs
38
SETTLEMENTS REMAINING SETTLEMENTS
OF
M ETHOD
Where:
39
40
CB = annual carbon accumulation attributed to biomass increment in Settlements remaining

Settlements, tonnes C yr-1
41
42
CTrees = annual carbon accumulation attributed to biomass increment in trees in Settlements remaining
Settlements, tonnes C yr-1
43
44
CShrubs = annual carbon accumulation attributed to biomass increment in shrubs in Settlements

remaining Settlements, tonnes C yr-1
45
46
CHerbs = annual carbon accumulation attributed to biomass increment in herbaceous biomass in

Settlements remaining Settlements, tonnes C yr-1
8.6

1
2
3
Depending on the availability of relevant activity data and appropriate emission factors, any of the
methodological tiers described below can be used. Figure 2.2 in Chapter 2 also provides guidance for the
identification of the appropriate tier to estimate changes in carbon in biomass.
Tier 1
5
6
7
8
Tier 1 assumes no change in carbon stocks in live biomass in Settlements remaining Settlements, in other words
that the growth and loss terms balance. If Settlements remaining Settlements is determined to be a key category,
then a country should collect appropriate activity data and/or develop emission factors appropriate to the region
and adopt Tier 2 or 3.
Tier 2
10
11
12
13
14
There are two options for Tier 2 estimation of changes in biomass in Settlements remaining Settlements. Tier 2a
uses changes in carbon stocks per unit of plant crown cover area as a removal factor, and Tier 2b uses changes in
carbon stocks per number of plants as a removal factor. The choice of method will depend on availability of
activity data. Tier 2a and Tier 2b both provide methods for estimating CG in Equation 2.7 (Gain-Loss Method).
This is appropriate for countries lacking a continuous inventory in Settlements remaining Settlements.
15
16
17
18
19
20
The main perennial types are trees, shrubs, and herbaceous perennials (such as turfgrass and garden plants). The
methods as presented here set the change in biomass of herbaceous annuals to zero in Settlements remaining
Settlements on the basis that growth of herbaceous biomass (whether perennial or annual herbaceous vegetation)
is equal to loss from harvest or mortality. Countries may choose to define tree and woody perennial types as
appropriate and each types may be further divided into classes defined according to species, climate zone,
seasonality, or other criteria as appropriate and if data are available.
21
Tier 2a: Crown cover area method
22
23
This method is represented by Equation 8.2 and should be used when data are available on total area of crown
cover in perennial types (j) and their classes (i) in Settlements remaining Settlements.
24
25
EQUATION 8.2
ANNUAL BIOMASS INCREMENT BASED ON TOTAL CROWN COVER AREA
CG = ATi , j CRWi , j
26
i, j
27
Where:
28
29
CG = annual carbon accumulation attributed to biomass increment in Settlements remaining Settlements,

tonnes C yr-1
30
ATij = total crown cover area of class i in woody perennial1 type j, ha
31
32
CRWij = crown cover area-based growth rate of class i in woody perennial type j, tonnes C (ha crown
cover)-1 yr-1
33
Tier 2b: Individual plant2 growth method
34
35
36
37
The method is represented by Equation 8.3 and should be used where data on the number of woody plants by
broad species class in Settlements remaining Settlements are available. It is possible when making estimates for
trees to convert between the methods used in Tiers 2a and 2b, by assuming that an individual tree in an urban
area covers approximately 50 m2 crown area when mature (cf. Akbari, 2002).
38
39
40
ANNUAL BIOMASS GROWTH
EQUATION 8.3
BASED ON NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL WOODY PLANTS IN BROAD
CLASSES
CG = NTi , j Ci , j
41
i, j
42
Where:
References to woody perennials include trees unless otherwise specified.
References to plants include trees unless otherwise specified.
8.7
1
2
CG = annual carbon accumulation due to live biomass increment in Settlements remaining Settlements,
tonnes C yr-1
NTij = number of individuals of class i in perennial type j
Cij = annual average carbon accumulation per class i of perennial type j, tonnes C yr-1 per individual
Tier 3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Tier 3 approaches can be based either on Tier 2 methods above (Equations 8.2 and 8.3) with more detailed
measurements of parameters at disaggregated level for different settlement systems such as parks, rural or urban
residential areas, avenues, etc., or on a stock difference approach based on Equation 2.8. Change in carbon
stocks are estimated at two points in time, where the changes account for biomass carbon gains and losses. The
generic approach for this method calls for forest-specific biomass expansion factors (BEFs) which do not apply
to settlements. Countries wishing to use the stock difference method to estimate biomass change in Settlements
remaining Settlements should consider using allometric methods such as those based on individual tree diameter
at breast height (dbh) (Jenkins et al., 2004), adjusted for open-grown trees as described above, rather than forest
specific BEFs for estimating tree biomass.
15
8.2.1.2
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Few allometric biomass equations exist specifically for trees or shrubs in urban settings (Nowak, 1996; Jo, 2002)
so investigators have tended to apply equations derived for forest trees, adjusting the resulting biomass with a
coefficient (such as 0.80 [Nowak, 1994; Nowak and Crane, 2002]) intended to take account of the allometry of
open-grown trees in cities where above-ground biomass for a given diameter is typically lower than that of
forest-grown trees (Nowak, 1996). Allometric equations for some shrub species exist, but have not routinely
been applied to urban settings (Smith and Brand, 1983; Nowak et al., 2002 for shrub leaf biomass estimates).
Below-ground tree biomass can be derived from above-ground biomass by multiplying the latter by an estimated
root: shoot ratio, as described by Cairns et al. (1997) and applied for urban settings by Nowak et al. (2002). See
Chapter 4 (Forest land) for examples of root: shoot ratios (R) (also called below-ground to above-ground
biomass ratio) often used in forest settings. Ratios appropriate to the region of interest can be assumed to apply
without modification to settlements.
27
28
29
30
31
32
Tree growth and mortality in settlements can be affected by urban conditions such as variations in local air
quality, atmospheric deposition, enhanced atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and reduced air exchange in the root
zone due to impermeable paving surfaces (e.g. Pouyat et al., 1995; Idso et al., 1998; Idso et al., 2001; Gregg et
al., 2003; Pouyat and Carreiro, 2003). Therefore, the values and equations used to predict tree growth in
settlements at higher tiers should, to the extent feasible, allow for the surrounding environment and the condition
of the trees.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Carbon stored in the woody components of trees makes up the largest compartment of standing biomass stocks
and annual biomass increment in settlements. Data are still sparse, though availability is increasing. For example,
Nowak and Crane (2002) estimated on a citywide basis that the net annual carbon storage by trees in cities in the
conterminous USA ranged from 600 to 32,200 tonnes C yr-1. Jo (2002) found that the amount of C sequestered
annually in three Korean cities varied from 2,900 to 40,300 tonnes. In Australia, Brack (2002) estimated that the
amount of C sequestered by trees in Canberra between 2008 and 2012 would be 6,000 tonnes C yr-1. Clearly, the
estimates depend on the definition and hence extent of the settlement areas being considered.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The variation is less per unit land area; for ten cities in the United States, measurements of C stored in woody
biomass ranged from 150 to 940 kg C ha-1 yr-1 (Nowak and Crane, 2002) and for three Korean cities annual C
stored in woody biomass varied from 530 to 800 kg C ha-1 yr-1 (Jo, 2002). Trees in urban lawns in Colorado
(USA) stored 1590 kg C ha-1 yr-1 (Kaye et al., 2005). There is still less variation in estimates of annual C storage
per unit of tree crown cover. Nowak and Crane (2002) found that annual sequestration rates ranged from 0.12 to
0.26 kg C m-2 crown cover yr-1, while Brack (2002) used a model to estimate that annual sequestration in
Canberra between 2008 and 2012 would be 0.27 kg C m-2 yr-1.
47
48
49
50
Tier 1
51
for all plant components, and CB = 0 in Equation 2.7.
C HOICE
OF
E MISSION F ACTORS
This method assumes, probably conservatively, that changes in biomass carbon stocks due to growth in biomass
are fully offset by decreases in carbon stocks due to removals (i.e. by harvest, pruning, clipping) from both living
and from dead biomass (e.g. fuelwood, broken branches, etc.). Therefore, in a Tier 1 approach CG = CL and
8.8

Tier 2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tier 2 calls for parameter values for CRWij (Equation 8.2) and Cij (Equation 8.3). A default removal factor for
tree biomass (CRW) of 2.9 tonnes C (ha crown cover)-1 yr -1 is usually suitable for Tier 2a (see Table 8.1). This
estimate is based on a sample of eight US cities, with values that ranged from 1.8 to 3.4 tonnes C (ha crown
cover)-1 yr-1 (Nowak, 2002). Values appropriate to national circumstances can also be developed. Using Tier 2b,
the removal factor is Cij. Table 8.2 provides defaults carbon accumulation rates for tree species classes for use at
Tier 2b. These estimates are based on various allometric equations and limited field data from urban areas in the
USA, and are averages for trees of all sizes (not just mature trees). Tier 2a and 2b methods provide biomass
estimates for total combined above- and below-ground woody biomass. If required below-ground biomass can
be estimated separately using a root: shoot ratio of 0.26 (Nowak et al., 2002).
12
13
14
15
16
17
For Tiers 2a and 2b, the default assumption for CL where the average age of the tree population is less than or
equal to 20 years is zero. This is based on the assumption that urban trees are net sinks for carbon when they are
actively growing and that the active growing period (AGP) is roughly 20 years, depending on tree species,
planting density, and location. Thereafter the method assumes that the accumulation of carbon in biomass slows
with age, and thus for trees older than the AGP, increases in biomass carbon are assumed to be offset by losses
from pruning and mortality. For trees older than the AGP this is conservatively accounted for by setting CGwood
Trees
18
= CLwood. Countries can define AGP depending on their circumstances.
19
20
21
22
Other woody perennial types
23
24
Tiers 2a and 2b both assume no change in herbaceous biomass. Using this method, CGHerbs = CLHerbs and CB is
based on the difference between increment and losses in woody biomass only.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Tier 3
32
33
34
35
Under higher tiers, the assumptions for CL should be evaluated and modified to address national circumstances
better. For instance, countries may have information on age-dependent and/ or species-specific carbon losses in
settlement trees. In this case, countries should develop a loss term and document the resources and rationale
used in its development.
36
37
If a country adopts the stock-difference method (Equation 2.8), it should have representative sampling and
periodic measurement system to estimate the changes in biomass carbon stocks.
Countries may, for any perennial type, develop their own values for CRWij (in Equation 8.2) and Cij (in Equation
8.3). A conservative assumption of no change in any of these components (i.e. CRWij = 0 and Cij = 0) can also
be applied.
For Tier 3 countries should develop plant type-specific biomass increment factors appropriate to national
circumstances. Country-specific parameters and growth equations should be based on the dominant climate
zones and particular species composition of the major settlements areas in a country, before making estimates for
less extensive settlements. If country-specific biomass increment parameters are developed from estimates of
biomass on a dry matter basis, they need conversion to units of carbon using either a default carbon fraction (CF)
of 0.5 tonnes carbon per tonne dry matter, or a carbon fraction that is more appropriate to circumstances.
38
TABLE 8.1
TIER 2A DEFAULT CROWN COVER AREA-BASED GROWTH RATES (TONNES C HA-1 YR-1) (CRW) FOR URBAN TREE CROWN
COVER BY REGION
Region
Default annual carbon accumulation per ha tree crown cover

United States (global default)
2.9 a
Australia
3.6 b
Nowak and Crane 2002; average of 10 US cities.
Brack 2002; modelling analysis in Canberra.
39
40
41
8.9
TABLE 8.2
TIER 2B DEFAULT AVERAGE ANNUAL CARBON ACCUMULATION PER TREE (TONNES C
-1
YR
IN URBAN TREES BY SPECIES CLASSES
Default annual carbon accumulation per tree (tonnes C yr-1)
Broad species class

Aspen
0.0096
Soft Maple
0.0118
Mixed Hardwood
0.0100
Hardwood Maple
0.0142
Juniper
0.0033
Cedar/larch
0.0072
Douglas fir
0.0122
True fir/Hemlock
0.0104
Pine
0.0087
Source: D. Nowak (2002; personal communication)
8.2.1.3
2
3
Tier 1
C HOICE
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA
No activity data are needed.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
The activity data needed to implement a Tier 2 method are either ATij, area of crown cover for each class within
a perennial type (Equation 8.2), or NTij, number of individual plants in each class within a perennial type
(Equation 8.3). Crown cover is defined as the percent of ground covered by a vertical projection of the
outermost perimeter of the natural spread of the foliage. For Tier 2a, crown cover area data (ATij) can be
obtained from aerial photographs of urban areas, provided expertise in photo interpretation, image sampling and
area measurement (Nowak et al., 1996) are available. Values in percent crown cover should be converted to total
crown cover area for use in Equation 8.2 by multiplying the percent crown cover by the total area of the plants
(trees or shrubs) within the outermost perimeter.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
If data are not available to determine percent crown cover, then default activity data can be used. This approach
takes advantage of the fact that settlements found in different biomes as defined by different potential natural
vegetation, or PNV (Kuchler 1969) have been found to have similar values for percent tree cover, total
greenspace, and canopy greenspace (Nowak et al. 1996) (Table 8.3). Settlements found in regions where the
PNV is forest, for example, have substantially higher percent tree cover values than do settlements found in
regions where the PNV is desert (Table 8.3). In Table 8.3, percent total greenspace is the proportion of land area
covered by vegetation or soil (i.e. not impervious surfaces or water), and canopy greenspace is the proportion of
that greenspace filled with tree canopies (calculated as percent canopy cover/ percent total greenspace). The
default data on percent tree crown cover should be multiplied by the settlement area and used with the default
growth rates in Table 8.1, in a simplified version of Equation 8.2, to estimate the annual carbon accumulation in
the tree perennial type. Data on percent greenspace and percent canopy greenspace in Table 8.3 are not needed
for a Tier 2 approach to estimating biomass carbon socks, but may be useful for cross-checking.
25
26
For Tier 2b, records of plant populations, disaggregated into species or broad species classes, may be obtained
from municipal agencies caring for urban vegetation, or from sampling methods.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Tier 3
Tier 2
Under Tier 3, the type of activity data to be collected depends on the methodological approaches used. If the
stock-difference method is used, then it is necessary to disaggregate and estimate area under different types of
vegetation types (parks, rural or urban settlements, avenues, playgrounds, etc) using remote sensing techniques
in different climate or economic development indicators. The higher the tier to be used, the more disaggregated
will be the activity data, and the more precise the estimation methods. The area sampling methods described in
Chapter 3 can be used for this.
34
8.10

1
TABLE 8.3
DEFAULT ACTIVITY DATA BY POTENTIAL NATURAL VEGETATION (PNV) TYPE (KUCHLER 1969) FOR PERCENT TREE COVER
PNV
Forest
Grassland
Desert
Percent tree cover (+/S.E.)
Percent total greenspace

(+/- S.E.)
Percent canopy
greenspace (+/- S.E.)
31.1 (+/- 2.6)

18.9 (+/- 1.5)
9.9 (+/- 2.4)
58.4 (+/- 2.9)

54.8 (+/- 2.1)
64.8 (+/- 4.2)
50.9 (+/- 3.3)

32.9 (+/- 2.3)
16.9 (+/- 4.6)
Source: Nowak et al. (1996)
2
3
4
5
STEP-BY-STEP SUMMARY OF METHOD FOR ESTIMATING CHANGES IN

BIOMASS STOCKS
6
7
The Tier 1 methodology assumes no change in biomass carbon stocks in Settlements remaining Settlements.
Tier 2
Tier 1
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Step 1: Define the total crown cover area in each of the woody perennial types in the settlement. If data are not
available for all types, the method may be applied for trees only, setting the area in other perennial types to zero.
Default activity data for tree cover can be applied using Table 8.3. To estimate total tree crown cover for a
settlement falling in a region where the PNV is grassland, for example, multiply the total land area in the
settlement by the 18.9%, which is the average percent tree cover for settlements found in areas where the PNV is
grassland, from Table 8.3. The total crown cover area of all vegetation (including trees) is calculated as (total
greenspace area = percent greenspace x settlement area) and the aggregated crown cover of the other perennial
vegetation types is the difference between the total greenspace area and the tree crown cover area.
18
19
20
21
22
23
Step 2: Calculate CG for each of the perennial types, using Equation 8.2. The tree crown cover area value
obtained in step 1 should be used for the tree perennial type. Countries may apply a default value of CRW for
trees from Table 8.1, should develop and apply their own values for CRWij. Default values are available only for
CRW for the tree component of vegetation. If CRW values for other perennial types do not exist and cannot be
developed, or if activity data for these types do not exist these parameters may be set to zero, and the tree
component of biomass growth only be estimated.
24
25
26
27
28
Step 3: Calculate CL for plant components, to be used in Equation 2.7 in Chapter 2. For the tree component of
vegetation, it is good practice to set this value equal to zero where the average age of the tree population is less
than or equal to the active growing period (AGP; see Section 8.2.1.2). If average age of trees is greater than the
AGP, then either assume CG = CL or use situation-specific data. In the absence of data to the contrary, assume
that CG = CL for shrubs and herbaceous plants.
29
30
Step 4: Use the values obtained for CG and CL in Equation 2.7 in Chapter 2 to quantify the total change in
biomass carbon in Settlements remaining Settlements.
31
32
33
34
35
Method B: Individual plant growth method

Step 1: Estimate the number of plants in Settlements remaining Settlements for each perennial type (e.g. trees,
shrubs, and herbaceous plants). If data are not available for all of the perennial types, a minimum approach is to
use data for trees only, setting the number of plants in other perennial types to zero. There are no default activity
data for this method.
36
37
38
39
Step 2: Using Equation 8.3, multiply each estimate by the appropriate rate of carbon increment per plant (Cij,)
to obtain the amount of carbon sequestered annually. Default Cij values for trees can be found in Table 8.2; there
are no default values for shrubs or herbaceous species. Countries may choose to apply their own values if
appropriate, or set the missing values to zero and produce estimates for trees only.
40
41
Step 3: As in Equation 8.2, sum the amount of carbon sequestered, CG, by each perennial type over all classes
present in Settlements remaining Settlements.
42
43
44
45
Step 4: Use the estimate of CG in Equation 2.7 in Chapter 2 to estimate the annual change in carbon stock in
biomass. For trees, set CL = 0 if the average age of the tree population is less than or equal to the active
growing period (AGP); if average age of trees is greater than the AGP (Section 8.2.1.2), then either assume
CG = CL or use situation-specific data.
Method A: Crown cover area method
8.11
1
2
Tier 3
A Tier 3 approach requires more detailed information than the Tier 2 approach, such as:
Accounting for different land uses within settlements (residential, recreational, industrial, etc.);
Detailed estimates and models for growth and longevity of the most important plant species;
Fate of pruned and dead wood and other biomass transferred to the DOM pool;
Other items as appropriate for a national circumstances.
8.2.1.4
Tier 1
Assessment of uncertainty is not required, because the change in living biomass is set to zero.
10
Tier 2 and Tier 3
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
The overall uncertainty of any estimate of the change in the carbon stock of living biomass will be a combination
of the individual uncertainties of its component terms. These will be influenced by the heterogeneity between
and within land-use urban types, and also by the intensity and frequency of the stewardship of plants in both
public and private spaces. The uncertainty is likely to be high since there is limited experience in measuring
carbon stock change in urban and rural settlements. The few studies done on the CO2 sink capacity of cities
differ in methodology and scope, but the overall relative uncertainty of the estimate of changes in carbon stocks
is unlikely to be less than 30-50% about the mean.
18
8.2.2
19
20
21
Most of the changes in carbon stock changes associated with dead organic matter (DOM) will be associated with
changes in tree cover in settlements. Methods are provided for two types of DOM pools: 1) dead wood and 2)
litter. Chapter 1of this volume provides detailed definitions of these pools.
22
23
24
25
Dead wood is a diverse pool with many practical problems for measuring in the field and associated uncertainties
about rates of transfer to litter, soil, or emissions to the atmosphere. Amounts of dead wood depend on the time
of last disturbance, the amount of input (mortality) at the time of the disturbance, natural mortality rates, decay
rates, and management.
26
27
28
29
branches, fruits, flowers, and bark, minus the annual rate of decomposition. The litter mass is influenced by the
time since the last disturbance, and the type of disturbance. Management such as wood and grass collection
burning, and grazing dramatically alter litter properties, but there are few studies clearly documenting the effects.
30
31
32
33
34
35
In herbaceous perennial turfgrass communities, thatch accumulates in a thin layer at the soil surface. The depth
of this layer depends on the balance between accumulation (grass production) and decomposition, which varies
substantially with climate and management regime. While the function of this layer has been recognized (Raturi
et al., 2004), there are so far no published data on the overall impact of carbon accumulation in this DOM pool
on landscape-level As a result, these Guidelines acknowledge the potential importance of thatch in the DOM in
settlements but assume that inputs equal outputs so that the net change in carbon stock is zero.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
No studies have yet been published on the accumulation rate of dead wood in settlements, though some studies
have described the production of leaf litter in settlements (cf. Jo and McPherson, 1995). In the only measured
data on this component of carbon flux, (Kaye et al. 2005) found that leaf and shrub litter in residential lawns in
Colorado (USA) totalled 49 g C m-2 yr-1, or roughly 13% of total above-ground productivity (383 g C m-2 yr-1).
Since the rate of soil respiration in settlements is typically quite high compared to native landscapes (Koerner
and Klopatek, 2002; Kaye et al., 2005), it is likely that fine litterfall decays quickly. The conservative approach,
therefore, is to set the accumulation rate of the litter component of DOM to zero.
43
8.2.2.1
44
45
46
47
Estimation of changes in carbon stocks in DOM requires an estimate of changes in stocks of dead wood and
changes in litter stocks (refer to Equation 2.17 of Chapter 2). Each of the DOM pools is treated separately, but
the method for determining changes in each pool is the same. The decision tree in Chapter 2, Figure 2.3 helps
select the appropriate tier.
8.12
Dead Organic Matter
C HOICE
OF
M ETHOD

1
2
3
Tier 1: Tier 1 assumes that the dead wood and litter stocks are at equilibrium, and so there is no need to estimate
the carbon stock changes for these pools. Countries experiencing significant changes in tree cover in settlements
are encouraged to develop national data to quantify this change and report it under Tier 2 or 3 methodologies.
4
5
Tiers 2 and 3: Tiers 2 and 3 allow for calculation of changes in dead wood and litter carbon due to changes in
tree cover. Two methods are suggested for estimating associated carbon stock changes.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Method 1 (Also called the gain-loss method, Equation 2.18 in Chapter 2): This involves estimating the area of
settlement categories and the average annual transfer into and out of dead wood and litter stocks. It requires an
estimate of area under Settlements remaining Settlements according to different climate or ecological zones or
settlement types, disturbance regime, management regime, or other factors significantly affecting dead wood and
litter carbon pools and the quantity of biomass transferred into dead wood and litter stocks as well as the quantity
of biomass transferred out of the dead wood and litter stocks on per hectare basis according to different
settlement types.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Method 2 (Also called the stock-difference method, Equation 2.19 in Chapter 2): This method involves
estimating the area of settlements and the dead wood and litter stocks at two periods of time, t1 and t2. The
deadwood and litter stock changes for the inventory year are obtained by dividing the stock changes by the
period (years) between two measurements. The stock difference method is feasible for countries, which have
periodic inventories in settlements. This method is more suitable for countries adopting Tier 3 methods. Tier 3
methods are used where countries have country-specific emission factors, and substantial national data. Countrydefined methodology may be based on detailed inventories of permanent sample plots for their settlements
and/or models.
21
8.2.2.2
22
23
Carbon fraction: The carbon fraction of deadwood and litter is variable, particularly for litter, and depends on
the stage of decomposition. A value of 0.50 can be used as a default in both cases.
24
Tier 1: Emission factors are unnecessary.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Tier 2: It is good practice to use country level data on DOM for different settlement categories, in combination
with default values if country or regional values are not available for some settlement categories. Countryspecific values for transfer of carbon from live trees and grasses that are harvested to harvest residues and
decomposition (in the case of the gain-loss method), or the net change in DOM pools (in the case of the stockdifference method), can be derived, taking into account domestic expansion factors, settlement types, the rate of
biomass utilization, mortality, management and harvesting practices and the amount of damaged vegetation
during management and harvesting operations.
32
33
34
35
Tier 3: Countries should develop their own methodologies and parameters for estimating changes in DOM.
These methodologies may be derived from Methods 1 or 2 specified above, or may be based on other modelling
or sampling approaches. Periodic sampling where used according to the principles set out in Chapter 3 Annex
3A.3.
36
8.2.2.3
37
38
39
40
41
Activity data consist of areas of Settlements remaining Settlements summarised by major settlement types. Total
settlement areas should be consistent with those reported under other sections of this chapter, notably under the
biomass section of Settlements remaining Settlements. The assessment of changes in DOM will be greatly
facilitated if this information can be used in conjunction with national soils and climate data, vegetation
inventories, and other geophysical data.
42
Step-by-Step summary of method for estimating changes in DOM carbon stocks
43
44
45
Tier 1
Tier 1 assumes DOM inputs and outputs are equal so there are no net annual changes in dead wood or litter
carbon stocks and no further assessment is needed.
46
47
48
Tier 2 or Tier 3 (M ethod 1, ga in- lo ss method)

same.
49
50
51
S t e p 1 . Determine the categories to be used in this assessment and the representative area. The category
consists of definitions of the type of settlements. Area data should be obtained using the methods described in
Chapter 3.
C HOICE
C HOICE
OF
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA
8.13
1
2
3
4
S t e p 2 . Identify values from inventories or scientific studies for the average inputs and outputs of dead wood
or litter for each category. No default factors exist for inputs and outputs from these pools, so countries should
use locally available data. Calculate the net change in the DOM pools by subtracting the outputs from the inputs.
Negative values indicate a net decrease in the stock (Equation 2.18).
5
6
7
S t e p 3 . Determine the net change in DOM carbon stocks for each category. Multiply the change in DOM
stocks by the carbon fraction of the deadwood or litter to determine the net change in dead wood and litter
carbon stocks.
8
9
S t e p 4 . Determine the total change in the DOM carbon pools for each category by multiplying the
representative area of each category by the net change in DOM carbon stocks for that category.
10
11
across all categories.
12
13
14
Tier 2 or Tier 3 (M ethod 2, sto ck - d if f e r en ce m et h o d )

15
S t e p 1 . Determine the settlement categories and area as described in Step 1 above.
16
17
18
19
S t e p 2 . From the inventory data, identify the inventory time interval, the average stock of DOM at the initial
inventory (t1), and the average stock of DOM at the final inventory (t2). Use these figures to calculate the net
annual change in DOM stocks by subtracting the DOM stock at t1 from the DOM stock at t2 and dividing this
difference by the time interval. A negative value indicates a decrease in the DOM stock. (Equation 2.19)
20
21
22
the DOM.
23
24
S t e p 4 . Determine the total change in the DOM carbon pool for each activity category by multiplying the
representative area of each activity category by the net change in DOM carbon stocks for that category.
25
26
across all activity categories.
27
8.2.2.4
28
29
30
31
32
33
There is no need to estimate uncertainty under Tier 1, since DOM pools are assumed to be stable. For Tier 2 and
3 estimates, sources of uncertainty include the degree of accuracy in land area estimates, carbon increment and
loss, carbon stocks, and expansion factor terms. Area data and estimates of uncertainty should be obtained using
the methods in Chapter 3 which provides default uncertainties associated with the different approaches.
Uncertainties associated with carbon stocks and other parameter values are likely to be at least a factor of three
unless country specific data are available from well designed surveys.
34
8.2.3
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Soils in settlements may be sources or sinks of CO2, depending on previous land use; soil burial or collection
during development; current management, particularly with respect to nutrient and water applications; in
addition to the type and amount of vegetation cover interspersed among roads, buildings and associated
infrastructure (Goldman et al., 1995; Pouyat et al., 2002; Jo, 2002; Qian and Follett, 2002; Kaye et al., 2004).
Only a few studies have been conducted at the time of writing that evaluate the effect of settlement management
on soil C, and most of the focus has been on North America (e.g., Pouyat et., 2002), making it difficult to
generalize. For example, there are likely to be large differences that have not been well studied between
settlements in developed countries and developing countries.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Estimating the impact of settlement management on soil C storage will be particularly important in countries
with a large portion of land in cities and towns, or high rates of settlement expansion. For mineral soils, the
impact of settlement land use and management on soil C stocks can be estimated based on differences in storage
among settlement management classes relative to a reference condition, such as other managed land uses, or
native lands. Settlement management classes could include turf grass (e.g., lawns and golf courses), urban
woodlands, gardens, refuse areas (e.g., garbage dumps), barren areas (exposed soil), and infrastructure (e.g.,
roadways, houses, and buildings). Although organic soils are less commonly used for settlement development, C
is emitted from these soils if they are drained due to enhanced decomposition, similar to the effect of drainage
for agricultural purposes (Armentano and Menges, 1986).
8.14
Soil Carbon

1
2
3
4
5
6
General information and guidelines on estimating changes in soil C stocks are found in Chapter 2 Section 2.3.3,
and should be reviewed before proceeding with specific guidelines dealing with settlements. The total change in
soil C stocks for settlements is computed using Equation 2.24 in Chapter 2, which combines the change in soil
organic C stocks for mineral soils and organic soils; and stock changes for soil inorganic C pools (Tier 3 only).
The next section provides specific guidance on estimating the soil organic C stock change in settlements. For
general discussion on soil inorganic C, no additional information is provided in the settlements discussion below.
7
8
9
10
11
To account for changes in soil C stocks associated with Settlements Remaining Settlements, countries need to
have estimates of the relevant settlement area, stratified by climate region and soil type. More detailed inventory
estimations can be made through ground-based surveys and/or periodic analyses of remote sensing imagery to
determine settlement management classes (e.g., turf grass, urban woodlands, gardens, refuse areas, barren areas
and infrastructure).
12
13
14
15
16
Inventories can be developed using Tier 1, 2 or 3 approaches, with Tier 3 requiring more detail and resources. It
is also possible that countries will use different tiers to prepare estimates for the separate components in this
source category, which includes mineral soils and organic soils, in addition to soil inorganic C pools if using a
Tier 3 approach. Figures 2.4 and 2.5 in Chapter 2 are decision trees that provide guidance for identification of
appropriate tier to estimate changes in carbon stocks in mineral soils and organic soils, respectively.
17
8.2.3.1
18
19
20
Mineral Soils
21
22
23
Tier 2: The Tier 2 approach for mineral soils uses Equation 2.25 in Chapter 2, using involves country or regionspecific reference C stocks and/or stock change factors and possibly suitably disaggregated land-use activity and
environmental data.
24
25
26
27
28
Tier 3: Tier 3 is an advanced method for estimating soil C stocks associated with settlement cover classes, such
as a dynamic model or measurement/monitoring network. Few if any models or measurement systems have
been developed for estimating soil C stocks in settlements that would be considered a Tier 3 method. This
should be considered if settlement soil C is considered a key source category. Additional guidance on Tier 3
approaches is given in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3
29
30
31
32
33
Organic Soils
34
35
36
Tier 3: Tier 3 approaches for organic soils will include more detailed management systems integrating dynamic
models and/or measurement networks. Additional guidance on Tier 3 approaches is given in Chapter 2, Section
2.3.3.
37
8.2.3.2
38
39
40
Mineral Soils
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Tier 2: Since defaults are unavailable, Tier 2 requires estimation of country-specific stock change factors.
Equation 2.25 (see Section 2.3.3.1) uses has three levels of stock change factor depending on the land use, the
management within the land use and the level of inputs The inventory compiler should define management
classes relevant to settlements (such as turf grass) derive stock change factors for land use (FLU) based on the C
storage for each class relative to the reference condition, which is likely to be native lands. Management factors
(FMG) give flexibility to specify the way land use is managed (such as for sports fields or ornamental use) and
input factors (FI) can be used to represent the influence of management on C of input such as watering or
fertilization practices.
49
50
51
Tier 3: Tier 3 requires some combination of detailed process models and data gathering with a sampling strategy
and periodic re-sampling to capture land-use and management effects. See Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3.1 for further
discussion.
C HOICE
OF
M ETHOD
Tier 1: It is assumed in the Tier 1 method that inputs equal outputs so that settlement soil C stocks do not
change in Settlements remaining Settlements.
Tier 1 and 2: Settlements are unlikely to be built on deep organic soils, but if needed, emissions can be
computed using Equation 2.26 in Chapter 2. A Tier 2 approach will incorporate country-specific information to
estimate emission factors, in addition to a settlement cover classification. However, it is also optional in the Tier
2 approach to use a more detailed classification of climate and soils than the default categories.
C HOICE
OF
E MISSION F ACTORS
8.15
1
2
3
4
Tier 1: If soils are drained and the peat is not removed, the emissions can be computed using emission factors
for cultivated organic soils, due to deep drainage in settlements similar to croplands. If the peat is removed the
carbon should be assumed to be released in the year of removal. (see Chapter 5, Cropland).
5
6
7
8
practice for emission factors to be derived for specific settlement management classes and/or a finer
classification of climate regions, assuming the new categories capture significant differences in C loss rates.
Additional guidance is given in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3.1.
Tier 3: The advice is the same as that given above for mineral soils.
Organic Soils
10
8.2.3.3
C HOICE
11
12
13
Mineral Soils
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Tier 2: For the Tier 2 level, activity data consist of areas for settlements subdivided by climate, soil type, and /or
management classes as needed to correspond with the stock change factors described above. Municipality
records may be useful for determining the proportion of various management classes (e.g., shopping areas,
subdivisions, businesses, parks, schools, etc.), augmented with knowledge of country experts about the
approximate distribution of settlement classes (i.e., turf grass, urban woodlands, gardens, refuse areas, barren
areas and infrastructure). Tier 2 approaches may involve a finer stratification of environmental data, including
climate regions and soil types, provided the corresponding stock change factors have been developed.
21
22
Tier 3: The activity data for application of dynamic models and/or a direct measurement-based inventory will
characterise climate, soil, topographic and management regime, depending on the model or sampling design.
23
24
25
26
Organic Soils
27
28
29
Tier 2: Tier 2 approaches for organic soils will involve more detailed specification of management classes, and
possibly finer division of those classes by drainage or climate regions. Stratification should be based on
empirical data demonstrating significant differences in C loss rates for the proposed classes.
30
Tier 3: The advice is the same as that given above for mineral soils.
31
8.2.3.4
32
33
34
35
Uncertainties in soil C inventories are related at Tiers 1 and 2 to representation of 1) land-use and management
activities; 2) mineral soil reference C stocks; and 3) stock change and emission factors. Tier 3 uncertainties
depend on model structure and parameters, or measurement error/sampling strategy. Uncertainty is generally
reduced by more sampling and use of a higher Tier estimates incorporating country-specific information.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Uncertainties in reference C stocks and emission factors are indicated in Table 2.3 in Chapter 2; Tables 5.5 and
5.6 in Chapter 5; and Tables 6.2 and 6.3 in Chapter 6. Uncertainties in land-use and management data will need
to be assessed by the inventory compiler, and combined with uncertainties for the default factors and reference C
stocks using an appropriate method, such as simple error propagation equations. If using aggregate land-use area
statistics for activity data (e.g., FAO data), the inventory compiler may have to apply a default level of
uncertainty for the land area estimates (50%). However, it is good practice for the inventory compiler to derive
uncertainties from country-specific activity data instead of using a default level.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Default reference C stocks for mineral soils and emission factors for organic soils can have high uncertainties,
when applied to specific countries. Defaults represent globally averaged values of land-use and management
impacts or reference C stocks that may vary from region-specific values (Powers et al., 2004; Ogle et al., 2006).
Bias can be reduced by deriving country-specific factors using Tier 2 method or by developing a Tier 3 countryspecific estimation system. The underlying basis for higher Tier approaches will be research in the country or
neighbouring regions that address the effect of land use and management on soil C. It is good practice to
minimize bias by accounting for significant within-country differences in land-use and management impacts,
such as variation among climate regions and/or soil types, even at the expense of reduced precision in the factor
estimates (Ogle et al., 2006). Bias is more problematic for reporting stock changes because it is not necessarily
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA
Tier 1: The total area of cultivated organic in settlements, stratified by climate region to correspond to Table 5.6
in Chapter 5 or Table 6.3 in Chapter 6, is needed. A default can be obtained by multiplying total urban area as a
function of climate region in by the area proportion of greenspace from Table 8.3 above.
8.16

1
2
captured in the uncertainty range (i.e., the true stock change may be outside of the reported uncertainty range if
there is significant bias in the factors).
3
4
5
6
Precision in land-use activity statistics may be improved through a better national system, such as developing or
extending a ground-based survey with additional sample locations and/or incorporating remote sensing to
and management activity with a sufficient sample size to minimize uncertainty at the national scale.
7
8
9
10
11
12
practices tend to be correlated in time and space.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
associated uncertainty in resulting estimates. Monte Carlo analyses are possible (Smith and Heath, 2001), but
(Monte et al., 1996), which use measurements from a monitoring network to statistically evaluate the
relationship between measured and modelled results (Falloon and Smith, 2003). In contrast to modelling,
uncertainties in measurement-based Tier 3 inventories can be determined directly from the sample variance,
measurement error and other relevant sources of uncertainty.
22
8.3
23
24
25
26
27
Conversion of Forest land, Cropland, Grassland etc. to Settlements, leads to emissions and removals of
greenhouse gases. Methods for estimating change in carbon stocks associated with land-use conversions are
explained in Chapters 2, 4, 5 and 6 of this volume. The decision tree (see Figure 1.3 in Chapter 1) and the same
basic methods can be applied to estimate change in carbon stocks in Forest land, Cropland and Grassland
converted to Settlements.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Depending on the magnitude of carbon stocks in the previous land-use category, land converted to Settlements
may experience a relatively rapid loss of carbon in the first year, followed by a more gradual increase in carbon
pools subsequently. Forest land converted to Settlements, for example, would normally be characterized by this
abrupt change followed by a gradual increase in carbon stocks. If carbon stocks in the previous land use were
lower than in settlements this abrupt transition would not take place in the first year. For example, abandoned
Cropland converted to Settlements would experience only the gradual carbon stock increase and not the initial
abrupt transition.
35
36
37
38
The methods described can have sometimes been simplified by estimating the effects of conversion in a single
year followed by application of the methods described above for Settlements remaining Settlements. However,
where this is done, the land area should be kept in the conversion state for the transition period adopted.
Otherwise, there are likely to be difficulties with maintaining the consistency of the land-use matrix.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Where Approach 1 is used in its simplest form for land area representation (see Chapter 3) and no supplementary
information is available that will allow the previous land uses to be inferred, only the total area of settlements
will be known as a function of time and the previous land uses will not be known. Under these circumstances,
the biomass stocks before the conversion (Bbefore) cannot be estimated and Equation 2.16 cannot be applied. In
this case land converted to Settlements will have to be estimated with land remaining Settlements and the
emissions or removals from conversion to Settlements as well as other land-use changes will be represented as
step changes in the remaining categories rather than properly allocated to the conversions consistent with the
land-use change matrix. In effect transitions become step changes across the landscape. This makes it
particularly important to achieve coordination among each sector to ensure the total land base is remaining
constant over time, given that some land area will be lost and gained within individual sectors during each
inventory year due to land-use change.
LAND CONVERTED TO SETTLEMENTS
8.17
1
8.3.1
Biomass
8.3.1.1
C HOICE
3
4
5
6
The general approach for calculating the immediate change in live biomass accruing from the conversion to
Settlements is represented by Equations 2.15 and 2.16. The mean annual biomass increment resulting from the
transition is represented by the difference between the biomass in the settlement land-use category immediately
after the transition (BAfter) and the biomass in the previous category (BBefore).
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
This method follows the approach in the Guidelines for other land-use transitions: the annual change in carbon
stock in biomass due to land conversion is estimated (using Equation 2.16) by multiplying the area converted
annually to settlements by the difference in carbon stocks between biomass in the system prior to conversion
(BBefore) and that in the settlements after conversion (BAfter). For Tier 1, in the initial year following conversion
to the settlement land use, the most conservative approach is to set BAfter to zero, meaning that the process of
development of settlements causes carbon stocks to be entirely depleted. To do this it is necessary to add
growth during the year of inventory (CG) and subtract loss (CL) to obtain the net change in carbon stocks on
land converted to Settlements (Equation 2.15).
15
16
17
18
19
At Tier 2, country-specific carbon stocks can be applied to activity data disaggregated to a level of detail adapted
to national circumstances. At the higher tiers, the area of each land-use or land cover type converted to another
type in a settlement (examples of land use and land cover types are described in Section 8.2) should be recorded,
because that area is associated with the amount of carbon both before and after the conversion. Settlement landuse or land cover types are likely to differ in carbon density.
20
21
22
At Tier 3, countries can use the stock difference method (Equation 2.8) or other advanced estimation methods
that may involve complex models and highly disaggregated activity data including, if available more detailed
information about BAfter on a country- or biome-specific basis.
23
8.3.1.2
24
25
26
27
Tier 1 methods require estimates of the biomass of the land use before conversion and after conversion. It is
assumed that all biomass is cleared when preparing a site for settlements, thus, the default for biomass
immediately after conversion is 0 tonnes ha-1. Table 8.4 provides default values for biomass before conversion
(BBefore).
C HOICE
OF
OF
M ETHOD
E MISSION F ACTORS
TABLE 8.4
DEFAULT BIOMASS CARBON STOCKS REMOVED DUE TO LAND CONVERSION TO SETTLEMENTS
Carbon stock in biomass before conversion (BBefore)
(tonnes C ha-1)
Land-use category
Error range #
Forest land
See Chapter 4 Tables 4.7 to 4.12 for carbon stocks in a range of forest types
by climate regions. Stocks are in terms of dry matter. Multiply values by a
carbon fraction (CF) 0.5 to convert dry matter to carbon.
See Section 4.3

(Land Converted to
Forest land)
Grassland
See Table 6.4, Chapter 6 for carbon stocks in a range of grassland types by
climate regions.
+ 75%
Cropland
For cropland containing annual crops: Use default of 4.7 tonnes of carbon
ha-1 or 10 tonnes of dry matter ha-1 (see Chapter 6, Section6.3.1.2)
75%.
28
29
30
Tier 2 methods replace the default data by country-specific data and Tier 3 involves detailed modelling or
measurement data relevant to the conversion processes.
31
8.3.1.3
32
33
34
35
36
Activity data for estimating changes in biomass on land areas converted to Settlements can be obtained,
consistent with the general principles set out in Chapter 3, through national statistics, from forest services,
conservation agencies, municipalities, survey and mapping agencies. Cross-checks should be made to ensure
complete and consistent representation of annually converted lands in order to avoid possible omissions or
double counting. Data should be disaggregated according to the general climatic categories and settlements types.
8.18
C HOICE
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA

1
2
3
4
Tier 3 inventories will require more comprehensive information on the establishment of new settlements, with
refined soil classes, climates, and spatial and temporal resolution. All changes having occurred over the number
of years selected as the transition period should be included with transitions older than the transition period
(default 20 years) reported as a subdivision of Settlements remaining Settlements.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Higher tiers require greater detail but the minimum requirement for inventories to be consistent with the IPCC
Guidelines is that the areas of Forest land conversion can be identified separately. This is because forest will
usually have higher carbon density before conversion. This implies that at least partial knowledge of the land-use
change matrix, and therefore, where Approaches 1 and 2 from Chapter 3 are used to estimate land area are being
used, supplementary surveys may be needed to identify the area of land being converted from Forest land to
Settlements. As pointed out in Chapter 3, where surveys are being set up, it will often be more accurate to seek
to establish directly areas undergoing conversion, than to estimate these from the differences in total land areas
under particular uses at different times.
13
14
15
Step by step method for implementation
16
17
Use default values for Bbefore from respective land category chapter (Forest land, Grassland, etc) and assume that
BAfter equals zero in Equation 2.16.
18
Step 1: Apply Equation 2.16 to each land-use type converted to settlement lands;
19
Step 2: Add up the biomass changes over all the land-use types; and
20
21
Step 3: Multiply the result by 44/12 to obtain the amount of CO2 equivalents emitted (the sum obtained in Step 2
will be a negative number) from the land conversion.
22
Tier 2
23
The typical steps to implement a Tier 2 method are:
24
25
26
Step 1: Use the methods described in Chapter 3, including where relevant cadastral and planning records or the
analysis of remote sensing images (or both), to estimate the change in area between the present and the last area
survey.
27
28
29
30
31
Step 2: Define as a first approximation settlement land-use types on the basis of the proportion of
greenspace. For instance, three tentative land-use classes could be: Low (less than 33% greenspace), Medium
(from 33 to less than 66% greenspace), and High (more than 66% greenspace). Each one of those classes can be
assigned with an average carbon content, obtained from the species surveyed in similarly defined classes for
accounting biomass changes in Section 8.2.
32
Step 3: Draw a land-use conversion area matrix for the land-use transitions defined in Step 2.
33
34
35
36
Step 4: Estimate with equations the biomass stocks of the defined land-use types and the converted land-use
types (to obtain BBefore and BAfter), apply Equation 2.16 to each non-empty cell of the land-use change matrix, add
up the changes in carbon stocks, and multiply the sum by 44/12 to obtain the emission/removal of CO2
equivalents.
37
38
39
Step 5: Calculate CG, using either Method A or Method B in Section 8.2.1, Settlements Remaining
Settlements (the choice of method will depend on the applicability of the emission and removal factors, as well
as the availability of activity data). This will be used in Equation 2.15.
40
Step 6: Calculate CL, using Methods as described in Section 8.2.1.3, Settlements Remaining Settlements.
41
42
43
Step 7: Calculate the change in carbon stocks in live biomass resulting from the land-use transition to
Settlements, accounting for the biomass increment, biomass losses, and biomass change due to land-use
conversion as given in Equation 2.15.
44
8.3.1.4
45
See guidance in Section 8.2.1.4.
46
8.3.2
47
48
Methods are provided for two types of DOM pools: 1) dead wood and 2) litter. Chapter 1of this report provides
definitions of these pools and Section 8.2.2 DOM in the context of settlements.
Tier 1
Dead Organic Matter
8.19
1
2
3
4
Some land converted to Settlements will not have an abrupt transition (e.g. Cropland that is abandoned and
converted to Settlements). In this case, Phase 1 methods will not be appropriate and there will be a gradual
transition in DOM pools to a new equilibrium. When this type of conversion occurs, the whole conversion
accounting can be treated with Phase 2 methods.
8.3.2.1
6
7
8
Estimation of changes in carbon stocks in DOM requires separate estimates of changes in stocks of dead wood
and changes in litter stocks (refer to Equation 2. 17 of Chapter 2). The decision tree in Figure 2.3 in Chapter 2
helps select the appropriate tier to use.
9
10
Tier 1: Tier 1 default assumes all carbon contained in dead wood and litter is lost during conversion and does
not take account of any subsequent accumulation.
11
12
13
14
15
Tiers 2: Tier 2 approaches require greater disaggregation than that used in Tier 1. The immediate and abrupt
carbon stock change in dead wood due to conversion of other lands to Settlements under Tiers 2 and 3 will be
estimated using Equation 2.23, where Co is set to zero and Ton is set at 1 year. Tier 2 assumes a linear change
function, although during the transition period, pools that gain or lose C often have a non-linear loss or
accumulation curve that can be represented at Tier 3 through successive transition matrices.
16
17
suggested:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Method 1 (Also called the gain-loss method, Equation 2.18 in Chapter 2): This method involves estimating the
area of each type of land conversion and the average annual transfer into and out of dead wood and litter stocks.
This requires an estimate of area under land converted to Settlements according to different climate or ecological
zones or settlement types, disturbance regime, management regime, or other factors significantly affecting dead
wood and litter carbon pools and the quantity of biomass transferred into dead wood and litter stocks as well as
the quantity of biomass transferred out of the dead wood and litter stocks on per hectare basis according to
different settlement types.
25
26
27
28
29
Method 2 (Also called the stock-difference method, Equation 2.19 in Chapter 2): This method involves
estimating the area of land converted to Settlements and the dead wood and litter stocks at two periods of time,
t1 and t2. The deadwood and litter stock changes for the inventory year are obtained by dividing the stock
changes by the period (years) between two measurements. The stock-difference method is feasible for countries,
which have periodic inventories.
30
31
32
33
34
DOM. These methodologies may be derived from Methods 1 or 2 specified above, or may be based on other
approaches. The method used needs to be clearly documented. A Tier 3 approach should use or be consistent
with the true shapes of the loss or accumulation curves. These curves should be applied to each cohort that is
under transition during the reporting year to estimate the annual change in the dead wood and litter carbon pools.
35
8.3.2.2
36
37
38
39
Litter values in settlements range from 0.30 to 0.50. When country- or ecosystem-specific data are not available
we suggest a carbon fraction value of 0.40 for litter.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Tier 1: Dead wood and litter carbon stocks in lands converted to Settlements are assumed all lost during the
conversion and there is assumed to be no subsequent accumulation of new DOM in the settlements after
conversion. Default values for forest litter prior to conversion are provided in Table 2.2 in Chapter 2 but there
are no default values available for dead wood or litter in most systems. Countries should seek estimates and use
local data from forestry and agricultural research institutes to provide best estimates of the dead wood and litter
in the initial system prior to conversion, or use the defaults in Table 2.2 in the absence of other information.
Carbon stocks in litter and dead wood pools in all non-forest land categories are assumed to be zero. Countries
experiencing significant conversions of other ecosystems to settlements are encouraged to develop domestic data
to quantify this impact and report it under Tier 2 or 3 methodologies.
49
50
51
52
53
Tier 2: It is good practice to use country level data on dead wood and litter for different settlements categories,
in combination with default values if country or regional values are not available for some conversion categories.
Country-specific values for transfer of carbon from live trees and grasses that are harvested to harvest residues
and decomposition rates, in the case of the gain/loss method, or the net change in DOM pools, in the case of the
stock difference method, can be derived from domestic expansion factors, taking into account the settlements
8.20
C HOICE
C HOICE
OF
OF
M ETHOD

1
2
3
4
5
6
Tier 3: National level disaggregated DOM carbon estimates should be determined as part of a national
periodic sampling according to the principles set out in Chapter 3 Annex 3A.3. Inventory data can be coupled
with modelling studies to capture the dynamics of all settlements carbon pools.
7
8
9
10
11
carbon budget are decay rates, which may vary with the type of wood and microclimatic conditions, and site
preparation procedures (e.g. controlled broadcast burning, or burning of piles).
12
8.3.2.3
13
The activity data should be the same as that used for biomass and described in Section 8.3.1.3
C HOICE
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA
14
15
Step-by-step summary of method for estimating changes in DOM stocks
16
17
18
19
20
Tier 1
21
22
Step 2. For each activity category, determine the dead wood and litter stocks (separately) per hectare prior to
conversion (see Table 2.2 in Chapter 2 for default values).
23
24
25
Step 3. For each activity category, determine the stocks in the dead wood and litter (separately) per hectare for
the particular type of settlement. For Tier 1, dead wood and litter stocks following conversion are assumed to be
equal to zero.
26
27
Step 4. Calculate the net change of dead wood and litter stocks per hectare for each type of conversion by
subtracting the initial stocks from the final stocks. A negative value indicates a loss in the stock (Equation 2.23).
28
29
30
Step 5. Convert the net change in the individual stock to units of tonnes C ha-1 by multiplying the net stock
change by the carbon fraction of that stock (0.40 tonnes of C per tonne of biomass dry weight for litter and 0.50
tonnes of C per tonne of biomass dry weight for dead wood.
31
Step 6. Multiply the net change in each C stock by the area converted during the reporting year.
of conversion by year. Area data should be obtained using the methods described in Chapter 3. Higher tiers
require greater detail but the minimum requirement for inventories to be consistent with the IPCC Guidelines
when using Tier 1 is that the areas of forest conversion can be identified separately.
32
33
Tiers 2 and 3
34
35
36
37
38
of conversion by year. When calculating for lands in the transition phase, representative areas for each category
at different stages of conversion are required. Higher tiers require greater detail but the minimum requirement
for inventories to be consistent with the IPCC Guidelines when using Tier 1 is that the areas of forest conversion
can be identified separately.
39
40
41
42
43
44
S tep 2 Ab rup t c hang es

Determine the activity categories to be used in this assessment and the representative areas. The activity
previous land cover and settlements management, for example: conversion of logged tropical seasonal
forest to cattle pasture using exotic grasses. Area data should be obtained using the methods described in
Chapter 3.
45
46
For each activity category, determine the dead wood and litter stocks (separately) per hectare prior to
conversion.
47
48
49
For each activity category, determine the stocks in the dead wood and litter (separately) per hectare
following one year of conversion to Settlements. For Tier 1, dead wood and litter stocks following
conversion are assumed to be equal to zero.
8.21
1
2
Calculate the net change of dead wood and litter stocks per hectare for each type of conversion by
3
4
5
Convert the net change in the individual stock to units of tonnes C ha-1 by multiplying the net stock change
by the carbon fraction of that stock (0.40 tonnes of C per tonne of biomass dry weight for litter and 0.50
tonnes of C per tonne of biomass dry weight for dead wood).
Multiply the net change in each C stock by the area converted during the reporting year.
7
8
9
10
11
Step 3 Transitiona l cha nges

Determine the categories and cohorts to be used in this assessment and the representative areas. The
previous land cover and settlements type. Area data should be obtained using the methods described in
Chapter 3.
12
13
14
Determine the annual change rate for dead wood and litter stocks (separately) by activity type using either
the gain-loss method or the stock-difference method (see below) for each cohort of lands that are
currently in the transition phase between conversion and a new steady-state.
15
16
Determine the dead wood and litter stocks in the cohort during the previous year (usually taken from the
17
18
Calculate the change in dead wood and litter stocks for each cohort by adding the net change rate to the
19
20
21
Convert the net change in the individual stock to units of tonnes C ha-1 by multiplying the net stock change
by the carbon fraction of that stock (0.40 tonnes of C per tonne of biomass dry weight for litter and 0.50
tonnes of C per tonne of biomass dry weight for dead wood)
22
Multiply the net change in each C stock by the area in each cohort for the reporting year.
23
24
25
Ga i n- los s m et hod
Determine the average annual inputs of dead wood and litter (separately).
26
Determine the average annual losses of dead wood and litter (separately).
27
Determine the net change rate in dead wood and litter by subtracting the outputs from the inputs.
28
29
30
S t o c k - d if f er e n c e me t h o d
Determine the inventory time interval, the average stocks of dead wood and litter at the initial
inventory, and the average stocks of dead wood and litter at the final inventory.
31
32
33
Use these figures to calculate the net change in dead wood and litter stocks by subtracting the initial
stock from the final stock and dividing this difference by the number of years between inventories. A
negative value indicates a loss in the stock.
34
35
A Tier 3 approach requires country- or region-specific expansion factors. There are no default expansion factors
for Tier 2, and the best available local data should be used (and documented).
36
8.3.2.4
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Uncertainty at Tier 1 is the same as the uncertainty in the carbon stock on the area of land subject to annual
conversion. DOM changes are subsequently assumed to be zero, and no associated uncertainty is needed at Tier
1 after the initial transition. For Tiers 2 and 3 estimates, sources of uncertainty include the degree of accuracy in
land area estimates, carbon increment and loss, carbon stocks, amount of carbon burned and expansion factor
terms. Area data and estimates of uncertainty should be obtained using the methods in Chapter 3 which provide
default uncertainties associated with the different approaches. Uncertainties associated with carbon stocks and
other parameter values are likely to be at least a factor of three unless country specific data are available from
well designed surveys.
45
8.3.3
46
47
Land conversion to Settlements occurs with development and expansion of cities and towns on former Forest
lands, Croplands, Grasslands, other lands, and Wetlands. These conversions change soil C stocks due to
8.22
Soil Carbon

1
2
mechanical disturbance of the soil; soil burial or collection during development; type and amount of vegetated
cover; in addition to the new management regime, particularly with respect to nutrient and water applications.
3
4
5
6
General information and guidelines for estimating changes in soil C stocks are found in Chapter 2 Section 2.3.3
(including equations). The total change in soil C stocks for Land Converted to Settlements is computed using
Equation 2.24, which combines the change in soil organic C stocks for mineral soils and organic soils; and stock
changes associated with soil inorganic C pools (for Tier 3 only).
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
To account for changes in soil C stocks associated with Land Converted to Settlements, countries need to have
estimates of the areas of land converted to Settlements during the inventory time period, stratified by climate
region and soil type. If aggregate land-use data are used and specific conversions among uses are not known,
SOC stock changes can still be computed using the methods provided in Settlements Remaining Settlements, but
the land base area will then probably be different for settlements in the current year relative to the initial year in
the inventory, and the dynamics of the transition will be less well represented. Chapter 3 (Consistent
representation of lands) emphasises the importance of maintaining consistency in total land area.
14
8.3.3.1
15
16
17
18
19
20
and resources than the previous one. It is also possible that countries may use different tiers to prepare estimates
for the separate sub-categories of soil C (i.e., soil organic C stocks changes in mineral soils and organic soils;
and stock changes associated with soil inorganic C pools, is estimated at Tier 3). Decision trees are provided for
mineral (Figure 2.4) and organic soils (Figure 2.5) in Section 2.3.3.1 (Chapter 2) to help selection of the
appropriate tiers.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mineral Soils
Tier 1: Change in soil organic C stocks can be estimated for mineral soils with land-use conversion to
Settlements using Equation 2.25 in Chapter 2. For Tier 1, the initial (pre-conversion) soil organic C stock
(SOC(0-T)) and C stock in the last year of the inventory time period (SOC0) are determined from the common set
of reference soil organic C stocks (SOCREF) and default stock change factors (FLU, FMG, FI). Areas of exposed
bedrock in forestlands or the previous land use are not included in the soil C stock calculation (assume a stock of
0). Annual rates of emissions (source) or removals (sink) are calculated as the difference in stocks (over time)
divided by the time dependence (D) of the stock change factors (default is 20 years).
29
30
31
32
33
34
Tier 2: The Tier 2 approach for mineral soils also uses Equation 2.25 in Chapter 2, but involves country or
region-specific reference C stocks and/or stock change factors and possibly more disaggregated land-use activity
and environmental data. Removal, translocation or burial of soil C during development is a particular issue for
settlements. To the extent that soil C is not decomposed during the development phase and resides deeper in the
profile, is translocated to another area, or possibly used as a commodity, it is good practice for Tier 2 stock
change factor will need to be adjusted and reflect the reduction in loss of C to the atmosphere as CO2.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
approaches for estimating soil C change from land-use conversions to Settlements, employ models, data sets
and/or monitoring networks that are capable of representing transitions over time from other land uses, including
Forest lands, Grasslands, Croplands or other lands. Tier 3 methods need to be integrated with estimates of
biomass removal and the post-clearance treatment of plant residues (including woody debris and litter), as
variation in the removal and treatment of residues (e.g. burning, site preparation) will affect C inputs to soil
organic matter formation and C losses through decomposition and combustion. Models should be validated with
independent observations from country or region-specific field locations that are representative of the
interactions of climate, soil and management on post-conversion change in soil C stocks.
45
46
47
48
Organic Soils
49
50
Tier 3: As with mineral soils, a Tier 3 approach will involve country-specific models and/or measurement-based
approaches along with highly disaggregated land-use and management data.
C HOICE
OF
M ETHOD
Tiers 1 and 2: Land Converted to Settlements on organic soils within the inventory time period are treated the
same as Settlements Remaining Settlements. Carbon losses are computed using Equation 2.26 in Chapter 2.
Additional guidance on the Tier 1 and 2 approaches are given in Section 8.2.3.1.
8.23
1
8.3.3.2
C HOICE
OF
E MISSION F ACTOR
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Tier 1: Default reference C stocks are found in Table 2.3 of Chapter 2, and stock change factors for previous
land uses can be found in the relevant Chapters (for Forest land in Section 4.2.3.2, Cropland in Section 5.2.3.2,
Grassland in 6.2.3.2, and Other Land in 9.3.3.2). Default stock change factors for the land use after conversion
(Settlements) are not needed for the Tier 1 method for Settlements remaining Settlements because the default
assumption is that inputs equal outputs and therefore no net change in soil carbon stocks occur once the
settlement is established. Conversions, however, may entail net changes and it is good practice to use the
following assumptions. For the proportion of the settlement area that is paved over, assume product of FLU, FMG
and FI is 0.8 times the corresponding product for the previous land use (i.e., 20% of the soil carbon relative to the
previous land use will be lost as a result of disturbance, removal or relocation). For the proportion of the
settlement area that is turfgrass, use the appropriate values for improved grassland from Table 6.2, Chapter 6.
For the proportion of the settlement area that is cultivated soil (e.g., used for horticulture) use the no-till FMG
values from Table 5.5 (Chapter 5) with FI equal to 1. For the proportion of the settlement area that is wooded
assume all stock change factors equal 1.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to a reference condition, using land-use factors (FLU). Input (FI) and management (FMG) are then used to further
refine the C stocks of the settlement management classes. Additional guidance on how to derive these stock
change factors is given in Settlements Remaining Settlements, Section 8.2.3.2. See the appropriate section for
specific information regarding the derivation of stock change factors for other land-use sectors (Forest land in
Chapter 4, Cropland in Chapter 5, Grassland in Chapter 6, and Other Land in Chapter 9). Reference C stocks can
also be derived from country-specific data in a Tier 2 approach and should of course be consistent across the
land uses (i.e., Forest land, Cropland, Grassland, Settlements, Other land), and therefore coordinated among the
various teams conducting soil C inventories for AFOLU.
26
27
28
29
30
31
Organic Soils
32
33
34
8.3.3.3
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Mineral Soils
44
45
46
more detailed data on the combinations of climate, soil, topographic and management data are needed, but the
exact requirements will depend on the model or measurement design.
47
48
49
Organic Soils
50
51
52
Tier 3: As with mineral soils, Tier 3 approaches will likely require more detailed data on the combinations of
Mineral Soils
Tier 1 and 2: Land Converted to Settlements on organic soils within the inventory period is treated the same as
Settlements Remaining Settlements. Tier 2 emission factors are derived from country or region-specific data;
additional guidance is given in Section 8.2.3.2.
C HOICE
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA
Tier 1 and 2: The amount of Land Converted to Settlements, stratified by climate region and soil type is needed
to estimate the appropriate stocks at the Tier 1 level. This can be based on overlays with suitable climate and soil
maps and spatially-explicit data of the location of land conversions. Detailed descriptions of the default climate
and soil classification schemes are provided in Chapter 3. In the absence of specific information default area
within the settlements that is paved over should be estimated as the non-greenspace proportion of the total area
using the data in Table 8.3, and the same Table can be used to partition the greenspace area into wooded areas
and non-wooded areas. The latter may be assumed all to be turfgrass unless data are available on the area
otherwise cultivated.
Tier 1 and 2: Land Converted to Settlements on organic soils within the inventory time period is treated the
same as Settlements Remaining Settlements, and guidance on activity data is discussed in Section 8.2.3.3.
8.24

8.3.3.4
See guidance in Section 8.2.3.4.
3
4
8.4
8.4.1
COMPLETENESS, TIME SERIES, QA/QC, AND

REPORTING
Completeness
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
It is good practice for soil C inventories to track the changes in total area over time, and if using a Tier 2 or 3
approach, the inventory should track areas associated with the major management classes (e.g., turf grass, urban
woodlands, gardens, refuse areas, barren areas and infrastructure). The total area covered by the settlement
inventory methodology is the sum of land remaining in Settlements and land converted to Settlements during the
time period. This inventory methodology may not include some settlement areas where greenhouse gas
emissions and removals are believed to be insignificant or constant through time because of little or no change in
settlement management or no significant change in management inputs. However, countries are encouraged to
track through time the total area of land in settlements within country boundaries, keeping transparent records on
which portions are used to estimate carbon dioxide emissions and removals. In this case, it is good practice for
countries to document and explain the difference in the area that is included in the inventory computations and
the total settlement area in the land base.
18
8.4.2
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
To maintain a consistent time series, it is good practice for countries to apply the same inventory methods over
the entire reporting time period, including definitions for land-use and settlement systems, area included in a C
inventory, and calculation method. If changes are made, it is good practice to keep transparent records of the
changes, and then re-calculate the C stock changes over the entire inventory time period. Guidance on recalculation under these circumstances is given in Volume 1 Chapter 5. Consistent estimation and reporting also
requires common definitions of management activities, climate and soil types across the entire time series for the
period of the inventory.
26
8.4.3
27
28
29
It is good practice to implement quality control checks and external expert review of inventory estimates and
data. Specific attention is expected to be paid to country-specific estimates of stock change and emission factors,
ensuring that they are based on high quality data and verifiable expert opinion.
30
Specific QA/QC checks across the settlements methodology include:
31
32
33
34
35
36
Settlements remaining Settlements: It is good practice for settlement areas to be consistent for reporting of
biomass stock and soil stock changes. Settlements may include areas where soil stock changes are accounted for
but biomass changes are assumed to be zero (e.g., where non-woody biomass is largely absent), areas where both
biomass and soil stocks are changing (e.g., development of a park), and areas where neither biomass nor soil
stocks are changing (e.g., infrastructure and barren areas). To increase transparency and eliminate errors, it is
good practice to report the total settlement area regardless of whether stocks are changing.
37
38
39
Lands converted to Settlements: Aggregate area totals for land converted to Settlements are expected to be the
same in the biomass and soils estimations. While biomass and soil pools may be disaggregated to different levels
of detail, it is good practice to use the same general categories for disaggregating the area data.
40
41
42
43
44
For all soil C stock change estimates, it is expected that the total areas will be the same for each climate-soil type
combination at the beginning (year(0-T)) and the last year (year(0)) of the inventory time period, unless it has been
demonstrated that some portion of the land base has been incorporated into another land-use sector or gained
from another sector. Ultimately, the sum of the entire land base for a country, which includes each sector, must
be equal across every year in the inventory time period.
Developing a Consistent Time Series
Inventory Quality Assurance/Quality Control
8.25
1
8.4.4
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
It is good practice to maintain and archive all information used to produce national inventory estimates including:
1) data sources, databases, data sources for information used to estimate country-specific factors as well as the
procedures used to estimate factors; 2) activity data and definitions used to categorize or aggregate the activity
data; and 3) climate region classifications and soil types (for Tier 1 and Tier 2) must be clearly documented. For
Tier 3 approaches using modelling, it is good practice to document the model version and provide a model
description, in addition to permanently archiving copies of all model input files, source code and executable
programs.
9
10
11
12
The categories described in this Chapter can be reported using the reporting tables in Volume 1 Chapter 8. The
estimates under the Settlements category can be compared with the reporting categories in the IPCC Guidelines
as follows:
Reporting Tables and Worksheets
13
14
Carbon dioxide emissions and removals in woody biomass in Settlements remaining Settlements to IPCC
reporting category 5A and land converted to Settlements in IPCC reporting category 5B;
15
16
17
Carbon dioxide emissions and removals in soils in Settlements remaining Settlements to IPCC reporting
category 5A for biomass, IPCC reporting category 5E for soils, and IPCC reporting category 4D, 4E, and 4F
for non-CO2 gases; and
18
19
20
Carbon dioxide emissions and removals resulting from land-use conversions to Settlements to IPCC
reporting category 5B for biomass, IPCC reporting category 5E for soils, and IPCC reporting category 4D,
4E, and 4F for non-CO2 gases.
21
22
Worksheets are provided in Annex 1 for calculating greenhouse gases emissions and removals (Tier 1 methods)
for Settlements.
23
8.5
24
BASIS FOR FUTURE METHODOLOGICAL

DEVELOPMENT
25
26
Gaps in this methodology exist because sufficient data are not available to quantify all of the pools and fluxes of
greenhouse gases in settlements. Obvious gaps include:
27
Methodology for estimating emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases (N2O and CH4);
28
29
Detailed methodology to account for carbon stocks other than live biomass and soils (specifically, DOM
(DOM) and litter);
30
Discussion of carbon stocks and fluxes from turfgrass and turf management;
31
Discussion of carbon stocks and fluxes from gardens and other herbaceous plants; and
32
33
A generalized methodology to account for different classes of settled lands, with different amounts of
woody and non-woody vegetation and different types of management.
34
35
36
37
38
Non-CO2 greenhouse gases. While some evidence exists to support the idea that nitrous oxide fluxes may be
enhanced in urban areas relative to the native condition (Kaye et al. 2004), this result likely depends on the
native condition (i.e. the climate and region in which the settlement is located) and the management regime
typically applied in that settled area. Additional data are required before conclusions about the impact of
settlement on non-CO2 greenhouse gas fluxes can be drawn.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DOM and litter. Dead wood is a class variously composed of fallen or pruned branches or trees, or dead
standing trees not yet replaced with live individuals. This dead wood may be burned or disposed of as solid
waste, used for composting, left to decay either in-site or off-site. This material is treated in this methodology as
a loss from the live biomass term. Because dead wood is likely to be carried off-site in settlements (rather than
left on-site to decay as in forests), a more detailed methodology developed in the future might account for the
proportion of dead wood taken to landfills, disposed of in compost piles, burned, or left on-site to decay. The
portion taken to landfills or composted might be treated as harvested wood products (HWP) or as waste, both of
which are treated in other sections of the Guidelines.
47
48
49
Turfgrass and turf management. Turfgrass biomass consists of roots, stubble, thatch, and above-ground
components. Though estimates of turfgrass productivity have been published (Falk, 1976; Falk, 1980; Qian et
al., 2003), grass decomposes quickly and there is little information about the overall accumulation of biomass in
8.26

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
the longer-lived components of turf biomass. Turfgrass allocation to the above- and below-ground components
also depends on the management and mowing regime. Because of the lack of generalizable information on this
topic, as well as the lack of activity data quantifying the area covered by turfgrass in settlements, there is
currently no detailed methodology describing carbon removed by turf systems. A more detailed methodology
would require additional information on turf productivity, turfgrass turnover, and allocation to different plant
components as it varies with management regime. Of course, the activity data required to implement this
methodology would include information on management regimes and the proportion of settlements covered by
turfgrass.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Gardens and other herbaceous plants. Similar to the situation with turfgrass, information does not exist
describing the annual biomass accumulation and allocation of garden plants to different above- and belowground parts. Similarly, information is not available describing the variation in plant productivity with
management regime. Activity data required to implement a more detailed methodology would include
information on management regimes and the proportion of settlement area covered by this type of vegetation.
These are mainly garden plants, so sampling them in private gardens presents the additional problem of their
likely disturbance and consequent denial of access to them (cf. Jo and McPherson, 1995).
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Land classes. A more detailed methodology would benefit from a consistent set of definitions of land classes
within settlements, that could be applied to any country regardless of its climate, native vegetation, or typical
settlement regime. This would make settlements parallel to other land uses Forest lands, Grasslands,
Croplands, Wetlands which are easily defined based on a set of measurable and objective parameters. Some
research has been applied in this direction (Theobald, 2004), but current classifications are inconsistent. While
the rate of carbon sequestration per unit of tree crown cover is fairly consistent, for example, the overall rate of
carbon storage per unit of settlement area depends entirely on the relative amounts of tree and turfgrass cover
within that settlement. This land classification would be part of the set of activity data collected by countries,
and the detailed methodology could be developed and applied consistently based on those land cover data. This
type of land-use classification would also enable countries to account for changes in carbon storage resulting
from management changes within areas broadly classified as settlements. For example, when vacant plots are
developed, the adventitious vegetation remaining in the non-built areas might be replaced with landscape species
differing in ability to store carbon.
8.27
1
References
2
3
Akbari, H. 2002. Shade trees reduce building energy use and CO2 emissions from power plants. Environmental
Pollution 116:S119-S124.
4
5
Armentano, T. V., and E.S. Menges. 1986. Journal of Ecology 74:755-774. 1986. Patterns of change in the
carbon balance of organic soil-wetlands of the temperate zone.
6
7
Brack, C. L. 2002. Pollution mitigation and carbon sequestration by an urban forest. Environmental Pollution
116:S195-S200.
8
9
Cairns, M. A., S. Brown, E. H. Helmer, and G. A. Baumgardner. 1997. Root biomass allocation in the world's
upland forests. Oecologia 111:1-11.
10
Crane, P., and A. Kinzig. 2005. Nature in the metropolis. Science 308:1225-1225.
11
12
13
Elvidge, C. D., C. Milesi, J. B. Dietz, B. T. Tuttle, P. C. Sutton, R. Nemani, and J. E. Vogelmann. 2004. U.S.
Constructed Area Approaches the Size of Ohio. EOS - Transactions of the American Geophysical Union
85:233-234.
14
15
Falk, J. 1980. The primary productivity of lawns in a temperate environment. Journal of Applied Ecology
17:689-696.
16
Falk, J. H. 1976. Energetics of a suburban lawn ecosystem. Ecology 57:141-150.
17
18
19
Gallo, K. P., C. D. Elvidge, L. Yang, and B. C. Reed. 2004. Trends in night-time city lights and vegetation
indices associated with urbanization within the conterminous USA. International Journal Of Remote Sensing
25:2003-2007.
20
21
Goldman, M. B., P. M. Groffman, R. V. Pouyat, M. J. McDonnell, and S. T. A. Pickett. 1995. CH4 uptake and N
availability in forest soils along an urban to rural gradient. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 27:281-286.
22
23
Gregg, J. W., C. G. Jones, and T. E. Dawson. 2003. Urbanization effects on tree growth in the vicinity of New
York City. Nature 424:183-187.
24
25
Idso, C., S. Idso, and R. J. Balling. 1998. The urban CO2 dome of Phoenix, Arizona. Physical Geography 19:95108.
26
27
Idso, C., S. Idso, and R. J. Balling. 2001. An intensive two-week study of an urban CO2 dome. Atmospheric
Environment 35:995-1000.
28
29
30
Imhoff, M., C. Tucker, W. Lawrence, and D. Stutzer. 2000. The use of multisource satellite and geospatial data
to study the effect of urbanization on primary productivity in the United States. IEEE Transactions on
Geoscience and Remote Sensing 38:2549-2556.
31
32
33
Jenkins, J., D. Chojnacky, L. Heath, and R. Birdsey. 2004. Comprehensive database of diameter-based biomass
regressions for North American tree species. General Technical Report NE-, USDA Forest Service
Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA.
34
35
Jo, H. 2002. Impacts of urban greenspace on offsetting carbon emissions for middle Korea. Journal of
Environmental Management 64:115-126.
36
37
Jo, H., and E. McPherson. 1995. Carbon storage and flux in urban residential greenspace. Journal of
Environmental Management 45:109-133.
38
39
Kaye, J., I. Burke, A. Mosier, and J. Guerschman. 2004. Methane and nitrous oxide fluxes from urban soils to
the atmosphere. Ecological Applications 14:975-981.
40
41
Kaye, J. P., R. L. McCulley, and I. C. Burke. 2005. Carbon fluxes, nitrogen cycling, and soil microbial
communities in adjacent urban, native and agricultural ecosystems. Global Change Biology 11:575-587.
42
43
Koerner, B., and J. Klopatek. 2002. Anthropogenic and natural CO2 emission sources in an arid urban
environment. Environmental Pollution 116:S45-S51.
44
Kuchler, A. 1969. Potential natural vegetation. US Geological Survey Map, Sheet 90, Washington, DC.
45
46
47
Milesi, C., C. D. Elvidge, R. R. Nemani, and S. W. Running. 2003. Assessing the impact of urban land
development on net primary productivity in the southeastern United States. Remote Sensing Of Environment
86:401-410.
48
8.28

1
2
Nowak, D. 1996. Estimating leaf area and leaf biomass of open-grown deciduous urban trees. Forest Science
42:504-507.
3
4
Nowak, D., and D. Crane. 2002. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the United States.
Environmental Pollution 116:381-389.
5
6
Nowak, D., D. E. Crane, J. C. Stevens, and M. Ibarra. 2002. Brooklyn's urban forest. General Technical Report
NE-290, USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA.
7
8
Nowak, D. J., R. A. Rowntree, E. G. McPherson, S. M. Sisinni, E. R. Kerkmann, and J. C. Stevens. 1996.

Measuring and analyzing urban tree cover. Landscape and Urban Planning 36:49-57.
9
10
Pouyat, R., and M. Carreiro. 2003. Controls on mass loss and nitrogen dynamics of oak leaf litter along an
urban-rural land-use gradient. Oecologia 135:288-298.
11
12
Pouyat, R., P. Groffman, I. Yesilonis, and L. Hernandez. 2002. Soil carbon pools and fluxes in urban ecosystems.
Environmental Pollution 116:S107-S118.
13
14
Pouyat, R. V., M. J. McDonnell, and S. T. A. Pickett. 1995. Soil characteristics of oak stands along an urbanrural land-use gradient. Journal of Environmental Quality 24:516-526.
15
16
17
Qian, Y., W. Bandaranayake, W. Parton, B. Mecham, M. Harivandi, and A. Mosier. 2003. Long-term effects of
clipping and nitrogen management in turfgrass on soil organic carbon and nitrogen dynamics: The
CENTURY model simulation. Journal of Environmental Quality 32:1695-1700.
18
19
Qian, Y., and R. Follett. 2002. Assessing soil carbon sequestration in turfgrass systems using long-term soil
testing data. Agronomy Journal 94:930-935.
20
21
Raturi, S., K. R. Islam, M. J. Carroll, and R. L. Hill. 2004. Thatch and soil characteristics of cool- and warmseason turfgrasses. Communications In Soil Science And Plant Analysis 35:2161-2176.
22
23
Smith, W. B., and G. J. Brand. 1983. Allometric biomass equations for 98 species of herbs, shrubs, and small
trees. Research Note NC-299, USDA Forest Service North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN.
24
25
Theobald, D. M. 2004. Placing exurban land-use change in a human modification framework. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 2:139-144.
26
8.29
Chapter 9: Other Land

2
3
CHAPTER 9
OTHER LAND
9.1
1
Authors
Jennifer C. Jenkins (USA), Hector Daniel Ginzo (Argentina), and Stephen M. Ogle (USA)
9.2

Contents
9.1
Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 4
9.2
Other Land Remaining Other Land......................................................................................................... 4
9.3
Land Converted to Other Land................................................................................................................ 4
9.3.1
Biomass ..................................................................................................................................... 4
9.3.2
Dead Organic Matter.................................................................................................................. 6
9.3.3
Soil Carbon ................................................................................................................................ 6
9.4
Completeness, Time Series, QA/QC, and Reporting .............................................................................. 8
10
11
12
9.3
9.1 INTRODUCTION
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Chapter 3 of this Volume defines Other Land to include bare soil, rock, ice, and all land areas that do not fall into
any of the other five land-use categories treated in Chapters 4 to 8. Other Land is often unmanaged, and in that
case changes in carbon stocks and non-CO2 emissions and removals are not estimated. Guidance is provided for
the case of Land converted to Other Land. This is because the conversion is associated with changes in carbon
stocks or non-CO2 emissions, most importantly those associated with conversions from Forest land. Emissions
and removals from this land should continue to be estimated following the conversion, as described below.
Inclusion also enables checking overall consistency of land area and tracking conversions to and from Other
Land.
10
9.2 OTHER LAND REMAINING OTHER LAND
11
12
13
14
15
Emissions and removals on land converted to the Other Land class are estimated using the methods described
below, which also cover land remaining other land after conversion. All areas of Other land remaining Other
land should be included in the land use change matrix as described in Chapter 3 as a check on overall area.
Emissions from land converted to bare soil as a result of development of settlements should of course be
included in the Settlements land-use category (See Chapter 8 Settlements).
16
9.3 LAND CONVERTED TO OTHER LAND
17
18
19
20
21
This section provides guidance on methods for estimating carbon stock changes for land converted to Other land.
In general this is unlikely to be a key category, if it takes place at all, but land can be converted to Other Land,
e.g., as a result of deforestation with subsequent severe degradation, release of carbon stocks and associated
emissions. Figure 1.3 in Chapter 1 provides the decision tree which can be used to identify the appropriate tierlevel for land converted to Other Land.
22
23
24
25
26
The fundamental equation for estimating change in carbon stocks associated with land-use conversions was
introduced in Section 2.3.1.2 in Chapter 2. This basic method can be applied to estimate change in carbon stocks
in Forest land, Cropland, Grassland, Wetlands, and Settlements converted to Other Land. Extensions to the
method are provided for the subsequent treatment of these land areas following the transition period to the Other
Land category.
27
9.3.1
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
The method requires estimates of carbon in biomass stocks prior to conversion, based on estimates of the areas
of land converted during the period between land-use surveys. As a result of conversion to Other Land, it is
assumed that the dominant vegetation is removed entirely, resulting in no carbon remaining in biomass after
conversion. The difference between initial and final biomass carbon pools is used to calculate change in carbon
stocks due to land-use conversion. In subsequent years accumulations and losses in living biomass in Other Land
is considered to be zero. Figure 2.2 provides the decision tree for identification of appropriate tier to estimate
changes in carbon stocks in biomass.
35
9.3.1.1
36
37
38
The basic method (Equation 2.16 in Chapter 2) summarises how to estimate the change in carbon stocks in
biomass on land converted to Other Land. Average change in carbon stocks on a per area basis are estimated to
be equal to the change in carbon stocks due to the removal of living biomass from the initial land uses.
39
Tier 1
40
41
42
43
44
45
A Tier 1 method follows the approach in Equation 2.16 in Chapter 2 where the amount of aboveground biomass
that is removed is estimated by multiplying the forest area converted annually to other land by the average
carbon content of biomass in the land prior to conversion (BBEFORE). In this case, BAFTER in Equation 2.16 is set to
zero by default. The default assumption for the Tier 1 calculation is that all carbon in biomass (less harvested
wood products removed from the area) is released to the atmosphere immediately (i.e. in the first year after
conversion) through decay processes either on- or off-site.
9.4
Biomass
C HOICE
OF
M ETHOD

Tier 2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A Tier 2 method can be developed and used if country-specific data on carbon stocks before conversion to Other
Land (i.e. BBefore in Equation 2.16) are obtainable. Bafter remains at zero. In addition, under Tier 2, carbon losses
can be apportioned to specific conversion processes, such as burning or harvesting. This allows for more
accurate estimation of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions. A portion of biomass removed is sometimes used as
wood products or as fuel wood. Chapter 2, Section 2.4 provides the basic method for estimating non-CO2
greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning. Chapter 12 provides guidance for estimation techniques for
carbon storage in harvested wood products.
Tier 3
10
A Tier 3 method requires more detailed data/information than the Tier 2 approach., e.g.:
11
Geo-referenced disaggregated areas converted annually are used for each land use converted to Other Land;
12
Carbon densities are based on locally specific information and
13
Biomass stock values are based on inventories and/or the model estimations.
14
15
16
17
Where data are available, Tier 3 methods may be used to track the dynamic behaviour of carbon stocks and
greenhouse gas emissions following conversion. Where the land remains in a vegetation-free state (due to severe
degradation), there will generally be a continuing decline in carbon stocks. If this is not the case countries should
consider whether the land should be classified under another land use, as indicated in Chapter 3.
18
19
9.3.1.2
C HOICE
20
Tier 1
21
22
23
24
25
26
Default parameters are provided for biomass stocks before conversion to enable countries with limited data
resources to estimate emissions and removals from this source. The method requires the estimation of carbon
stocks before conversion for the initial land use (BBEFORE) and assumes that the carbon stock after conversion
(BAFTER) is zero. Tables provided in Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of this report, for average aboveground biomass
volume and below-ground to above-ground biomass ratio in different land uses, can be used to estimate carbon
stocks before conversion.
27
Tier 2
28
29
30
31
32
The Tier 2 method requires country-specific information, which may be obtained, for example, through
systematic studies of biomass carbon stocks in the various land-use categories. The default carbon stock values
mentioned above can be applied to some parameters in a Tier 2 approach. Default parameters for emissions from
biomass burning are provided in Chapter 2 Section 2.4. However, inventory compilers are encouraged to develop
country-specific coefficients to improve the accuracy of estimates. Bafter is set to zero.
33
Tier 3
34
35
Under Tier 3, all model parameters should be country-specific and at a disaggregated level, and/or biomass
stocks derived from periodic inventories should be used.
36
9.3.1.3
37
38
39
40
41
42
All tiers require estimate of the area of land converted to Other Land over a time period that is consistent with
land-use surveys and the period used for conversions in the land use change matrix. Chapter 3 provides
guidance on the use of different types of data representing land so that they are applied as appropriately and
consistently as possible in inventory calculations. The same aggregate area estimates should be used for both
biomass and soil in the calculations of change in carbon stocks on land converted to Other Land. As described
below, higher tiers require greater specificity of areas.
43
Tier 1
44
45
46
47
For a Tier 1 approach, activity data on areas of different land-use categories converted to Other Land are needed.
If countries do not have these data, partial samples may be extrapolated to the entire land base or historic
estimates of conversions may be extrapolated over time based on expert judgment. Forest areas converted to
Other Land are particularly important.
C HOICE
OF
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA
9.5
1
Tier 2
2
3
4
5
Under Tier 2, inventory compilers should use actual area estimates for transitions from various land-use
categories to Other Land. Full coverage of land areas can be accomplished either through analysis of periodic
remotely sensed images of land-use and land cover patterns, through periodic ground-based sampling of land-use
patterns, or hybrid inventory systems (Chapter 3 Annex 2A.3 provides guidance on sampling).
Tier 3
7
8
9
10
11
The activity data used should allow full accounting of all land-use category transitions to other land and should
be disaggregated to account for different conditions within a country. Disaggregation can occur along political
(county, province, etc.), biome, climate, or on a combination of these parameters. In many cases, information on
multi-year trends in land conversion may be available (from periodic sample-based or remotely sensed
inventories of land use and land cover).
12
9.3.1.4
13
Tier 1
14
15
16
17
18
Under Tier 1, the sources of uncertainty are the use of global or national averages for biomass carbon stocks in
Forest land or other land uses before conversion and coarse estimates of areas converted to Other Land. Areas
should be estimated using the methods outlined in Chapter 3. Carbon stocks will have the uncertainties
associated with their estimation in the relevant section of the Guidelines. In the absence of other estimates, a
default uncertainty level of +/- 75% of the estimated mean CO2 emission may be assumed.
19
Tier 2
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Actual area estimates for land converted to Other Land will enable more transparent accounting and allow
experts to identify gaps and double counting of land areas. The Tier 2 method uses at least some country-specific
values, which will improve the accuracy of estimates, provided they better represent conditions relevant to the
country. When country-specific values are developed, inventory compilers should use sufficient sample sizes and
techniques to minimize standard errors. Probability density functions (i.e. providing mean and variance estimates)
can be derived for all country-parameters. Such data can be used in more advanced uncertainty analyses such as
Monte Carlo simulations. Volume 1 Chapter 3 of this report can be referred for guidance on developing such
analyses. At a minimum, Tier 2 approaches should provide error ranges for each country-specific parameter.
28
Tier 3
29
30
31
Activity data should provide a basis to assign estimates of uncertainty to areas associated with land conversion.
Combining emission/removal factors and activity data and their associated uncertainties can be done using
Monte Carlo procedures to estimate means and confidence intervals for the overall inventory.
32
9.3.2
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
For Tiers 1 and 2, it is assumed that no carbon remains in biomass or dead organic matter after conversion to
Other Land. All biomass carbon stocks are assumed to be emitted in the year of conversion, thus there is no
accumulation of DOM stocks. Under Tier 1, DOM in the various land-use categories are not estimated and thus
there are no emissions or removals by sinks related to DOM to be estimated with conversions to Other Land.
Under Tier 2, if countries estimate DOM stocks for land-use categories that are subject to conversion to Other
Land, then (as for biomass) all DOM is assumed to be emitted in the year of conversion to Other Land. At Tier 3,
estimates should incorporate country-specific data on DOM.
40
9.3.3
41
42
43
For land converted to Other Land, inventory compilers should estimate the change in carbon stocks in mineral
soils under the initial land use relative to Other Land. Conversion of land to Other Land will result in a release of
organic carbon previously held in soil if the conversion is to impervious surfaces such as bare rock.
44
45
46
47
48
General information and guidance on estimating changes in soil C stocks are provided in Chapter 2 Section 2.3.3
(including equations), and needs to be reviewed before proceeding with a consideration of specific guidelines
below. The total change in soil C stocks for land converted to Grassland is estimated using Equation 2.24 for the
change in soil organic C stocks for mineral soils and organic soils; and stock changes associated with soil
inorganic C pools (Tier 3 only). This section provides specific guidance for estimating mineral soil organic C
9.6
Dead Organic Matter
Soil Carbon

1
2
3
stock changes. It is assumed the stock changes in organic soils are minimal because drainage is unlikely in
Other Lands However, methods are provided in Section 2.3.3 (Chapter 2) to estimate stock changes for
organic soils in addition to soil inorganic C .
9.3.3.1
C HOICE
OF
M ETHOD
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Inventories can be developed using a Tier 1, 2 or 3 approach, with each successive tier requiring more detail and
resources than the previous one. Decision trees are provided for mineral soils (Figure 2.4) in Section 2.3.3.1
(Chapter 2) to assist inventory compilers with selection of the appropriate tier. The approach at Tier 1 is that soil
carbon stocks will decline to zero after conversion. If this is not the case, then the land should probably be
classified under one of the other land uses. For Tier 2 country-specific estimates for C stocks on land that has
been converted to Other Land should be used or the dynamics of carbon stocks in soils can be tracked at Tier 3
using country-specific data.
12
13
14
15
Tier 1: Using Equation 2.25 (Chapter 2), the change in soil organic C stocks are estimated for mineral soils
accounting for the impact of land use conversion to Other Lands. Annual rates of emissions (source) or
removals (sink) are estimated based on the difference in stocks (over time) for the initial and last year divided by
the time dependence of the stock change factors (D, default is 20 years).
16
17
Tier 2: The Tier 2 method for mineral soils also uses Equation 2.25, but involves country or region-specific
reference C stocks and/or stock change factors and more disaggregated land use activity and environmental data.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approaches estimating soil C change from land-use conversions to Other Land, employ models, data sets and/or
monitoring networks that are capable of representing transitions over time from other land uses, including forests,
Grasslands, Croplands, and possibly Settlements. Tier 3 methods should where possible be integrated with
estimates of biomass removal and the post-clearance treatment of plant residues (including woody debris and
litter), as variation in the removal and treatment of residues (e.g. burning, site preparation) will affect C inputs to
soil organic matter formation and C losses through decomposition and combustion.
26
9.3.3.2
27
28
29
30
31
Tier 1: The initial (pre-conversion) soil organic C stock (SOC(0-T)) is computed from the default reference soil
organic C stocks (SOCREF) stock change factors (FLU). The reference stocks at the end of the 20 year default
transition period is assumed to be zero. See the appropriate section for specific information regarding the
derivation of pre-conversion stock change factors for other land use sectors (Cropland in Section 5.2.3.2, Forest
Land in 4.2.3.2, Settlements in 8.2.3.2, and Grassland in 6.2.3.2).
32
33
34
35
36
37
Tier 2: A Tier 2 approach can be implemented in which country-specific data are used to derive a land use
factors (SOC(0-T), FLU, FMG, FI) that better represent conditions in different types of Other Land. Country-specific
reference stocks at the end of the 20 year period can also be applied. Subsequently, emissions and removals are
set to zero. See the appropriate section for specific information regarding the derivation of pre-conversion stock
change factors for other land use sectors (Forest Land in Section 4.2.3.2, Cropland in 5.2.3.2, Grassland in
6.2.3.2, and Settlements in 8.2.3.2).
38
39
40
Reference values should be consistent across land use sectors (i.e., Forest land, Cropland, Grassland, Settlements,
and Other lands), which requires coordination among the various teams conducting soil C inventories for
AFOLU.
41
42
Tier 3: Model parameters will be determined using country specific data or soil stocks measures using soil
inventories with representative sampling as set out in Chapter 3
43
9.3.3.3
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Tiers 1 and 2: For purposes of estimating soil carbon stock change, area estimates of land-use conversions to
Other Land should be stratified according to major climate regions and soil types. If such information has not
already been compiled, an initial approach would be to overlay available land cover/land use maps (of national
origin or from global datasets such as IGBP_DIS) with soil and climate maps of national origin or global sources,
such as the FAO Soils Map of the World and climate data from the United Nations Environmental Program.
Detailed descriptions of the default climate and soil classification schemes are provided in Chapter 3. Soil types
are classified based on taxonomic description and textural data, and climate regions are based on mean annual
C HOICE
C HOICE
OF
OF
A CTIVITY D ATA
9.7
1
2
3
temperatures and precipitation, elevation and potential evapotranspiration. See corresponding sections dealing
with each land use category for sector-specific information on activity data (Cropland in Section 5.2.3.3,
Grassland in 6.2.3.3, Forests in 4.2.3.3, and Settlements in 8.2.3.3).
4
5
6
7
8
Activity data gathered using Approach 2 or 3 (see Chapter 3) provide the underlying basis for determining the
previous land use for Land Converted to Other Lands, but in its basic form at least, aggregate data (Approach 1)
do not reveal specific transitions. In this case conversions to Other Land will be reported with the Other Land
Remaining Other Land and in effect transitions become step changes across the landscape. This makes it
particularly important to achieve coordination among categories of land use to ensure consistency over time.
9
10
11
12
9.3.3.4
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Uncertainties in estimating soil C stock changes in lands converted to Other Lands are due to: 1) uncertainties in
land use and management activity prior to conversion; 2) uncertainties in reference soil C stocks if using a Tier 1
or 2 approach for mineral soils only; and 3) uncertainties in the stock change/emission factors for Tier 1 or 2
approaches (or equivalently for Tier 3, uncertainties due model structure or parameter values, or in
measurements with sample-based inventories). Uncertainties may be large at Tier 1 where global or nationally
aggregated statistics on land conversion are used, and because of reliance on default reference carbon stocks.
Table 3.7 in Chapter 3 provides default uncertainties ranges associated with the different approaches to area
estimation , and the uncertainty in carbon stock estimation could exceed 50% at Tier 1.
21
22

REPORTING
23
COMPLETENESS
24
25
26
27
28
29
The total area of Other Land covered by the inventory methodology is the sum of Land remaining Other Land
and Land converted to Other Land during the time period. Inventory compilers are encouraged to track through
time the total area of land classified as Other Land within country boundaries, keeping transparent records on
which portions are used to estimate change in carbon stocks. All land area in a country should be included in the
reporting even if an inventory of emissions and removals has not been compiled for a portion of the land base,
such as Other Lands.
30
DEVELOPING A CONSISTENT TIME SERIES
31
32
33
34
35
36
To maintain a consistent time series, it is good practice for countries to apply the same inventory methods over
the entire reporting time period, including definitions for land uses, area included in a C inventory, and
calculation method. It is good practice to keep transparent records of any changes, and then re-calculate the C
stock changes over the entire inventory time period. Guidance on re-calculation under these circumstances is
given in Volume 1 Chapter 5. Consistent estimation and reporting of Other Lands also requires common
definitions of climate and soil types across the entire time series for the period of the inventory.
37
INVENTORY QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)
38
39
40
It is good practice to implement quality control checks and external expert review of inventory estimates and
data. Specific attention should be paid to country-specific estimates of stock change factors and emission factors
to ensure that they are based on high quality data and verifiable expert opinion.
41
REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION
42
43
44
45
46
It is good practice to maintain and archive all information used to produce national inventory estimates.
Metadata and data sources for information used to estimate country-specific parameters should be documented,
and both mean and variance estimates provided. Actual databases and procedures used to process the data (e.g.
statistical programs) to estimate country-specific factors should be archived. Activity data and definitions used to
categorise or aggregate the activity data should be documented and archived.
9.8

REPORTING TABLES AND WORKSHEETS
2
3
4
5
The categories described in this section can be reported using the reporting tables in Volume1 Chapter 8. The
estimates for carbon dioxide emissions and removals from soils resulting from Land Converted to Other Lands
are reported in IPCC Reporting Category 5D, changes in soil carbon. Worksheets are provided in Annex 1 for
calculating emissions and removals of CO2 from Land Converted to Other Lands.
6
7
9.9
Chapter 10: Emissions from Livestock and Manure Management

2
3
4
CHAPTER 10
EMISSIONS FROM LIVESTOCK AND

MANURE MANAGEMENT
10.1
1
Authors
Hongmin Dong (China), Joe Mangino (USA), and Tim A. McAllister (Canada)
3
4
Jerry L. Hatfield (USA), Donald E. Johnson (USA), Keith R. Lassey (New Zealand), Magda Aparecida de Lima
(Brazil), and Anna Romanovskaya (Russia)
5
6
Deborah Bartram (USA), Darryl Gibb (Canada), and John H. Martin, Jr. (USA)
10.2

Contents
10.1 INTRODUCTION
10.2 LIVESTOCK POPULATION AND FEED CHARACTERISATION
10.2.1
Steps to Define Categories and Sub-Categories of Livestock..............................................................7
10.2.2
Choice of Method ................................................................................................................................8
10.2.3
Uncertainty Assessment.....................................................................................................................23
10.2.4
Characterisation for Livestock Without Species- Specific Emission Estimation Methods................23
10.3 METHANE EMISSIONS FROM ENTERIC FERMENTATION
24
10.3.1
Choice of Method ..............................................................................................................................24
10
10.3.2
Choice of Emission Factors ...............................................................................................................27
11
10.3.3
Choice of Activity Data .....................................................................................................................32
12
10.3.4
13
10.3.5
Completeness, Time Series, Quality Assurance/Quality Control and Reporting...............................33
14
10.4 METHANE EMISSIONS FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT
35
15
10.4.1
Choice of method...............................................................................................................................35
16
10.4.2
17
10.4.3
18
10.4.4
19
10.4.5
Completeness, time series, quality assurance / Quality control and reporting...................................50
20
10.5 N2O EMISSIONS FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT
52
21
10.5.1
Choice of Method ..............................................................................................................................53
22
10.5.2
23
10.5.3
24
10.5.4
Coordination with Reporting for N2O Emissions From Managed Soils ............................................65
25
10.5.5
26
10.5.6
Completeness, time series, quality assurance / quality control and reporting....................................68
27
10.5.7
Use of Worksheets .............................................................................................................................70
28
Annex 10A.1 Data Underlying Methane Default Emission Factors For Enteric Fermentation .......................72
29
Annex 10A.2 Data Underlying Methane Default Emission Factors for Manure Management ........................77
30
31
10.3
Equations
Equation 10.1 Annual average population....................................................................................................8
Equation 10.2 Coefficient for calculating net energy for maintenance.......................................................13
Equation 10.3 Net Energy for Maintenance...............................................................................................15
Equation 10.4 Net Energy for Activity (for Cattle and Buffalo) ................................................................16
Equation 10.5 Net Energy for Activity (for Sheep) ....................................................................................16
Equation 10.6 Net Energy for Growth (for Cattle and Buffalo) .................................................................17
Equation 10.7 Net Energy for Growth (for Sheep) .....................................................................................17
Equation 10.8 Net Energy for Lactation (for beef cattle, dairy cattle and buffalo).....................................18
10
Equation 10.9 Net Energy for Lactation for Sheep (milk production known)............................................18
11
Equation 10.10 Net Energy for Lactation for Sheep (milk production unknown)......................................19
12
Equation 10.11 Net Energy for Work (for Cattle and Buffalo) ..................................................................19
13
Equation 10.12 Net Energy to Produce Wool (for Sheep)..........................................................................19
14
Equation 10.13 Net Energy for Pregnancy (for Cattle/Buffalo and sheep).................................................20
15
Equation 10.14 Ratio of Net Energy Available in a Diet for Maintenance to Digestible Energy Consumed20
16
Equation 10.15 Ratio of Net Energy Available for Growth in a Diet to Digestible Energy Consumed .....21
17
Equation 10.16 Gross Energy for Cattle/Buffalo and Sheep ......................................................................21
18
Equation 10.17 Estimation of Dry Matter Intake for Growing and Finishing Cattle..................................22
19
Equation 10.18a Estimation of Dry Matter Intake for Mature beef Cattle..................................................22
20
Equation 10.18b Estimation of Dry Matter Intake for Mature Dairy cows.................................................22
21
Equation 10.19 Enteric Fermentation Emissions from a Livestock Category ............................................27
22
Equation 10.20 Total Emissions from Livestock Enteric Fermentation ....................................................28
23
Equation 10.21 CH4 Emission Factors for Enteric Fermentation from a Livestock Category....................31
24
Equation 10.22 CH4 Emissions from Manure Management .......................................................................37
25
Equation 10.23 CH4 Emission Factor from Manure Management..............................................................41
26
Equation 10.24 Volatile Solid Excretion Rates .........................................................................................42
27
Equation 10.25 Direct N2O Emissions from Manure Management...........................................................53
28
Equation 10.26 N Losses Due to Volatilisation From Manure Management .............................................54
29
Equation 10.27 Indirect N2O Emissions Due to Volatilisation of N From Manure Management ..............56
30
Equation 10.28 N Losses Due to Leaching From Manure Management Systems ......................................56
31
Equation 10.29 Indirect N2O Emissions Due to Leaching From Manure Management .............................57
32
Equation 10.30 Annual N Excretion Rates .................................................................................................57
33
Equation 10.31 Annual N Excretion Rates (Tier 2)....................................................................................58
34
Equation 10.32 N Intake Rates for Cattle ...................................................................................................60
35
Equation 10.33 N Retained Rates for Cattle ...............................................................................................61
36
37
Equation 10.34 Managed Manure N Available for Application to Managed Soils, Feed, Fuel or
Construction Uses ..............................................................................................................66
38
10.4

Figures
Figure 10.1
Decision Tree for Livestock Population Characterisation....................................................9
Figure 10.2
Decision Tree for CH4 Emissions from Enteric Fermentation ...........................................26
Figure 10.3
Decision Tree for CH4 Emissions from Manure Management...........................................36
Figure 10.4
Decision Tree for N2O Emissions from Manure Management (Note 1) ............................55
7
8
Tables
10
Table 10.1 Representative Livestock Categories ........................................................................................11
11
Table 10.2 Representative Feed Digestibility for various livestock Categories .....................................14
12
13
Table 10.3 Summary of the Equations Used to Estimate Daily Gross Energy Intake for
Cattle, Buffalo and Sheep .................................................................................................15
14
Table 10.4 Coefficients for Calculating Net Energy For Maintenance ( NEm ).........................................16
15
Table 10.5 Activity Coefficients corresponding to Animals Feeding Situation ........................................17
16
Table 10.6 Constants for use in calculating NEg for sheep ........................................................................18
17
Table 10.7 Constants for use in Calculating NEp in Equation 10.13..........................................................20
18
19
Table 10.8 Examples of NEma content of typical diets fed to cattle. for estimation of dry
matter intake in Equations 10.17 and 10.18 ......................................................................23
20
Table 10.9 Suggested Emissions Inventory Methods for Enteric Fermentation .........................................25
21
Table 10.10 Enteric Fermentation Emission Factors For Tier 1 Method1 (kg CH4 per head per yr) .......28
22
Table 10.11 Tier 1 Enteric Fermentation Emission Factors for Cattle1 ....................................................29
23
Table 10.12 Cattle/Buffalo CH4 Conversion Factors (Ym ) .......................................................................30
24
Table 10.13 Sheep CH4 Conversion Factors (Ym) ....................................................................................31
25
26
Table 10.14 Manure Management Methane Emission Factors by Temperature for

Cattle, Swine, and Buffaloa (kg CH4 per head per year)....................................................38
27
28
29
Table 10.15 Manure Management Methane Emission Factors by Temperature for

Sheep, Goats, Camels, Horses, Mules and Asses, and Poultry
(kg CH4 per head per year).................................................................................................40
30
31
Table 10.16 Manure Management Methane Emission Factors for Deer, Reindeer,
Rabbits, and Fur-Bearing Animals.....................................................................................41
32
Table 10.17 MCF Values by Temperature for Manure Management Systems..........................................44
33
Table 10.18 Definitions of Manure Management Systems.........................................................................49
34
Table 10.19 Default Values for Nitrogen Excretion (kg/1000 kg animal mass/day) a ...............................59
35
36
37
Table 10.20 Default values for the Fraction of Nitrogen in Feed Intake of Livestock that is
Retained by the Different Livestock Species/Categories
(Fraction N-Intake Retained by the Animal)......................................................................60
10.5
1
Table 10.21 Default Emission Factors for Direct N2O Emissions from Manure Management .................62
2
3
Table 10.22 Default Values for Nitrogen Loss Due to Volatilisation of NH3 and
NOx from Manure Management.........................................................................................65
Table 10.23 Default Values for Total Nitrogen Loss from Manure Management ......................................67
5
6
Table 10A.1 Data for estimating Tier 1 Enteric Fermentation CH4 Emission Factors for Dairy Cows In
Table 10.11 ........................................................................................................................73
7
8
Table 10A.2 Data for Estimating Tier 1 Enteric Fermentation CH4 Emission Factors for Other Cattle In
Table 10.11 ........................................................................................................................74
9
10
Table 10A.2 (Continued) Data for Estimating Tier 1 Enteric Fermentation CH4 Emission Factors for
Other Cattle In Table 10.11................................................................................................75
11
Table 10A.3 Data for Estimating Tier 1 Enteric Fermentation CH4 Emission Factors for Buffalo...........76
12
10.6

10.1 INTRODUCTION
2
3
4
5
6
This chapter provides guidance on methods to estimate emissions of methane from enteric fermentation in
livestock and methane and nitrous oxide emissions from manure management. CO2 emissions from livestock are
not estimated because annual net CO2 emissions are assumed to be zero the CO2 photosynthesized by plants is
returned to the atmosphere as respired CO2. A portion of the C is returned as CH4 and for this reason CH4
requires separate consideration.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Livestock production can result in methane (CH4) emissions from enteric fermentation and both CH4 and nitrous
oxide (N2O) emissions from livestock manure management systems. Cattle are an important source of CH4 in
many countries because of their large population and high CH4 emission rate due to their ruminant digestive
system. Methane emissions from manure management tend to be smaller than enteric emissions, with the most
substantial emissions associated with confined animal management operations where manure is handled in
liquid-based systems. Nitrous oxide emissions from manure management vary significantly between the types of
management system used and can also result in indirect emissions due to other forms of nitrogen loss from the
system. The calculation of the nitrogen loss from manure management systems is also an important step in
determining the amount of nitrogen that will ultimately be available in manure applied to managed soils, or used
for feed, fuel, or construction purposes emissions that are calculated in Chapter 11 Section 11.2 (N2O
emissions from managed soils).
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The methods for estimating CH4 and N2O emissions from livestock require definitions of livestock subcategories, annual populations and, for higher Tier methods, feed intake and characterisation. The procedures
employed to define livestock subcategories, develop population data, and characterize feed are described in
Section 10.2 (Livestock Population and Feed Characterisation). Suggested feed digestibility coefficients for
various livestock categories have been provided to help estimation of feed intake for use in calculation of
emissions from enteric and manure sources. A coordinated livestock characterisation as described in Section
10.2 should be used to ensure consistency across the following source categories:
25
Section 10.3 - CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation;
26
Section 10.4 - CH4 emissions from manure management;
27
Section 10.5 - N2O emissions from manure management (direct and indirect);
28
Chapter 11 Section 11.2 - N2O emissions from managed soils (direct and indirect).
29
30
31
10.2 LIVESTOCK POPULATION AND FEED

CHARACTERISATION
33
10.2.1 Steps to Define Categories and Sub-Categories of

Livestock
34
35
36
37
38
Good practice is to identify the appropriate method for estimating emissions for each source category, and then
base the characterisation on the most detailed requirements identified for each livestock species. The livestock
characterisation used by a country will probably undergo iterations as the needs of each source category are
assessed during the emissions estimation process (see Figure 10.1, Decision Tree for Livestock Population
Characterisation). The steps are:
39
40
41
Identify Livestock Species applicable to each Emission Source Category: The livestock species that
contribute to more than one emission source category should first be listed. These species are typically:
cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, swine, horses, camels, mules/asses, and poultry.
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Review the Emission Estimation Method for each Relevant Source Category: For the source categories
of enteric fermentation and manure management, identify the emission estimating method for each species
for that source category. For example, enteric fermentation emissions from cattle, buffalo, and sheep should
each be examined to assess whether the trend or level of emissions warrant a Tier 2 or Tier 3 emissions
estimate. Similarly, manure management methane emissions from cattle, buffalo, swine, and poultry should
be examined to determine whether the Tier 2 or Tier 3 emissions estimate is appropriate. Existing inventory
estimates can be used to conduct this assessment. If no inventory has been developed to date, Tier 1
emissions estimates should be calculated to provide initial estimates for conducting this assessment. See
32
10.7
1
2
Volume 1 Chapter 4 (Methodological Choice and Identification of Key Categories) for guidance on the
general issues of methodological choice.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10.2.2 Choice of Method
Identify the Most Detailed Characterisation Required for each Livestock Species: Based on the
assessments for each species under each source category, identify the most detailed characterisation required
to support each emissions estimate for each species. Typically, the Basic characterisation can be used
across all relevant source categories if the enteric fermentation and manure sources are both estimated with
their Tier 1 methods. An Enhanced characterisation should be used to estimate emissions across all the
relevant sources if the Tier 2 method is used for either enteric fermentation or manure.
10
TIER 1: BASIC CHARACTERISATION FOR LIVESTOCK POPULATIONS
11
12
13
Basic characterisation for Tier 1 is likely to be sufficient for most animal species in most countries. For this
approach it is good practice to collect the following livestock characterisation data to support the emissions
estimates:
14
15
16
17
18
19
Livestock Species and Categories: A complete list of all livestock populations that have default emission factor
values must be developed (e.g., dairy cows, other cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, camels, llamas, alpacas, deer,
horses, rabbits, mules and asses, swine, and poultry) if these categories are relevant to the country. More
detailed categories should be used if the data are available. For example, more accurate emission estimates can
be made if poultry populations are further subdivided (e.g., layers, broilers, turkeys, ducks, and other poultry), as
the waste characteristics among these different populations varies significantly.
20
21
22
23
24
25
Annual Population: If possible, inventory compilers should use population data from official national statistics
or industry sources. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) data can be used if national data are unavailable.
Seasonal births or slaughters may cause the population size to expand or contract at different times of the year,
which will require the population numbers to be adjusted accordingly. It is important to fully document the
method used to estimate the annual population, including any adjustments to the original form of the population
data as it was received from national statistical agencies or from other sources.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Annual average populations are estimated in various ways, depending on the available data and the nature of the
animal population. In the case of static animal populations (e.g., dairy cows, breeding swine, layers), estimating
the annual average population may be as simple as obtaining data related to one-time animal inventory data.
However, estimating annual average populations for a growing population (e.g., meat animals, such as broilers,
turkeys, beef cattle, and market swine) requires more evaluation. Most animals in these growing populations are
alive for only part of a complete year. Animals should be included in the populations regardless if they were
slaughtered for human consumption or die of natural causes. Equation 10.1 estimates the annual average of
livestock population.
34
35
EQUATION 10.1
ANNUAL AVERAGE POPULATION
36
NAPA
AAP = Days _alive

365_ days
37
Where:
38
AAP = annual average population
39
NAPA = number of animals produced annually
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Broiler chickens are typically grown approximately 60 days before slaughter. Estimating the average annual
population as the number of birds grown and slaughtered over the course of a year would greatly overestimate
the population, as it would assume each bird lived the equivalent of 365 days. Instead, one should estimate the
average annual population as the number of animals grown divided by the number of growing cycles per year.
For example, if broiler chickens are typically grown in flocks for 60 days, an operation could turn over
approximately 6 flocks of chickens over the period of one year. Therefore, if the operation grew 60,000
chickens in a year, their average annual population would be 9,863 chickens. For this example the equation
would be:
48
Annual average population = 60 days X 60,000 / 365 days / yr = 9,863
49
10.8

Figure 10.1
Decision Tree for Livestock Population Characterisation
2
3
START
4
5
6
7
Identify livestock species

applicable to each category
Review the emission

estimation methods for each
of the categories
(Note 1)
Note 1: These categories include: CH4 from Enteric
Fermentation, CH4 from Manure Management, N2O from
Manure Management.
Note 2: See Volume 1 Chapter 4, "Methodological
Choice and Identification of Key Categories" (noting
Section 4.1.2 on limited resources), for discussion of key
categories and use of decision trees.
Identify whether a basic or enhanced

characterisation is required for each
livestock species based on key
category analyses
(Note 2)
Box 1
Ask for
each livestock species:
Are data available to
support the level of detail
required for the
characterisation?
NO
Can
data be collected to
support the level of
characterisation?
NO
Set the level of the

characterisation
to the available data
YES
YES
Collect the data required

to support
the characterisation.
Perform the
characterisation at the
required level of detail
Box 2
10.9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Dairy Cows and Milk Production: The dairy cow population is estimated separately from other cattle (see
Table 10.1). Dairy cows are defined in this method as mature cows that are producing milk in commercial
quantities for human consumption. This definition corresponds to the dairy cow population reported in the FAO
Production Yearbook. In some countries the dairy cow population is comprised of two well-defined segments:
high-producing (also called improved) breeds in commercial operations; and low-producing cows managed with
traditional methods. These two segments can be combined, or can be evaluated separately by defining two dairy
cow categories. However, the dairy cow category does not include cows kept principally to produce calves for
meat or to provide draft power. Low productivity multi-purpose cows should be considered as other cattle.
10
Dairy buffalo may be categorized in a similar manner to dairy cows.
11
12
13
14
15
Data on the average milk production of dairy cows is also required. Milk production data are used in estimating
an emission factor for enteric fermentation using the Tier 2 method. Country-specific data sources are preferred,
but FAO data may also be used. These data are expressed in terms of kilograms of whole fresh milk produced
per year per dairy cow. If two or more dairy cow categories are defined, the average milk production per cow is
required for each category.
16
17
18
TIER 2: ENHANCED CHARACTERISATION FOR LIVESTOCK

POPULATIONS
19
The Tier 2 livestock characterisation requires detailed information on:
20
Definitions for livestock sub-categories;
21
Livestock population by sub-category, with consideration for estimation of annual population as per Tier 1;
22
Feed intake estimates for the typical animal in each sub-category.
23
24
25
The livestock population sub-categories are defined to create relatively homogenous sub-groupings of animals.
By dividing the population into these sub-categories, country-specific variations in age structure and animal
performance within the overall livestock population can be reflected.
26
27
28
29
30
The Tier 2 characterisation methodology seeks to define animals, animal productivity, diet quality and
management circumstances to support a more accurate estimate of feed intake for use in estimating methane
production from enteric fermentation. The same feed intake estimates should be used to provide harmonised
estimates of manure and nitrogen excretion rates to improve the accuracy and consistency of CH4 and N2O
emissions from manure management.
31
32
33
Definitions for Livestock Sub-categories

It is good practice to classify livestock populations into sub-categories for each species. Representative livestock
categories for doing this are shown in Table 10.1. Further sub-categories are also possible:
34
35
36
37
38
Cattle and buffalo populations should be classified into at least three main sub-categories: mature dairy,
other mature, and growing cattle. Depending on the level of detail in the emissions estimation method,
sub-categories can be further classified based on animal or feed characteristics. For example, growing /
fattening cattle could be further sub-divided into those cattle that are fed a high-grain diet and housed in
dry lot vs. those cattle that are grown and finished solely on pasture.
39
40
41
42
Subdivisions similar to those used for cattle and buffalo can be used to further segregate the sheep
population in order to create sub-categories with relatively homogenous characteristics. For example,
growing lambs could be further segregated into lambs finished on pasture vs. lambs finished in a feedlot.
The same approach applies to national goat herds.
43
44
45
Sub-categories of swine could be further segregated based on production conditions. For example,
growing swine could be further subdivided into growing swine housed in intensive production facilities
vs. swine that are grown under free-range conditions.
46
47
Sub-categories of poultry could be further segregated based on production conditions. For example,
poultry could be divided on the basis of production under confined or free-range conditions.
48
49
50
51
52
For large countries or for countries with distinct regional differences, it may be useful to designate regions and
then define categories within those regions. Regional subdivisions may be used to represent differences in
climate, feeding systems, diet, and manure management. However, this further segregation is only useful if
correspondingly detailed data are available on feeding and manure management system usage by these livestock
categories.
10.10

TABLE 10.1
REPRESENTATIVE LIVESTOCK CATEGORIES1,2
Main Categories
Mature Dairy Cows or Mature Dairy
Buffalo
Sub-categories
Other Mature Cattle or Mature Nondairy Buffalo
High-producing cows that have calved at least once and are used principally
for milk production
Low-producing cows that have calved at least once and are used principally
for milk production
Females:
Cows used to produce offspring for meat
Cows used for more than one production purpose: milk, meat, draft
Males:
Bulls used principally for breeding purposes

Bullocks used principally for draft power
Growing Cattle or Growing Buffalo
Calves pre-weaning
Replacement dairy heifers
Growing / fattening cattle or buffalo post-weaning
Feedlot-fed cattle on diets containing > 90 % concentrates
Mature Ewes
Breeding ewes for production of offspring and wool production

Milking ewes where commercial milk production is the primary purpose
Other Mature Sheep (>1 year)
No further sub-categorisation recommended
Growing Lambs
Intact males
Castrates
Females
Mature Swine
Sows in gestation
Sows which have farrowed and are nursing young
Boars that are used for breeding purposes
Growing swine
Nursery
Finishing
Gilts that will be used for breeding purposes
Growing boars that will be used for breeding purposes
Chickens
Broiler chickens grown for producing meat

Layer chickens for producing eggs, where manure is managed in dry
systems (e.g., high-rise houses)
Layer chickens for producing eggs, where manure is managed in wet
systems (e.g., lagoons)
Chickens under free-range conditions for egg or meat production
Turkeys
Breeding turkeys in confinement systems

Turkeys grown for producing meat in confinement systems
Turkeys under free-range conditions for meat production
Ducks
Breeding ducks
Ducks grown for producing meat
Others (For example).
Camels
Mules and Asses
Llamas, Alpacas
Fur bearing animals
Rabbits
Horses
Deer
Ostrich
Geese
1
2
Source IPCC Expert Group

Emissions should only be considered for livestock species used to produce food, fodder or raw materials used for industrial processes.
10.11
1
For each of the representative animal categories defined, the following information is required:
annual average population (number of livestock or poultry as per calculations for Tier 1);
average daily feed intake (megajoules (MJ) per day and / or kg per day of dry matter); and
methane conversion factor (percentage of feed energy converted to methane).
5
6
7
Generally, data on average daily feed intake are not available, particularly for grazing livestock. Consequently,
the following general data should be collected for estimating the feed intake for each representative animal
category:
weight (kg);
average weight gain per day (kg)1;
10
feeding situation: confined, grazing, pasture conditions;
11
milk production per day (kg/day) and fat content (%)2;
12
average amount of work performed per day (hours/day);
13
percentage of females that give birth in a year3;
14
wool growth;
15
number of offspring; and,
16
feed digestibility (%).
17
Feed Intake Estimates
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Tier 2 emissions estimates require feed intakes for a representative animal in each sub-category. Feed intake is
typically measured in terms of gross energy (e.g., megajoules (MJ) per day) or dry matter (e.g., kilograms (kg)
per day). Dry matter is the amount of feed consumed (kg) after it has been corrected for the water content in the
complete diet. For example, consumption of 10 kg of a diet that contains 70% dry matter would result in a dry
matter intake of 7 kg. To support the enteric fermentation Tier 2 method for cattle, buffalo, and sheep (see
Section 10.3), detailed data requirements and equations to estimate feed intake are included in guidance below.
Constants in the equations have been combined to simplify overall equation formats. The remainder of this subsection presents the typical data requirements and equations used to estimate feed intake for cattle, buffalo, and
sheep. Feed intake for other species can be estimated using similar country-specific methods appropriate for each.
28
For all estimates of feed intake, good practice is to:
29
Collect data to describe the animals typical diet and performance in each sub-category;
30
Estimate feed intake from the animal performance and diet data for each sub-category.
31
32
33
In some cases, the equations may be applied on a seasonal basis, for example under conditions in which
livestock gain weight in one season and lose weight in another. This approach may require a more refined
variation of Tier 2 or more complex Tier 3 type methodology.
34
35
The following animal performance data are required for each animal sub-category to estimate feed intake for the
sub-category:
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Weight (W), kg: Live-weight data should be collected for each animal sub-category. It is unrealistic to
perform a complete census of live-weights, so live-weight data should be obtained from representative
sample studies or statistical databases if these already exist. Comparing live-weight data with slaughterweight data is a useful cross-check to assess whether the live-weight data are representative of country
conditions. However, slaughter-weight data should not be used in place of live-weight data as it fails to
account for the complete weight of the animal. Additionally it should be noted that the relationship between
live-weight and slaughter-weight varies with breed and body condition. For cattle, buffalo and mature sheep,
This may be assumed to be zero for mature animals.
Milk production data are required for dairy animals. These can be estimated for non-dairy animals providing milk to young,
where data are available.
This is only relevant for mature females.
10.12

1
2
the yearly average weight for each animal category (e.g. mature beef cows) is needed. For young sheep,
weights are needed at: birth, weaning, one year of age or at slaughter if slaughter occurs within the year.
3
4
5
6
7
8
Average weight gain per day (WG), kg/d: Data on average weight gain are generally collected for feedlot
animals and young growing animals. Mature animals are generally assumed to have no net weight gain or
loss over an entire year. Mature animals frequently lose weight during the dry season or during temperature
extremes and gain weight during the following season. However, increased emissions associated with this
weight change are likely to be small. Reduced intakes and emissions associated with weight loss are largely
balanced by increased intakes and emissions during the periods of gain in body weight.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Mature weight (MW), kg: The mature weight of the adult animal of the inventoried group is required to
define a growth pattern, including the feed and energy required for growth. For example, mature weight of a
breed or category of cattle or buffalo is generally considered to be the body weight at which skeletal
development is complete. The mature weight will vary among breeds and should reflect the animals
weight when in moderate body condition. This is termed reference weight (ACC 1990) or final shrunk
body weight (NRC 1996). Estimates of mature weight are typically available from livestock specialists and
producers.
16
17
Average number of hours worked per day: For draft animals, the average number of hours worked per
day must be determined.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Feeding situation: The feeding situation that most accurately represents the animal sub-category must be
determined using the definitions shown below (Table 10.5). If the feeding situation lies between the
definitions, the feeding situation should be described in detail. This detailed information may be needed
when calculating the enteric fermentation emissions, because interpolation between the feeding situations
may be necessary to assign the most appropriate coefficient. Table 10.5 defines the feeding situations for
cattle, buffalo, and sheep. For poultry and swine, the feeding situation is assumed to be under confinement
conditions and consequently the activity coefficient (Ca )is assumed to be zero as under these conditions
very little energy is expended in acquiring feed. Activity coefficients have not been developed for freeranging swine or poultry, but in most instances these livestock sub-categories are likely to represent a small
proportion of the national inventory.
28
29
30
31
32
Mean winter temperature, C : Detailed feed intake models consider ambient temperature, wind speed,
hair and tissue insulation and the heat of fermentation (NRC, 2001; AAC, 1990) and are likely more
appropriate in Tier 3 applications. A more general relationship adapted from North America data suggest
adjusting the Cfi of Equation 10.3 for maintenance requirements of open-lot fed cattle in colder climates
according to the following equation (Johnson 1986);
33
34
EQUATION 10.2
COEFFICIENT FOR CALCULATING NET ENERGY FOR MAINTENANCE
35
Cf i (in _ cold ) = Cf i + 0.0048 (20 C )
36
Where:
37
38
Cfi = a coefficient which varies for each animal category as shown in Table 10.4 (Coefficients for
Calculating NEm).
39
C = Mean daily temperature during winter season.
40
Considering the average temperature during winter months, net energy for maintenance (NEm) requirements
may increase by as much as 30% in northern North America. This increase in feed use for maintenance is
also likely associated with greater methane emissions.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Average daily milk production, (kg/d): These data are for milking ewes, dairy cows and buffalo. The
average daily production should be calculated by dividing the total annual production by 365, or reported as
average daily production along with days of lactation per year, or estimated using seasonal production
divided by number of days per season. If using seasonal production data, the emission factor must be
developed for that seasonal period.
50
51
Fat content, %: Average fat content of milk is required for lactating cows, buffalo, and sheep producing
milk for human consumption.
52
Percent of females that give birth in a year: This is collected only for mature cattle, buffalo, and sheep.
10.13
1
2
Number of off spring produced per year: This is relevant to female livestock that have multiple births per
year (e.g., ewes).
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Feed digestibility, (DE%): The portion of gross energy (GE) in the feed not excreted in the faeces is
known as digestible feed. The feed digestibility is commonly expressed as a percentage (%) of GE or TDN
(total digestible nutrients). That percentage of feed that is not digested represents the % of DM intake that
will be excreted as faeces. Typical digestibility values for a range of livestock classes and diet types are
presented in Table 10.2 as a guideline. For ruminants, common ranges of feed digestibility are 45-55% for
crop by-products and range lands; 55-75% for good pastures, good preserved forages, and grain
supplemented forage-based diets; and 75-85% for grain-based diets fed in feedlots. Variations in diet
digestibility results in major variations in the estimate of feed needed to meet animal requirements and
consequently associated methane emissions and amounts of manure excreted. It is also important to note
that digestibility, intake, and growth are co-dependent phenomena. For example, a low digestibility will
lead to lower feed intake and consequently reduced growth. Conversely, feeds with high digestibility will
often result in a higher feed intake and increased growth. A 10% error in estimating DE will be magnified
to 12 to 20% when estimating methane emissions and even more (20 to 45%) for manure excretion (volatile
solids).
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Digestibility data should be based on measured values for the dominant feeds or forages being consumed by
livestock with consideration for seasonal variation. In general, the digestibility of forages decreases with
increasing maturity and is typically lowest during the dry season. Due to significant variation, digestibility
coefficients should be obtained from local scientific data wherever possible. Although a complete census of
digestibility is considered unrealistic, at a minimum digestibility data from research studies should be
consulted. While developing the digestibility data, associated feed characteristic data should also be
recorded when available, such as measured values for Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF), Acid Detergent Fiber
(ADF), crude protein, and the presence of anti-nutritional factors (e.g., alkaloids, phenolics, % ash). NDF
and ADF are feed characteristics measured in the laboratory that are used to indicate the nutritive value of
the feed for ruminant livestock. Determination of these values can enable DE to be predicted as defined in
the recent dairy NRC (2001). The concentration of crude protein in the feed can be used in the process of
estimating nitrogen excretion (Section 10.5.2).
Average annual wool production per sheep (kg/yr): The amount of wool produced in kilograms (after
drying out but before scouring) is needed to estimate the amount of energy allocated for wool production.
31
TABLE 10.2
REPRESENTATIVE FEED DIGESTIBILITY FOR VARIOUS LIVESTOCK CATEGORIES
Main Categories
Class
Digestibility (DE%)
Swine
Mature swine confinement

Growing swine - confinement
Swine free range
70-80%
80-90%
50-70%1
Cattle and other

ruminants
75-85%
Feedlot animals fed with > 90%

concentrate diet;
Pasture fed animals;
Animals fed low quality forage
55-75%
45-55%
Broiler chickens confinement

Layer hens confinement
Poultry free range
Turkeys confinement
Geese confinement
85-93%
70-80%
55-90%1
85-93%
80-90%
Poultry
1
The range in digestibility of feed consumed by free-range swine and poultry is extremely variable due to the selective
nature of these diets. Often it is likely that the amount of manure produced in these classes will be limited by the amount
of feed available for consumption as opposed to its degree of digestibility. In instances where feed is not limiting and
high quality feed sources are readily accessible for consumption, digestibility may approach values that are similar to
those measured under confinement conditions.
32
10.14

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Gross Energy Calculations

Animal performance and diet data are used to estimate feed intake, which is the amount of energy (MJ/day) an
animal needs for maintenance and for activities such as growth, lactation, and pregnancy. For inventory
compilers who have well-documented and recognised country-specific methods for estimating intake based on
animal performance data, it is good practice to use the country-specific methods. The following section provides
methods for estimating gross energy intake for the key ruminant categories of cattle, buffalo and sheep. The
equations listed in Table 10.3 are used to derive this estimate. If no country-specific methods are available,
intake should be calculated using the equations listed in Table 10.3. As shown in the table, separate equations are
used to estimate net energy requirements for sheep as compared with cattle and buffalo. The equations used to
calculate GE are as follows:
11
TABLE 10.3
SUMMARY OF THE EQUATIONS USED TO ESTIMATE DAILY GROSS ENERGY INTAKE FOR
CATTLE, BUFFALO AND SHEEP
Metabolic Functions and
Other Estimates
Equations for Cattle and

Buffalo
Equations for Sheep
Maintenance (NEm)
Equation 10.3
Equation 10.3
Activity (NEa)
Equation 10.4
Equation 10.5
Growth (NEg)
Equation 10.6
Equation 10.7
Lactation (NEl)*
Equation 10.8
Equations 10.9 and 10.10
Draft Power (NEw)
Equation 10.11
NA
Wool Production (NEwool)
NA
Equation 10.12
Pregnancy (NEp)*
Equation 10.13
Equation 10.13
REM
Equation 10.14
Equation 10.14
REG
Equation 10.15
Equation 10.15
Gross Energy
Equation 10.16
Equation 10.16
Source: Cattle and buffalo equations based on NRC (1996) and sheep based on AFRC (1993).
NA means not applicable.
* Applies only to the proportion of females that give birth.
12
13
14
Net Energy for Maintenance: (NEm ) is the net energy required for maintenance, which is the amount of energy
needed to keep the animal in equilibrium where body energy is neither gained nor lost (Jurgen, 1988).
15
16
EQUATION 10.3
NET ENERGY FOR MAINTENANCE
NE m = Cf i (Weight )
0.75
17
18
Where:
19
NEm = net energy required by the animal for maintenance, MJ day-1
20
21
Calculating NEm)
22
Weight = live-weight of animal, kg
23
24
25
26
Net Energy for Activity: (NEa) is the net energy for activity, or the energy needed for animals to obtain their
food, water and shelter. It is based on its feeding situation rather than characteristics of the feed itself. As
presented in Table 10.3, the equation for estimating NEa for cattle and buffalo is different from the equation used
for sheep. Both equations are empirical with different definitions for the coefficient Ca.
27
10.15
1
2
EQUATION 10.4
NET ENERGY FOR ACTIVITY (FOR CATTLE AND BUFFALO)
NE a = C a NE m
Where:
NEa = net energy for animal activity, MJ day-1
Ca = coefficient corresponding to animals feeding situation (Table 10.5, Activity Coefficients)
NEm = net energy required by the animal for maintenance (Equation 10.3), MJ day-1
8
9
10
EQUATION 10.5
NET ENERGY FOR ACTIVITY (FOR SHEEP)
NE a = C a (weight )
11
12
Where:
13
14
Ca = coefficient corresponding to animals feeding situation (Table 10.5)
15
weight = live-weight of animal, kg
16
17
18
For Equations 10.4 and 10.5, the coefficient Ca corresponds to a representative animals feeding situation as
described earlier. Values for Ca are shown in Table 10.5. If a mixture of these feeding situations occurs during
the year, NEa must be weighted accordingly.
19
TABLE 10.4
COEFFICIENTS FOR CALCULATING NET ENERGY FOR MAINTENANCE ( NEM )
Animal Category
Cfi (MJ d-1 kg-1)
Comments
Cattle/Buffalo (non-lactating cows)
0.322
Cattle/Buffalo (lactating cows)
0.386
This value is 20% higher for

maintenance during lactation
Cattle/Buffalo (bulls)
0.370
This value is 15% higher for

maintenance of intact males
Sheep (lamb to 1 year)
0.236
This value can be increased by 15%

for intact males
Sheep (older than 1 year)
0.217
This value can be increased by 15%

for intact males.
Source: NRC (1996) and AFRC (1993).
20
10.16

1
TABLE 10.5
ACTIVITY COEFFICIENTS CORRESPONDING TO ANIMALS FEEDING SITUATION
Situation
Definition
Ca
CATTLE AND BUFFALO (Unit for Ca is dimensionless)

Stall
Animals are confined to a small area (i.e. tethered, pen,

barn) with the result that they expend very little or no
energy to acquire feed.
Pasture
Animals are confined in areas with sufficient forage

requiring modest energy expense to acquire feed.
0.17
Grazing large areas
Animals graze in open range land or hilly terrain and

expend significant energy to acquire feed.
0.36
SHEEP (Unit for Ca = MJ d-1 kg-1)

Housed ewes
Animals are confined due to pregnancy in final trimester (50

days).
0.009
Grazing flat pasture
Animals walk up to 1000 meters per day and expend very

little energy to acquire feed.
0.0107
Grazing hilly pasture
Animals walk up to 5,000 meters per day and expend

significant energy to acquire feed.
0.024
Housed fattening lambs
Animals are housed for fattening.
0.0067
Source: NRC (1996) and AFRC (1993).
2
3
4
5
Net Energy for Growth: (NEg) is the net energy needed for growth (i.e. weight gain). Equation 10.6 is based on
NRC (1996). Equation 10.7 is based on Gibbs et al. (2002). Constants for conversion from calories to joules and
live to shrunk and empty body weight have been incorporated into the equation.
6
EQUATION 10.6
NET ENERGY FOR GROWTH (FOR CATTLE AND BUFFALO)
7
8
BW
NE g = 22.02
C MW
0.75
WG1.097
10
Where:
11
NEg = net energy needed for growth, MJ day-1
12
BW = the average live body weight (BW) of the animals in the population, kg
13
C = a coefficient with a value of 0.8 for females, 1.0 for castrates and 1.2 for bulls (NRC, 1996)
14
MW = the mature live body weight of an adult female in moderate body condition, kg
15
WG = the average daily weight gain of the animals in the population, kg day-1
16
EQUATION 10.7
NET ENERGY FOR GROWTH (FOR SHEEP)
17
18
NE g =
19
WGlamb (a + 0.5b(BWi + BW f ))
365 _ days / year
20
Where:
21
22
WGlamb = the weight gain (BWf BWi), kg
10.17
1
BWi = the live bodyweight at weaning, kg
2
3
BWf = the live bodyweight at 1-year old or at slaughter (live-weight) if slaughtered prior to 1 year of age,
kg
a,b = constants as described in Table 10.6.
5
6
7
Note that lambs will be weaned over a period of weeks as they supplement a milk diet with pasture feed or
supplied feed. The time of weaning should be taken as the time at which they are dependent on milk for half
their energy supply.
8
9
The NEg equation used for sheep includes two empirical constants (a and b) that vary by animal species/category
(Table 10.6).
10
TABLE 10.6
CONSTANTS FOR USE IN CALCULATING NEG FOR SHEEP
Animal
species/category
a
(MJ/kg)
b
(MJ/kg2)
Intact Males
2.5
0.35
Castrates
4.4
0.32
Females
2.1
0.45
Source: AFRC (1993).
11
12
13
14
15
Net Energy for Lactation: (NEl ) is the net energy for lactation. For cattle and buffalo the net energy for
lactation is expressed as a function of the amount of milk produced and its fat content expressed as a percentage
(e.g. 4%) (NRC, 1989):
16
17
EQUATION 10.8
NET ENERGY FOR LACTATION (FOR BEEF CATTLE, DAIRY CATTLE AND BUFFALO)
NE1 = Milk (1.47 + 0.40 Fat )
18
19
Where:
20
NEl = net energy for lactation, MJ day-1
21
Milk = amount of milk produced, kg of milk day-1
22
Fat = fat content of milk, % by weight.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Two methods for estimating the net energy required for lactation (NEl) are presented for sheep. The first method
(Equation 10.9) is used when the amount of milk produced is known, and the second method (Equation 10.8) is
used when the amount of milk produced is not known. Generally, milk production is known for ewes kept for
commercial milk production, but it is not known for ewes that suckle their young to weaning. With a known
amount of milk production, the total annual milk production is divided by 365 days to estimate the average daily
milk production in kg/day (Equation 10.9). When milk production is not known, AFRC (1990) indicates that for
a single birth, the milk yield is about 5 times the weight gain of the lamb. For multiple births, the total annual
milk production can be estimated as five times the increase in combined weight gain of all lambs birthed by a
single ewe. The daily average milk production is estimated by dividing the resulting estimate by 365 days as
33
34
35
EQUATION 10.9
NET ENERGY FOR LACTATION FOR SHEEP (MILK PRODUCTION KNOWN)
36
NE1 = Milk EVmilk
37
Where:
38
10.18

-1
Milk = amount of milk produced, kg of milk day
2
3
EVmilk = the net energy required to produce 1 kg of milk. A default value of 4.6 MJ/kg (AFRC, 1993) can
be used which corresponds to a milk fat content of 7% by weight
4
EQUATION 10.10
NET ENERGY FOR LACTATION FOR SHEEP (MILK PRODUCTION UNKNOWN)
5
6
(5 WGwean )
NE1 =
EVmilk
365 _ days
7
8
Where:
10
WG wean = the weight gain of the lamb between birth and weaning in kg
11
12
EVmilk = the energy required to produce 1 kg of milk. A default value of 4.6 MJ/kg (AFRC, 1993) can be
used
13
14
15
16
17
18
Net Energy for Work: (NEwork ) is the net energy for work. It is used to estimate the energy required for draft
power for cattle and buffalo. Various authors have summarised the energy intake requirements for providing
draft power (e.g. Lawrence, 1985; Bamualim and Kartiarso, 1985; and Ibrahim, 1985). The strenuousness of the
work performed by the animal influences the energy requirements, and consequently a wide range of energy
requirements have been estimated. The values by Bamualim and Kartiarso show that about 10 percent of a days
NEm requirements are required per hour for typical work for draft animals. This value is used as follows:
19
20
21
EQUATION 10.11
NET ENERGY FOR WORK (FOR CATTLE AND BUFFALO)
22
NE work = 0.10 NE m Hours
23
Where:
24
NEwork = net energy for work, MJ day-1
25
26
Hours = number of hours of work per day
27
28
29
Net Energy for Wool Production: (NEwool ) is the average daily net energy required for sheep to produce a year
of wool. The NEwool is calculated as follows:
30
31
EQUATION 10.12
NET ENERGY TO PRODUCE WOOL (FOR SHEEP)
EV Pr oductionwool
NE wool = wool
365 _ days / yr
32
33
Where:
34
NEwool = net energy required to produce wool, MJ day-1
35
36
EVwool = the energy value of each kg of wool produced (weighed after drying but before scouring). A
default value of 24 MJ/kg (AFRC, 1993) can be used for this estimate.
37
Productionwool = annual wool production per sheep, kg yr-1
38
39
40
41
Net Energy for Pregnancy: (NEp) is the energy required for pregnancy. For cattle and buffalo, the total energy
requirement for pregnancy for a 281-day gestation period averaged over an entire year is calculated as 10% of
NEm. For sheep, the NEp requirement is similarly estimated for the 147-day gestation period, although the
10.19
1
2
percentage varies with the number of lambs born (Table 10.7, Constant for Use in Calculating NEp in Equation
10.13). Equation 10.13 shows how these estimates are applied.
3
4
EQUATION 10.13
NET ENERGY FOR PREGNANCY (FOR CATTLE/BUFFALO AND SHEEP)
NE p = C pregnancy NE m
Where:
NEp = net energy required for pregnancy, MJ day-1
Cpregnancy = pregnancy coefficient (see Table 10.7)
10
TABLE 10.7
CONSTANTS FOR USE IN CALCULATING NEP IN EQUATION 10.13
Animal Category
Cpregnancy
0.10
Cattle and Buffalo

Sheep
Single birth
Double birth (twins)
Triple birth or more (triplets)
0.077
0.126
0.150
Source: Estimate for cattle and buffalo developed from data in NRC (1996). Estimates for sheep developed from data in AFRC (1993),
taking into account the inefficiency of energy conversion.
11
12
13
14
When using NEp to calculate GE for cattle and sheep, the NEp estimate must be weighted by the portion of the
mature females that actually go through gestation in a year. For example, if 80% of the mature females in the
animal category give birth in a year, then 80% of the NEp value would be used in the GE equation below.
15
16
17
To determine the proper coefficient for sheep, the portion of ewes that have single births, double births, and
triple births is needed to estimate an average value for Cpregnancy. If these data are not available, the coefficient
can be calculated as follows:
18
19
If the number of lambs born in a year divided by the number of ewes that are pregnant in a year is less than
or equal to 1.0, then the coefficient for single births can be used.
20
21
If the number of lambs born in a year divided by the number of ewes that are pregnant in a year exceeds 1.0
and is less than 2.0, calculate the coefficient as follows:
Cpregnancy = [(0.126 Double Birth Fraction) + (0.077 Single Birth Fraction)]
22
23
Where:
24
Double Birth Fraction = [(lambs born / pregnant ewes) 1]
25
Single Birth Fraction = [1 Double Birth Fraction]
26
27
28
29
Ratio of Net Energy Available in Diet for Maintenance to Digestible Energy Consumed (REM): For cattle,
buffalo and sheep, the ratio of net energy available in a diet for maintenance to digestible energy consumed
(REM ) is estimated using the following equation (Gibbs and Johnson 1993):
30
31
32
EQUATION 10.14
RATIO OF NET ENERGY AVAILABLE IN A DIET FOR MAINTENANCE TO DIGESTIBLE ENERGY
CONSUMED
33
25.4
2
REM = 1.123 (4.092 10 3 DE % ) + 1.126 10 5 (DE % )
DE %
34
Where:
10.20

REM = ratio of net energy available in a diet for maintenance to digestible energy consumed
DE% = digestible energy expressed as a percentage of gross energy
3
4
5
6
Ratio of Net Energy Available For Growth in a Diet to Digestible Energy Consumed (REG): For cattle,
buffalo and sheep the ratio of net energy available for growth (including wool growth) in a diet to digestible
energy consumed (REG ) is estimated using the following equation (Gibbs and Johnson 1993):
7
8
9
EQUATION 10.15
RATIO OF NET ENERGY AVAILABLE FOR GROWTH IN A DIET TO DIGESTIBLE ENERGY
CONSUMED
10
37.4
2
REG = 1.164 (5.160 10 3 DE % ) + 1.308 10 5 (DE % )
DE %
11
Where:
12
REG= ratio of net energy available for growth in a diet to digestible energy consumed
13
14
15
16
17
Gross Energy, GE: As shown in Equation 10.16, GE requirement is derived based on the summed net energy
requirements and the energy availability characteristics of the feed(s). Equation 10.16 represents good practice
for calculating GE requirements for cattle and sheep using the results of the equations presented above.
18
In using Equation 10.16, only those terms relevant to each animal category are used (see Table 10.3).
EQUATION 10.16
GROSS ENERGY FOR CATTLE/BUFFALO AND SHEEP
19
20
NE m + NE a + NE1 + NE work + NE p

REM
GE =
DE %
100
21
NE g + NE wool
+
REG

22
Where:
23
GE = gross energy, MJ day-1
24
25
NEa = net energy for animal activity (Equations 10.4 and 10.5), MJ day-1
26
NEl = net energy for lactation (Equations 10.8, 10.9, and 10.10), MJ day-1
27
NEw = net energy for work (Equation 10.11), MJ day-1
28
NEp = net energy required for pregnancy (Equation 10.13), MJ day-1
29
30
REM = ratio of net energy available in a diet for maintenance to digestible energy consumed (Equation
10.14)
31
NEg = net energy needed for growth (Equations 10.6 and 10.7), MJ day-1
32
NEwool = net energy required to produce a year of wool (Equation 10.12), MJ day-1
33
REG = ratio of net energy available for growth in a diet to digestible energy consumed (Equation 10.15)
34
DE%= digestible energy expressed as a percentage of gross energy
35
36
37
38
39
Once the values for GE are calculated for each animal sub-category, the feed intake in units of kilograms of dry
matter per day (kg/day) should also be calculated. To convert from GE in energy units to dry matter intake
(DMI), divide GE by the energy density of the feed. A default value of 18.45 MJ/kg of dry matter can be used if
feed-specific information is not available. The resulting daily dry matter intake should be in the order of 2% to
10.21
1
2
3% of the body weight of the mature or growing animals. In high producing milk cows, intakes may exceed 4%
of body weight.
Feed Intake Estimates Using a Simplified Tier 2 Method
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Prediction of DMI for cattle based on body weight and estimated dietary net energy concentration (NEma) or
digestible energy values (DE%): It is also possible to predict dry matter intake for mature and growing cattle
based on body weight of the animal and either the NEma concentration of the feed (NRC, 1996) or DE%.
Dietary NEma concentration can range from 3.0 to 9.0 MJ/kg of dry matter. Typical values for high, moderate
and low quality diets are presented in Table 10.8. These figures can also be used to estimate NEma values for
mixed diets based on estimate of diet quality. For example, a mixed forage-grain diet could be assumed to have
a NEma value similar to that of a high-quality forage diet. A mixed grain-straw diet could be assumed to have a
NEma value similar to that of a moderate quality forage. Nutritionists within specific geographical areas should
be able to provide advice with regard to the selection of NEma values that are more representative of locally fed
diets.
15
Dry matter intake for growing and finishing cattle is estimated using the following equation:
16
17
EQUATION 10.17
ESTIMATION OF DRY MATTER INTAKE FOR GROWING AND FINISHING CATTLE.
18
0.2444 NE ma 0.0111 NE ma 2 0.472

DMI = BW 0.75
NE ma
19
Where:
20
DMI = dry matter intake, kg day-1
21
BW = live body weight, kg
22
NEma = estimated dietary net energy concentration of diet or default values in Table 10.8, MJ kg-1
23
24
Dry matter intake for mature beef cattle is estimated using the following equation:
25
26
EQUATION 10.18a
ESTIMATION OF DRY MATTER INTAKE FOR MATURE BEEF CATTLE
27
0.0119 NE ma 2 + 0.1938
DMI = BW 0.75
NE ma
28
Where:
29
30
31
NEma = estimated dietary net energy concentration of diet or default values given in Table 10.8, MJ kg-1
32
33
34
For mature dairy cows consuming low quality, often tropical forages, the following alternative equation for
estimating dry matter intake based on DE% can be used (NRC, 1989):
35
36
EQUATION 10.18b
ESTIMATION OF DRY MATTER INTAKE FOR MATURE DAIRY COWS
(5.4 BW ) (100 DE % )
DMI =
500
100

37
38
Where:
39
40
10.22

1
2
DE%= digestible energy expressed as a percentage of gross energy (typically 45-55% for low quality
forages)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Equations 10.17, 10.18a, and 10.18b provide a good check to the main Tier 2 method to predict feed intake.
They can be viewed as asking what is an expected intake for a given diet quality? and used to independently
predict DMI from BW and diet quality (NEma or DE%). In contrast, the main Tier 2 method predicts DMI based
on how much feed must be consumed to meet estimated requirements (i.e., NEm and NEg) and does not consider
the biological capacity of the animal to in fact consume the predicted quantity of feed. Consequently, the
simplified Tier 2 method can be used to confirm that DMI values derived from the main Tier 2 method are
biologically realistic. These estimates are also subject to the cross check that dry matter intake should be in the
order of 2% to 3% of the bodyweight of the mature or growing animals.
12
TABLE 10.8
EXAMPLES OF NEMA CONTENT OF TYPICAL DIETS FED TO CATTLE. FOR ESTIMATION OF DRY MATTER INTAKE IN
EQUATIONS 10.17 AND 10.18
Diet type
NEma (MJ/ kg DM)
High grain diet > 90%
7.5- 8.5
High quality forage (e.g., vegetative legumes & grasses )
6.5 7.5
Moderate quality forage (e.g., mid season legume &

grasses)
5.5 6.5
Low quality forage (e.g., straws, mature grasses)
3.5 5.5
Source: Estimates obtained from predictive models in NRC (1996), NEma can also be estimated using the equation: NEma = REM x 18.45
x DE% / 100.
13
14
10.2.3 Uncertainty Assessment
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The first step in collecting data should be to investigate existing national statistics, industry sources, research
studies and FAO statistics. The uncertainty associated with populations will vary widely depending on source,
but should be known within + 20%. Often, national livestock population statistics already have associated
uncertainty estimates in which case these should be used. If published data are not available from these sources,
interviews of key industry and academic experts can be undertaken. Estimates of digestibility are also
particularly important in Tier 2 estimates of gross energy intake. Uncertainty estimates for digestibility
estimates may be as high as + 20%. Volume 1 Chapter 3 (Uncertainties) describes how to elicit expert
judgement for uncertainty ranges. Similar expert elicitation protocols can be used to obtain the information
required for the livestock characterisation if published data and statistics are not available.
24
25
10.2.4 Characterisation for Livestock Without SpeciesSpecific Emission Estimation Methods
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Some countries may have domesticated livestock for which there are currently no Tier 1 or Tier 2 emissions
estimating methods (e.g. llamas, alpacas, wapiti, emus, and ostriches). Good practice in estimating emissions
from these livestock is to first assess whether their emissions are likely to be significant enough to warrant
characterising them and developing country-specific emission factors. Volume 1 Chapter 4 (Methodological
Choice and Identification of Key Categories) presents guidance for assessing the significance of individual
source categories within the national inventory. Similar approaches can be used to assess the importance of subsource categories (i.e. species) within a source category. If the emissions from a particular sub-species are
determined to be significant, then country-specific emission factors should be developed, and a characterisation
should be performed to support the development of the emission factors. Research into the estimation of
emission levels from these non-characterized species should be encouraged. The data and methods used to
characterise the animals should be well documented.
37
38
39
As emissions estimation methods are not available for these animals, approximate emission factors based on
order of magnitude calculations are appropriate for conducting the assessment of the significance of their
emissions. One approach for developing the approximate emission factors is to use the Tier 1 emissions factor
10.23
1
2
for an animal with a similar digestive system and to scale the emissions factor using the ratio of the weights of
the animals raised to the 0.75 power. The Tier 1 emission factors can be classified by digestive system as follows:
Ruminant animals: cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, camels
Non-ruminant herbivores: horses, mules/asses
Poultry: chickens, ducks, turkeys, geese
Non-poultry monogastric animals: swine
7
8
For example, an approximate enteric fermentation methane emissions factor for alpacas could be estimated from
the emissions factor for sheep (also a ruminant animal) as follows:
Approximate emissions factor = [(alpaca weight) / (sheep weight)]0.75 sheep emissions factor
10
11
12
13
Similarly, an approximate manure methane emissions factor for ostriches could be estimated using the Tier 1
emission factor for chickens. Approximate emission factors developed using this method can only be used to
assess the significance of the emissions from the animals, and are not considered sufficiently accurate for
estimating emissions as part of a national inventory.
14
16
10.3 METHANE EMISSIONS FROM ENTERIC

FERMENTATION
17
18
19
20
21
22
Methane is produced in herbivores as a by-product of enteric fermentation, a digestive process by which

carbohydrates are broken down by micro-organisms into simple molecules for absorption into the bloodstream.
The amount of methane that is released depends on the type of digestive tract, age, and weight of the animal, and
the quality and quantity of the feed consumed. Ruminant livestock (e.g., cattle, sheep) are major sources of
methane with moderate amounts produced from non-ruminant livestock (e.g., pigs, horses). The ruminant gut
structure fosters extensive enteric fermentation of their diet.
23
Digestive System
24
25
26
27
28
29
The type of digestive system has a significant influence on the rate of methane emission. Ruminant livestock
have an expansive chamber, the rumen, at the fore-part of their digestive tract that supports intensive microbial
fermentation of their diet which yields several nutritional advantages including the capacity to digest cellulose in
their diet. The main ruminant livestock are cattle, buffalo, goats, sheep, deer and camelids. Non-ruminant
livestock (horses, mules, asses) and monogastric livestock (swine) have relatively lower methane emissions
because much less methane-producing fermentation takes place in their digestive systems.
30
Feed Intake
31
32
33
34
Methane is produced by the fermentation of feed within the animal's digestive system. Generally, the higher the
feed intake, the higher the methane emission. Although, the extent of methane production may also be affected
by the composition of the diet. Feed intake is positively related to animal size, growth rate, and production (e.g.,
milk production, wool growth, or pregnancy).
35
36
37
38
39
To reflect the variation in emission rates among animal species, the population of animals should be divided into
subgroups, and an emission rate per animal is estimated for each subgroup. Types of population subgroups are
provided in Section 10.2 (Livestock and Feed Characterisation). The amount of methane emitted by a
population subgroup is calculated by multiplying the emission rate per animal by the number of animals within
the subgroup.
40
41
Natural wild ruminants are not considered in the derivation of a countrys emission estimate. Emissions should
only be considered from animals under domestic management (e.g., farmed deer, elk, and buffalo).
42
43
44
45
It is good practice to choose the method for estimating methane emissions from enteric fermentation according
to the decision Tree in Figure 10.2. The method for estimating methane emission from enteric fermentation
requires three basic steps:
46
47
48
Step 1: Divide the livestock population into subgroups and characterize each subgroup as described in Section
10.2. It is recommended that national experts use annual averages estimated with consideration for the impact of
production cycles and seasonal influences on population numbers.
15
10.24

Step 2: Estimate emission factors for each subgroup in terms of kilograms of methane per animal per year.
2
3
Step 3: Multiply the subgroup emission factors by the subgroup populations to estimate subgroup emission, and
sum across the subgroups to estimate total emission.
4
5
These three steps can be performed at varying levels of detail and complexity. This chapter presents the
following three approaches:
Tier 1
7
8
9
10
11
A simplified approach that relies on default emission factors either drawn from the literature or calculated using
the more detailed Tier 2 methodology. The Tier 1 method is likely to be suitable for most animal species in
countries where enteric fermentation is not a key source category, or where enhanced characterization data are
not available. When approximate enteric emissions are derived by extrapolation from main livestock categories
they should be considered to be a Tier 1 method.
12
Tier 2
13
14
15
A more complex approach that requires detailed country-specific data on gross energy intake and methane
conversion factors for specific livestock categories. The Tier 2 method should be used if enteric fermentation is
a key source category for the animal category that represents a large portion of the countrys total emissions.
16
Tier 3
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Some countries for which livestock emissions are particularly important may wish to go beyond the Tier 2
method and incorporate additional country-specific information in their estimates. This approach could employ
the development of sophisticated models that consider diet composition in detail, concentration of products
arising from ruminant fermentation, seasonal variation in animal population or feed quality and availability, and
possible mitigation strategies. Many of these estimates would be derived from direct experimental measurements.
Although countries are encouraged to go beyond the Tier 2 method presented below when data are available,
these more complex analyses are only briefly discussed here. A Tier 3 method should be subjected to a wide
degree of international peer review such as that which occurs in peer-reviewed publications to ensure that they
improve the accuracy and / or precision of estimates.
26
27
28
29
30
Countries with large populations of domesticated animal species for which there are no IPCC default emission
factors (e.g. llamas and alpacas) are encouraged to develop national methods that are similar to the Tier 2
method and are based on well-documented research (if it is determined that emissions from these livestock are
significant). The approach is described in Section 10.2.4 under the heading Characterisation for livestock
without species-specific emission estimation methods for more information
31
Table 10.9 summarises the suggested approaches for the livestock emissions included in this inventory.
TABLE 10.9
SUGGESTED EMISSIONS INVENTORY METHODS FOR ENTERIC FERMENTATION
Livestock
Suggested Emissions Inventory Methods
Dairy Cow
Tier 2a/Tier 3
Other Cattle
Tier 2a/Tier 3
Buffalo
Tier 1/Tier 2
Sheep
Tier 1/Tier 2
Goats
Tier 1
Camels
Tier 1
Horses
Tier 1
Mules and Asses
Tier 1
Swine
Tier 1
Poultry
Other (e.g. llamas,
alpacas, deer)
Not developed
Tier 1
The Tier 2 method is recommended for countries with large livestock populations.
Implementing the Tier 2 method for additional livestock subgroups may be desirable when the
category emissions are a large portion of total methane emissions for the country.
32
10.25
1
Figure 10.2
Decision Tree for CH 4 Emissions from Enteric Fermentation
2
START
3
4
5
Box 3: Tier 3
Do you
have a country-specific
Tier 3 methodology?
Estimate emissions for the

species using Tier 3
approach
YES
8
NO
9
10
Is enhanced
livestock characterization
available?
NO
Box 1: Tier 1
Is enteric
fermentation a key category (Note 1)
and is the species significant
(Note 2)?
NO
Estimate emissions
for the species
using Tier 1 approach
YES
YES
Collect enhanced
species characterization
data for Tier 2 approach
Estimate emissions for

the species using Tier 2
approach
Box 2: Tier 2
Note 2: As a rule of thumb, a livestock species would be significant if it accounts for 25-30% or more of
emissions from the source category.
10.26

10.3.2 Choice of Emission Factors
2
3
4
5
This Tier 1 method is simplified so that only readily-available animal population data are needed to estimate
emissions. Default emission factors are presented for each of the recommended population subgroups. Each
step is discussed in turn.
Step 1 Animal Population
The animal population data should be obtained using the approach described in Section 10.2.
Step 2 Emission Factors
Tier 1 Approach for Methane Emissions from Enteric Fermentation
9
10
11
The purpose of this step is to select emission factors that are most appropriate for the country's livestock
characteristics. Default emission factors for enteric fermentation have been drawn from previous studies, and are
organised by region for ease of use.
12
13
The data used to estimate the default emission factors for enteric fermentation are presented in Appendix 10A.1
at the end of this section.
14
15
16
17
18
19
Table 10.10 shows the enteric fermentation emission factors for each of the animal species except cattle. As
shown in the table, emission factors for sheep and swine vary for developed and developing countries. The
differences in the emission factors are driven by differences in feed intake and feed characteristic assumptions
(see Appendix 10A.1). Table 10.11 presents the enteric fermentation emission factors for cattle. A range of
emission factors is shown for typical regional conditions. As shown in the table, the emission factors vary by
over a factor of four on a per head basis.
20
21
22
23
24
While the default emission factors shown in Table 10.11 are broadly representative of the emission rates within
each of the regions described, emission factors vary within each region. Animal size and milk production are
important determinants of emission rates for dairy cows. Relatively smaller dairy cows with low levels of
production are found in Asia, Africa, and the Indian subcontinent. Relatively larger dairy cows with high levels
of production are found in North America and Western Europe.
25
26
27
28
Animal size and population structure are important determinants of emission rates for other cattle. Relatively
smaller other cattle are found in Asia, Africa, and the Indian subcontinent. Also, many of the other cattle in
these regions are young. Other cattle in North America, Western Europe and Oceania are larger, and young
cattle constitute a smaller portion of the population.
29
30
31
32
33
34
To select emission factors from Tables 10.10 and 10.11, identify the region most applicable to the country being
evaluated. Scrutinise the tabulations in Appendix 10A.1 to ensure that the underlying animal characteristics such
as weight, growth rate and milk production used to develop the emission factors are similar to the conditions in
the country. The data collected on the average annual milk production by dairy cows should be used to help
select a dairy cow emission factor. If necessary, interpolate between dairy cow emission factors shown in the
table using the data collected on average annual milk production per head.
35
36
37
38
Note that using the same Tier 1 emission factors for the inventories of successive years means that no allowance
is being made for changing livestock productivity, such as increasing milk productivity or trend in live weight. If
it is important to capture the trend in methane emission that results from a trend in livestock productivity, then
livestock emissions can become a key source category based on trend and a Tier 2 calculation should be used.
39
Step 3 Total Emission
40
41
To estimate total emission, the selected emission factors are multiplied by the associated animal population
(Equation 10.19) and summed (Equation 10.20):
42
43
EQUATION 10.19
ENTERIC FERMENTATION EMISSIONS FROM A LIVESTOCK CATEGORY
44
N (T )
Emissions = EF(T ) 6
10
/
kg
Gg
45
Where:
46
Emissions = methane emissions from enteric fermentation, Gg CH4 yr-1
47
EF(T) = emission factor for the defined livestock population, kg head-1 yr-1
48
N(T) = the number of head of livestock species / category T in the country
10.27
1
T= Species / category of livestock
2
3
EQUATION 10.20
TOTAL EMISSIONS FROM LIVESTOCK ENTERIC FERMENTATION
4
5
Total CH 4 Enteric = Ei
Where:
Total CH4Enteric = total methane emissions from enteric fermentation, Gg CH4 yr-1
Ei = is the emissions for the ith livestock categories and sub-categories
10
11
TABLE 10.10
ENTERIC FERMENTATION EMISSION FACTORS FOR TIER 1 METHOD1
(KG CH4 PER HEAD PER YR)
Livestock
Developed Countries
Developing Countries
Liveweight
Buffalo
55
55
300 kg
Sheep
Goats
Camels
46
46
570 kg
Horses
18
18
550 kg
Mules and Asses
10
10
245 kg
Deer
20
20
120 kg
Alpacas
65 kg
Swine
1.5
1.0
Poultry
Insufficient data for

calculation
To be determined1
Insufficient data for

calculation
To be determined1
Other (e.g. llamas )
65 kg - developed countries ,
45 kg - developing countries
40 kg
All estimates have an uncertainty of 30-50%

Sources: Emission factors for buffalo and camels from Gibbs and Johnson (1993). Emission factors for other livestock from Crutzen et al.
(1986), Alpacas from Pinares-Patino et al. 2003; Deer from Clark et al. 2003 .
1
One approach for developing the approximate emission factors is to use the Tier 1 emissions factor for an animal with a similar digestive
system and to scale the emissions factor using the ratio of the weights of the animals raised to the 0.75 power. Liveweight values have been
included for this purpose. Emission factors should be derived on the basis of characteristics of the livestock and feed of interest and should not
be restricted solely to within regional characteristics.
12
10.28

1
TABLE 10.11
TIER 1 ENTERIC FERMENTATION EMISSION FACTORS FOR CATTLE1
Cattle
Category
North America: Highly productive commercialized

dairy sector feeding high quality forage and grain.
Separate beef cow herd, primarily grazing with feed
supplements seasonally. Fast-growing beef
steers/heifers finished in feedlots on grain. Dairy
cows are a small part of the population.
Dairy
121
Average milk production of

8,400 kg/head/yr
Other
Cattle
53
Includes beef cows, bulls, calves,

growing steers/heifers, and feedlot
cattle.
Western Europe: Highly productive

commercialised dairy sector feeding high quality
forage and grain. Dairy cows also used for beef calf
production. Very small dedicated beef cow herd.
Minor amount of feedlot feeding with grains.
Dairy
109
Average milk production of 6,000

kg/head/yr
Other
Cattle
57
Includes bulls, calves, and growing

steers/heifers.
Dairy
Eastern Europe: Commercialised dairy sector
feeding mostly forages. Separate beef cow herd,
primarily grazing. Minor amount of feedlot feeding
with grains.
Other
89

2,550 kg/head/yr.
Cattle
Emission
Factor 2
(kg CH4/
head/yr)
Comments
Regional Characteristics
58
Includes beef cows, bulls, and

young.
Dairy
81
Average milk production of 2,200

kg/head/yr.
Other
Cattle
60

young.
Latin America: Commercialised dairy sector based Dairy

on grazing. Separate beef cow herd grazing pastures
and rangelands. Minor amount of feedlot feeding
with grains. Growing non-dairy cattle comprise a
Other
large portion of the population.
Cattle
63

800kg/head/yr.
56

young.
Dairy
Asia: Small commercialised dairy sector. Most
cattle are multi-purpose, providing draft power and
some milk within farming regions. Small grazing
population. Cattle of all types are smaller than those Other
found in most other regions.
Cattle
61

1,650 kg/head/yr.
Dairy
Africa and Middle East: Commercialised dairy
sector based on grazing with low production per
cow. Most cattle are multi-purpose, providing draft
power and some milk within farming regions. Some Other
cattle graze over very large areas. Cattle are smaller Cattle
than those found in most other regions.
40
Indian Subcontinent: Commercialised dairy sector Dairy

based on crop by-product feeding with low
production per cow. Most bullocks provide draft
power and cows provide some milk in farming
Other
regions. Small grazing population. Cattle in this
Cattle
region are the smallest compared to cattle found in
all other regions.
51
Oceania: Commercialised dairy sector based on

grazing. Separate beef cow herd, primarily grazing
rangelands of widely varying quality. Growing
amount of feedlot feeding with grains. Dairy cows
are a small part of the population.
47
31
27
Includes multi-purpose cows, bulls,

and young
475 kg/head/yr.
Includes multi-purpose cows, bulls,
and young
900 kg/head/yr
Includes cows, bulls, and young.
Young comprise a large portion of
the population
1
Emission factors should be derived on the basis of the characteristics of the cattle and feed of interest and need not be restricted solely
to within regional characteristics.
2
IPCC Expert Group, values represent averages within region, where applicable the use of more specific regional milk production data
is encouraged. Existing values were derived using Tier 2 method and the data in Tables 10 A.1 and 10A. 2.
10.29
Tier 2 Approach for Methane Emissions from Enteric Fermentation
1
2
3
4
The Tier 2 method is applied to more disaggregated livestock population categories and used to calculate
emission factors, as opposed to default values. The key considerations for the Tier 2 method are the development
of emission factors and the collection of detailed activity data.
Step 1 Livestock population
6
7
The animal population data and related activity data should be obtained following the approach described in
Section 10.2.
Step 2 Emission Factors
9
10
When the Tier 2 method is used, emission factors are estimated for each animal category using the detailed data
developed in Step 1.
11
12
13
14
The emission factors for each category of livestock are estimated based on the gross energy intake and methane
conversion factor for the category. The gross energy intake data should be obtained using the approach described
in Section 10.2. The following two sub-steps need to be completed to calculate the emission factor under the
Tier 2 method:
15
1. Obtaining the Methane Conversion Factor (Ym)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
The extent to which feed energy is converted to CH4 depends on several interacting feed and animal factors. If
CH4 conversion factors are unavailable from country-specific research, the values provided in Table 10.12,
Cattle/Buffalo CH4 conversion factors, can be used for cattle and buffalo. These general estimates are a rough
guide based on the general feed characteristics and production practices found in many developed and
developing countries. When good feed is available (i.e. high digestibility and high energy value) the lower
bounds should be used. When poorer feed is available, the higher bounds are more appropriate. A CH4
conversion factor of zero is assumed for all juveniles consuming only milk (i.e. milk-fed lambs as well as calves).
23
24
25
26
Due to the importance of Ym in driving emissions, substantial ongoing research is aimed at improving estimates
of Ym for different livestock and feed combinations. Such improvement is most needed for animals fed on
tropical pastures as the available data are sparse. For example, a recent study (Kurihara et al., 1999) observed
Ym values outside the ranges described in Table 10.12.
27
TABLE 10.12
CATTLE/BUFFALO CH4 CONVERSION FACTORS (YM )
Ym b
Livestock category
3% 1.0
Feedlot fed cattle a

Dairy cows (cattle and buffalo) and their young
6.5% 1.0
Other cattle and buffaloes that are primarily fed low quality crop residues and by-products
6.5% 1.0
Other cattle or buffalo grazing
6.5% 0.01
When fed diets contain 90 percent or more concentrates.
The values represent the range.
Source: IPCC Expert Group.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Regional, national and global estimates of enteric methane generation rely on small scale determinations both of
Ym and of the influence of feed and animal properties upon Ym. Traditional methods for measuring Ym include
the use of respiration calorimeters for housing individual animals (Johnson and Johnson, 1995). A tracer
technique using SF6 enables methane emissions from individual animals to be estimated under both housed or
grazing conditions (Johnson et al., 1994). The results of recent measurements have been surveyed by Lassey,
2006) who also examines the "upscaling" of such measurements to national and global inventories.
35
36
37
38
39
40
It is also important to examine the influences of feed properties and animal attributes on Ym. Such influences are
important to better understand the microbiological mechanisms involved in methanogenesis with a view to
designing emission abatement strategies, as well as to identify different values for Ym according to animal
husbandry practices. To date, the search for such influences is equivocal, and consequently there is little
variability evident both in the values reported in Table 10.12 as supported by the recent survey of Ym
measurements in the literature (Lassey, 2006).
41
10.30

1
2
3
4
5
6
Table 10.13 proposes a common Ym value for all mature sheep irrespective of feed quality, but with different
values for mature and juvenile sheep with demarcation at 1 year of age. These values are based on data by
Lassey et al. (1997), Judd et al. (1999) and Ulyatt et al. (2002a, 2002b, 2005) and while consistent with
measurements by other researchers (Murray et al., 1978; Leuning et al., 1999), may not span the full range of
pastures to be found. The median value is appropriate for most applications, but for poor quality feed the upper
limits may be more appropriate, and for high-digestibility high-energy feeds the lower limits may be used.
7
TABLE 10.13
SHEEP CH4 CONVERSION FACTORS (YM)
Ym a
Category
Lambs (<1 year old)
4.5% 1.0
Mature sheep
6.5% 1.0
The values represent the range
8
9
10
11
12
Note that in some cases, CH4 conversion factors may not exist for specific livestock types. In these instances,
CH4 conversion factors from the reported livestock that most closely resembles those livestock types can be
reported. For examples, CH4 conversion factors for other cattle or buffalo could be applied to estimate an
emission factor for camels.
13
2. Emission Factor Development
14
An emission factor for each animal category should be developed following Equation 10.21:
15
16
17
EQUATION 10.21
CH4 EMISSION FACTORS FOR ENTERIC FERMENTATION FROM A LIVESTOCK CATEGORY
18
Ym
GE 100 365 days / yr
EF =
55.65 MJ / kg CH 4
19
Where:
20
EF = emission factor, kg CH4 head-1 yr-1
21
GE = gross energy intake, MJ head-1 day-1
22
Ym = methane conversion factor, per cent of gross energy in feed converted to methane
23
24
25
26
27
28
This emission factor equation assumes that the emission factors are being developed for an animal category for
an entire year (365 days). While a full year emission factor is typically used, in some circumstances the animal
category may be defined for a shorter period (e.g. for the wet season of the year or for a 150-day feedlot feeding
period). In this case, the emission factor would be estimated for the specific period (e.g. the wet season) and the
365 days would be replaced by the number of days in the period. The definition of the period to which the
emission factor applies is described in Section 10.2.
29
Step 3 Total Emissions
30
31
To estimate total emissions the selected emission factors are multiplied by the associated animal population and
summed. As described above under Tier 1, the emissions estimates should be reported in gigagrams (Gg).
32
33
34
35
36
37
Potential for refinement of Tier 2 or development of a Tier 3 method to Enteric

Methane emission inventories
Increased accuracy and identification of causes of variation in emissions are at the heart of inventory purpose.
Improvements in country methodology, whether as components of current Tier 1 or 2 or if additional refinements
are implemented (Tier 3), are encouraged.
10.31
1
2
3
4
5
Current Tier 1 and Tier 2 enteric methane emissions factors and estimation procedures are driven by first
estimating daily and annual gross energy consumption by individual animals within an inventory class which are
then multiplied by an estimate of CH4 loss per unit of feed (Ym). There is considerable room for improvement in
Tier 2 prediction of both feed intake and in Ym. Factors potentially impacting feed requirements and/or
consumption that are not considered include:
breed or genotype variation in maintenance requirement.
heat and cold stress effects on intake and maintenance requirements
depression in digestibility with increasing levels of consumption, or diet composition limits to diet intake.
9
10
Likewise, a host of interacting factors that control variations in Ym are not included in Tier 2 methodology,
including:
11
effects of digestibility (DE%)
12
diet dry matter intake as it relates to live body weight
13
diet chemical composition
14
particle passage and digestion kinetics, or plant microbial defensive compounds
15
variation in the microbial populations within the digestive tract
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Accurate estimation of diet DE% is singularly important in the estimation of feed intake and thus emissions, as
previously emphasized. A 10% error in the average diet DE% or TDN% will result in CH4 errors ranging from
12 to 20% depending on beginning circumstance. The depression in DE% with increasing daily amounts of diet
consumed is not considered. This will underestimate feed intakes of high producing dairy cows consuming
mixtures of concentrates and forages, e.g., as is common in the North America and Europe, although some of the
resulting error in methane emission estimate will be compensated by reductions in Ym as intake per day increases.
Methods to estimate digestibility depressions have been described (NRC, 1996, 2001).
23
24
25
26
27
28
There have been many attempts to refine estimates of Ym. Several researchers have developed models which
relate the chemical composition of the diet consumed, or in more detail, the composition of digested
carbohydrate and other chemical components to Ym. These models typically predict diet particle and chemical
component rates of passage and digestion in each enteric compartment at varying intake and the resulting H2
balance, volatile fatty acids, and microbial and CH4 yields. These approaches have generated Ym values that are
consistent with direct measurements using chamber and SF6 techniques.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
The literature contains many examples of the positive relationship of plant cell wall digestion to high acetic to
propionic end-product ratios, and to high CH4 yields. While fibrous carbohydrate digestion is undeniably the
strongest single indicator of CH4 yield, the CH4 per digested fiber is not a constant, e.g., when soyhulls or beet
pulp, are fed as single feed at varying levels of intake, Ym will vary from 8 to 11% when measured at restricted
feed intakes and from 5 to 6% when measure at ad libitum intakes (Kujawa, 1994; Diarra, 1994). Thus enteric
fermentation of the same fibrous substrate can result in quite different Ym values. Perhaps the most severe
limitation to development of more complex prediction models lies in the difficulty of applying them to broad
country inventories. The difficulty is to provide the data needed to drive these more complex models of feed
intake or Ym. It is often difficult to define animal characteristics, productivity, and %DE accurately for a class of
livestock in a region of the country, let alone detailed carbohydrate fraction, rates of passage and digestion, etc.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
The amount of global research on mitigation strategies currently going on, such as vaccines, ionophores,
polyunsaturated vegetable oils, condensed tannins etc, suggests a need to address how they should be reflected in
inventory compilation at Tier 2 or Tier 3. First, the inventory should reflect only those technologies that conform
to QA/QC principles and have attracted a wide degree of international acceptance such as through peer-reviewed
articles that include a description of the technology, its efficacy and its validation under field conditions. Second,
the inventory should be accompanied by evidence of the take-up of the technology, and apply it only to
emissions by those livestock where take-up can be validated. Third, for a newly implemented technology (such
as an administered dose of a mitigating agent), the inventory could also present an accompanying calculation of
the emissions in the absence of a mitigation measure in order to make transparent the magnitude of the emission
reductions that are being claimed. Mitigation measures should be supported by peer-reviewed publications.
49
50
51
Approaches to improve estimates of feed intake and Ym and to consider mitigation approaches are to be
encouraged, given due care on limitations of scope, production circumstance, etc. to which the predictive
relationships apply.
52
10.3.3 Choice of Activity Data
10.32

1
2
3
4
5
6
Livestock population data should be obtained using the approach described in Section 10.2. If using default
enteric emission factors for livestock (Tables 10.10, 10.11) to estimate enteric emissions, a basic (Tier 1)
livestock population characterisation is sufficient. To estimate enteric emissions from livestock using estimation
of Gross Energy Intake (Equations 10.16, 10.17 or 10.18), a Tier 2 characterisation is needed. As noted in
Section 10.2, good practice in characterising livestock populations is to conduct a single characterisation that
will provide the activity data for all emissions sources that depend on livestock population data.
Emission Factors
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
As the emission factors for the Tier 1 method are not based on country-specific data, they may not accurately
represent a countrys livestock characteristics, and may be highly uncertain as a result. Emission factors
estimated using the Tier 1 method are unlikely to be known more accurately than +30% and may be uncertain to
+50%. The uncertainty under the Tier 2 method will depend on the accuracy of the livestock characterisation (e.g.
homogeneity of livestock categories), and also on the extent to which the methods for defining the coefficients in
the various relationships that make up the net energy approach correspond to national circumstances. Emission
factor estimates using the Tier 2 method are likely to be in the order of +20%. Inventory compilers using the Tier
2 method should undertake an analysis of uncertainties reflecting their particular situation, and in the absence of
this analysis the uncertainty under the Tier 2 method should be assumed similar to the uncertainty under the Tier
1 method.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Although a Tier 3 method has the potential to improve the accuracy of emission estimates, a substantial body of
scientific data is required to develop a viable Tier 3 method. The use of unreliable and unsubstantiated data in a
Tier 3 method could result in estimates that are inferior to Tier 2 or even Tier 1 methods. In many instances,
direct measurements of methane emissions from livestock are lacking or have been conducted using a limited
number of diet types. A considerable amount of research on potential mitigation strategies is ongoing, but few
of these have been validated to the point that they can be extrapolated to non-research conditions. As the
foundational research on emission related science continues to expand, Tier 3 method should theoretically result
in the lowest degree of uncertainty.
27
Activity Data
28
29
30
31
32
There will be an added uncertainty associated with the livestock and feed characterisation. Improving the
livestock and feed characterisation will often be the priority in reducing overall uncertainty. Accurate estimates
of feed digestibility (DE%) are also critical for reducing the degree of uncertainty. Uncertainty estimates can be
derived from the good practice approach to agricultural census data outlined in the uncertainty section for
livestock and feed characterisation (see Section 10.2).
33
General information on the procedures to assess uncertainty is presented in Volume 1 Chapter 3 (Uncertainties).
34
35
10.3.5 Completeness, Time Series, Quality

Assurance/Quality Control and Reporting
36
37
38
39
To achieve completeness all the major animal categories managed in the country should be considered. In the
event that animals are included in the inventory for which default data are not available and for which no
guidelines are provided, the emissions estimate should be developed using the same general principles presented
in the discussion in Section 10.2.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Care must be taken to use a consistent set of estimates for the CH4 conversion factors over time. In some cases,
there may be reasons to modify methane conversion factors over time. These changes may be due to the
implementation of explicit greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation measures, or may be due to changing agricultural
practices such as feed conditions or other management factors without regard to GHGs. Regardless of the driver
of change, the data and methane conversion factors used to estimate emissions must reflect the change in farm
practices. If methane conversion factors over a time series are affected by a change in management practice
and/or the implementation of GHG mitigation measures, the inventory compiler should ensure that the inventory
data reflect these practices. The inventory text should thoroughly explain how the changes in management
practice and/or implementation of mitigation measures has affected the time series of methane conversion factors.
For general good practice guidance on developing a consistent time series, see Volume 1 Chapter 5 (Time Series
Consistency).
10.33
1
2
3
It is good practice to implement quality control checks as outlined in Volume 1 Chapter 6 (Quality
Assurance/Quality Control and Verification). In addition to the guidance in Volume 1, specific procedures of
relevance to this source category are outlined below:
4
5
6
7
8
9
A ct iv ity data check

The inventory compiler should review livestock data collection methods, in particular checking that
livestock subspecies data were collected and aggregated correctly. The data should be cross-checked with
previous years to ensure the data are reasonable and consistent with the expected trend. Inventory compilers
should document data collection methods, identify potential areas of bias, and evaluate the
representativeness of the data. Population modeling can be used to support this approach.
10
11
12
13
R ev ie w of em is sio n fa cto rs
If using the Tier 2/Tier 3 method, the inventory compiler should cross-check country-specific factors against
the IPCC defaults. Significant differences between country-specific factors and default factors should be
explained and documented.
14
15
16
Ext er na l Re v ie w
If Tier 2/Tier 3 method is used, the inventory compiler is encouraged to conduct national and international
expert review, including from industry, academic institutions, and extension expertise.
17
18
19
To improve transparency, emission estimates from this source category should be reported along with the
activity data and emission factors used to determine the estimates.
20
The following information should be documented:
21
All activity data including animal population data by category and region.
22
Activity data documentation including:
It is important to maintain internal documentation on review results.
23
24
(i)
The sources of all activity data used in the calculations (i.e. complete citation for the statistical
database from which data were collected);
25
26
(ii)
The information and assumptions that were used to develop the activity data, in cases where
activity data were not directly available from databases;
27
(iii)
The frequency of data collection, and estimates of accuracy and precision.
28
29
If Tier 1 method is used, all default emission factors used in the estimation of emissions for the specific
animal categories.
30
If Tier 2 method is used:
31
(i)
Values for Ym;
32
(ii)
DE values estimated or taken from other studies;
33
(iii)
Full documentation of the data used including their references.
34
35
36
37
38
For inventories in which country- or region-specific emission factors are used or in which new methods,
such as Tier 3 are used, the scientific basis of these emission factors and the principles of the new method
should be thoroughly documented. Documentation should include definitions of input parameters and a
description of the principle process by which these emission factors and methods are derived, as well as
describing sources and magnitudes of uncertainties.
39
10.34

1
2
10.4 METHANE EMISSIONS FROM MANURE

MANAGEMENT
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
This section describes how to estimate CH4 produced during the storage and treatment of manure, and from
manure deposited on pasture. The term manure is used here collectively to include both dung and urine (i.e.,
the solids and the liquids) produced by livestock. The emissions associated with the burning of dung for fuel are
to be reported under Volume 2 (Energy), or under Volume 5 (Waste) if burned without energy recovery. The
decomposition of manure under anaerobic conditions (i.e., in the absence of oxygen), during storage and
treatment, produces CH4. These conditions occur most readily when large numbers of animals are managed in a
confined area (e.g., dairy farms, beef feedlots, and swine and poultry farms), and where manure is disposed of in
liquid-based systems. Emissions of CH4 related to manure handling and storage are reported under Manure
Management.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
The main factors affecting CH4 emissions are the amount of manure produced and the portion of the manure that
decomposes anaerobically. The former depends on the rate of waste production per animal and the number of
animals, and the latter on how the manure is managed. When manure is stored or treated as a liquid (e.g., in
lagoons, ponds, tanks, or pits), it decomposes anaerobically and can produce a significant quantity of CH4. The
temperature and the retention time of the storage unit greatly affect the amount of methane produced. When
manure is handled as a solid (e.g., in stacks or pits) or when it is deposited on pastures and rangelands, it tends to
decompose under more aerobic conditions and less CH4 is produced.
19
10.4.1 Choice of method
20
21
There are three tiers to estimate CH4 emissions from livestock manure. Guidance for determining which tier to
use is shown in Figure 10.3 decision tree.
22
23
24
25
Tier 1: A simplified method that only requires livestock population data by animal species/category and climate
region or temperature, in combination with IPCC default emission factors, to estimate emissions. Because some
emissions from manure management systems are highly temperature dependent, it is good practice to estimate
the average annual temperature associated with the locations where manure is managed.
26
27
28
29
Tier 2: A more complex method for estimating CH4 emissions from manure management should be used where
a particular livestock species/category represents a significant share of a countrys emissions. This method
requires detailed information on animal characteristics and manure management practices, which is used to
develop emission factors specific to the conditions of the country.
30
31
32
Tier 3: Some countries for which livestock emissions are particularly important may wish to go beyond the Tier
2 method and develop models for country-specific methodologies or use measurementbased approaches to
quantify emission factors.
33
34
35
36
37
The method chosen will depend on data availability and national circumstances. Good practice in estimating
CH4 emissions from manure management systems entails making every effort to use the Tier 2 method,
including calculating emission factors using country-specific information. The Tier 1 method should only be
used if all possible avenues to use the Tier 2 method have been exhausted and/or it is determined that the source
is not a key category or subcategory.
38
39
Regardless of the method chosen, the animal population must first be divided into categories as described in
Section 10.2 that reflect the varying amounts of manure produced per animal.
40
The following four steps are used to estimate CH4 emissions from manure management:
41
Step 1: Collect population data from the Livestock Population Characterisation (see Section 10.2).
42
43
Step 2: Use default values or develop country-specific emission factors for each livestock subcategory in terms
of kilograms of methane per animal per year.
44
45
Step 3: Multiply the livestock subcategory emission factors by the subcategory populations to estimate
subcategory emissions, and sum across the subcategories to estimate total emissions by primary livestock species.
46
Step 4: Sum emissions from all defined livestock species to determine national emissions.
47
10.35
1
Figure 10.3
Decision Tree for CH 4 Emissions from Manure Management
2
START
3
4
5
Box 3: Tier 3
6
7
Do
you have a countryspecific Tier 3
methodology?
8
9
YES
Estimate emissions
using Tier 3 method
NO
Is CH4 from
manure management a key
source category (Note 1) and is
the species a significant share
of emissions
(Note 2)?
10
NO
Is a Tier 2
livestock population
characterisation, available and do
you have country-specific VS rates,
MCF values, Bo values, and
management system
usage data?
YES (all or some)
Collect data for

Tier 2 method
YES
NO
Estimate CH4 emissions

using Tier 2 method
with available countryspecific inputs
Estimate CH4 emissions

using Tier 1 method
and IPCC defaults
Box 2: Tier 2
Box 1: Tier 1
10.36

Equation 10.22 shows how to calculate CH4 emissions from manure management:
EQUATION 10.22
CH4 EMISSIONS FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT
2
3
CH 4 Manure =
(T )
(EF
(T )
N (T ) )
10 6 kg / Gg
Where:
CH4Manure = CH4 emissions from manure management, for a defined population, Gg CH4 yr-1
N(T) = the number of head of livestock species/category T in the country
T = Species/category of livestock
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
The best way to determine emission factors is to conduct non-invasive or non-disturbing measurements of
emissions in actual systems representative those in use in the country. These field results can be used to develop
models to estimate emission factors (Tier 3). Such measurements are difficult to conduct, and require significant
resources and expertise, and equipment that may not be available. Thus, while such an approach is recommended
to improve accuracy, it is not required for good practice. This section provides two alternatives for developing
emission factors, with the selection of emission factors depending on the method (i.e., Tier 1 or Tier 2) chosen
for estimating emissions.
18
Tier 1
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
When using the Tier 1 method, methane emission factors by livestock category or subcategory are used. Default
emission factors by average annual temperature are presented in Table 10.14, Table 10.15, and Table 10.16 for
each of the recommended population subcategories. These emission factors represent the range in manure
volatile solids content and in manure management practices used in each region, as well as the difference in
emissions due to temperature. Tables 10A-4 through 10A-9 located in Annex 10A.2 present the underlying
assumptions used for each region. Countries using a Tier 1 method to estimate methane emissions from manure
management should review the regional variables in these tables to identify the region that most closely matches
their animal operations, and use the default emission factors for that region.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Table 10.14 shows the default emission factors for cattle, swine, and buffalo for each region and temperature
classification. Emission factors are listed by the annual average temperature the for climate zone where the
livestock manure is managed. The temperature data should be based on national meteorological statistics where
available. Countries should estimate the percentage of animal populations in different temperature zones and
compute a weighted average emission factor. Where this is not possible, the annual average temperature for the
entire country could be utilized; however, this may not give an accurate estimate of emissions that are highly
sensitive to temperature variations (e.g., liquid/slurry systems).
34
35
36
37
38
39
Tables 10.15 and 10.16 present the default manure management emission factors for other animal species.
Separate emission factors are shown for developed and developing countries in Table 10.15, reflecting the
general differences in feed intake and feed characteristics of the animals in the two regions. Except for poultry
layers (wet), these emission factors reflect the fact that virtually all the manure from these animals is managed
in dry manure management systems, including pastures and ranges, drylots, and daily spreading on fields
(Woodbury and Hashimoto, 1993).
40
10.37
TABLE 10.14
MANURE MANAGEMENT METHANE EMISSION FACTORS BY TEMPERATURE FOR CATTLE, SWINE, AND BUFFALOa
(KG CH4 PER HEAD PER YEAR)
CH4 Emission Factors by Average Annual Temperature (C)b
Cool
Livestock Species
North America: Liquid-based systems are commonly used

for dairy cows and swine manure. Other cattle manure is
usually managed as a solid and deposited on pastures or
ranges.
Western Europe: Liquid/slurry and pit storage systems are

commonly used for cattle and swine manure. Limited
cropland is available for spreading manure.
Eastern Europe: Solid based systems are used for the

majority of manure. About one-third of livestock manure is
managed in liquid-based systems.
Oceania: Most cattle manure is managed as a solid on

pastures and ranges, except dairy cows where there is some
usage of lagoons. About half of the swine manure is
managed in anaerobic lagoons.
Latin America: Almost all livestock manure is managed

as a solid on pastures and ranges. Buffalo manure is
deposited on pastures and ranges.
10.38
Temperate
Warm
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dairy Cows
48
50
53
55
58
63
65
68
71
74
78
81
85
89
93
98
105
110
112
Other Cattle
Market Swine
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
15
15
16
17
18
18
19
20
22
23
23
Breeding Swine
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
31
32
34
35
37
39
41
44
45
Dairy Cows
21
23
25
27
29
34
37
40
43
47
51
55
59
64
70
75
83
90
92
Other Cattle
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
24
25
26
Market Swine
10
11
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
21
21
Breeding Swine
10
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
22
23
25
27
29
32
33
Buffalo
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Dairy Cows
11
12
13
14
15
20
21
22
23
25
27
28
30
33
35
37
42
45
46
Other Cattle
10
11
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
21
23
23
Market Swine
10
10
10
Breeding Swine
10
11
12
16
17
17
Buffalo
10
11
11
12
13
15
16
17
19
19
Dairy Cows
23
24
25
26
26
27
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
29
30
30
31
31
31
Other Cattle
Market Swine
11
11
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Breeding Swine
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
Dairy Cows
Other Cattle
Swine
Buffalo

TABLE 10.14
MANURE MANAGEMENT METHANE EMISSION FACTORS BY TEMPERATURE FOR CATTLE, SWINE, AND BUFFALOa
(KG CH4 PER HEAD PER YEAR)
CH4 Emission Factors by Average Annual Temperature (C)b
Cool
Africa: Most livestock manure is managed as a solid on
pastures and ranges. A smaller, but significant fraction is
burned as fuel.
Middle East: Over two-thirds of cattle manure is deposited

on pastures and ranges. About one-third of swine manure is
managed in liquid-based systems. Buffalo manure is
burned for fuel or managed as a solid.
Asia: About half of cattle manure is used for fuel with the
remainder managed in dry systems. Almost 40% of swine
manure is managed as a liquid. Buffalo manure is managed
in drylots and deposited in pastures and ranges.
Indian Subcontinent: About half of cattle and buffalo

manure is used for fuel with the remainder managed in dry
systems. About one-third of swine manure is managed as a
liquid.
Livestock Species
Temperate
Warm
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dairy Cows
Other Cattle
Swine
Dairy Cows
Other Cattle
Swine
Buffalo
Dairy Cows
10
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
23
24
26
28
31
31
Other Cattle
Swine
Buffalo
Dairy Cows
Other Cattle
Swine
Buffalo
Source: See Annex 10A.2 , Tables 10A-4 to 10A-8 for derivation of these emission factors,
The uncertainty in these emission factors is 30 %.
a
When selecting a default emission factor, be sure to consult the supporting tables in Annex 10A.2 for the distribution of manure management systems and animal waste characteristics used to estimate emissions. Select an
emission factor for a region that most closely matches your own in these characteristics.
b
All temperatures are not necessarily represented within every region. For example, there are no significant warm areas in Eastern or Western Europe. Similarly, there are no significant cool areas in Africa and the Middle
East.
Note: Significant buffalo populations do not exist in North America, Oceania, or Africa.
10.39
TABLE 10.15
MANURE MANAGEMENT METHANE EMISSION FACTORS BY TEMPERATURE FOR SHEEP, GOATS, CAMELS, HORSES,
MULES AND ASSES, AND POULTRYa (KG CH4 PER HEAD PER YEAR)
CH4 Emission Factor by Average Annual Temperature (C)
Livestock
Cool (<15C)
Temperate (15 to 25C)
Warm (>25C)
Developed Countries
0.19
0.28
0.37
0.10
0.15
0.20
Developed Countries
0.13
0.20
0.26
0.11
0.17
0.22
Developed Countries
1.58
2.37
3.17
1.28
1.92
2.56
Developed Countries
1.56
2.34
3.13
1.09
1.64
2.19
Developed Countries
0.76
1.10
1.52
0.60
0.90
1.20
0.03
0.03
0.03
Layers (wet)
1.2
1.4
1.4
Broilers
0.02
0.02
0.02
Turkeys
0.09
0.09
0.09
Ducks
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.02
Sheep
Goats
Camels
Horses
Mules and Asses
Poultry
Developed Countries
Layers (dry)b
c

Sources: Emission factors developed from: feed intake values and feed digestibilities used to develop the enteric fermentation
emission factors (see Annex 10A.1); Except for poultry in developed countries, methane conversion factor (MCF) and maximum
methane producing capacity (Bo) values reported in Woodbury and Hashimoto (1993). Poultry for developed countries was subdivided
into five categories. Layers (dry) represent layers in a "without bedding" waste management system; Layers (wet) represent layers in
an anaerobic lagoon waste management system. For layers, volatile solids (VS) are values reported in USDA (1996); typical animal
mass values are from ASAE (1999); and Bo for Layers are values reported by Hill (1982). For broilers and turkeys, Bo values are from
Hill (1984); typical animal mass values are from ASAE (1999); and VS values are those reported in USDA (1996). Bo values for
ducks were transferred from broilers and turkeys; typical animal mass values are from MWPS-18; and VS values are from USDA,
AWMFH. Typical mass of sheep, goats and horses, and VS and Bo values of goats and horses for developed countries updated
according to the analysis of GHG inventories of Annex I countries. All manure, with the exception of Layers (wet), is assumed to be
managed in dry systems, which is consistent with the manure management system usage reported in Woodbury and Hashimoto
(1993).
a
When selecting a default emission factor, be sure to consult the supporting tables in Annex 10A.2 for the distribution of manure
management systems and animal waste characteristics used to estimate emissions. Select an emission factor for a region that most
closely matches your own in these characteristics.
b
Layer operations that manage dry manure.
Layer operations that manage manure as a liquid, such as stored in an anaerobic lagoon.
10.40

1
TABLE 10.16
MANURE MANAGEMENT METHANE EMISSION FACTORS FOR DEER, REINDEER, RABBITS, AND FUR-BEARING ANIMALS
Livestock
CH4 Emission Factor

(kg CH4 per head per year)
Deera
0.22
b
Reindeer
0.36
Rabbitsc
0.08
Fur-Bearing Animals (e.g. fox, mink)b
0.68

a
Sneath et al (1997)
Estimations of Agricultural University of Norway, Institute of Chemistry and Biotechnology, Section for Microbiology.
Judgement of the IPCC Expert Group
2
3
Tier 2
4
5
6
7
8
9
The Tier 2 method is applicable when manure management is a key source or when the data used to develop the
default values do not correspond well with the country's livestock and manure management conditions. Because
cattle, buffalo and swine characteristics and manure management systems can vary significantly by country,
countries with large populations of these animals should consider using the Tier 2 method for estimating
methane emissions. The Tier 2 method relies on two primary types of inputs that affect the calculation of
methane emission factors from manure:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Manure Characteristics: Includes the amount of volatile solids (VS) produced in the manure and the maximum
amount of methane able to be produced from that manure (Bo). Production of manure VS can be estimated based
on feed intake and digestibility, which are the variables also used to develop the Tier 2 enteric fermentation
emission factors. Alternatively, VS production rates can be based on laboratory measurements of livestock
manure. Bo varies by animal species and feed regimen and is a theoretical methane yield based on the amount of
VS in the manure. Bedding materials (straw, sawdust, chippings, etc.) are not included in the VS modelled
under the Tier 2 method. The type and use of these materials is highly variable from country to country. Since
they typically are associated with solid storage systems, their contribution would not add significantly to overall
methane production.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Manure Management: Includes the types of systems used to manage manure and a system-specific methane
conversion factor (MCF) that reflects the portion of Bo that is achieved. Regional assessments of manure
management systems are used to estimate the portion of the manure that is handled with each manure
management technique. A description of manure management systems is included in Table 10.18. The system
MCF varies with the manner in which the manure is managed and the climate, and can theoretically range from 0
to 100%. Both temperature and retention time play an important role in the calculation of the MCF. Manure that
is managed as a liquid under warm conditions for an extended period of time promotes methane formation.
These manure management conditions can have high MCFs, of 65 to 80%. Manure managed as dry material in
cold climates does not readily produce methane, and consequently has an MCF of about 1%.
28
29
30
Development of Tier 2 emission factors involves determining a weighted average MCF using the estimates of
the manure managed by each waste system within each climate region. The average MCF is then multiplied by
the VS excretion rate and the Bo for the livestock categories. In equation form, the estimate is as follows:
31
32
33
EQUATION 10.23
CH4 EMISSION FACTOR FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT
34
MCFS ,k
EF(T ) = (VS (T ) 365 days / year ) Bo (T ) 0.67 kg / m 3

MS (T ,S ,k )
100
S ,k
35
Where:
36
EF(T) = annual CH4 emission factor for livestock category T, kg CH4 animal-1 yr-1
37
VS(T) = daily VS excreted for livestock category T, kg dry matter animal-1 day-1
10.41
1
365 = basis for calculating annual VS production, day yr-1
2
3
Bo(T) = maximum methane producing capacity for manure produced by livestock category T, m3 CH4 kg-1
of VS excreted
0.67 = conversion factor of m3 CH4 to kilograms CH4
MCF(S,k) = methane conversion factors for each manure management system S by climate region k, %
6
7
MS(T,S,k) = fraction of livestock category T's manure handled using manure management system S in
climate region k, dimensionless
8
9
10
11
Even when the level of detail presented in the Tier 2 method is not possible in some countries, country-specific
data elements such as animal mass, VS excretion, and others can be used to improve emission estimates. If
country-specific data are available for only a portion of these variables, countries are encouraged to calculate
country-specific emission factors, using the data in Tables 10A-4 through 10A-9 to fill gaps.
12
13
14
15
Measurement programs can be used to improve the basis for making the estimates. In particular, measurements
of emissions from manure management systems under field conditions are useful to verify MCFs. Also,
measurements of Bo from livestock in tropical regions and for varying diet regimens are needed to expand the
representativeness of the default factors.
16
17
18
19
20
21
As emissions can vary significantly by region and livestock species/category, emission estimates should reflect
as much as possible the diversity and range of animal populations and manure management practices between
different regions within a country. This may require separate estimates to be developed for each region.
Emission factors should be updated periodically to account for changes in manure characteristics and
management practices. These revisions should be based on reliable scientifically reviewed data. Frequent
monitoring is desirable to verify key model parameters and to track changing trends in the livestock industry.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
VS Excretion Rates
Volatile solids (VS) are the organic material in livestock manure and consist of both biodegradable and nonbiodegradable fractions. The value needed for the Equation 10.23 is the total VS (both degradable and nonbiodegradable fractions) as excreted by each animal species since the Bo values are based on total VS entering
the systems. The best way to obtain average daily VS excretion rates is to use data from nationally published
sources. If average daily VS excretion rates are not available, country-specific VS excretion rates can be
estimated from feed intake levels. Feed intake for cattle and buffalo can be estimated using the Enhanced
characterisation method described in Section 10.2. This will also ensure consistency in the data underlying the
emissions estimates. For swine, country-specific swine production data may be required to estimate feed intake.
31
32
33
34
The VS content of manure equals the fraction of the diet consumed that is not digested and thus excreted as fecal
material which, when combined with urinary excretions, constitutes manure. Countries should estimate gross
energy (GE) intake (Section 10.2, Equation 10.16) and its fractional digestibility, DE, in the process of
estimating enteric methane emissions.
35
Once these are estimated, the VS excretion rate is estimated as:
36
37
38
EQUATION 10.24
VOLATILE SOLID EXCRETION RATES
39
1 ASH
1 DE %
VS = GE
+ (UE GE )
100
18.45
40
Where:
41
VS = volatile solid excretion per day on a dry-organic matter basis, kg VS day-1
42
GE = gross energy intake in MJ day-1
43
DE% = digestibility of the feed in percent (e.g. 60%)
44
45
46
(UE GE) = urinary energy expressed as fraction of GE. Typically 0.04GE can be considered urinary
energy excretion by most ruminants (reduce to 0.02 for ruminants fed with 85% or more grain in the
diet or for swine). Use country-specific values where available.
47
48
ASH = the ash content of manure calculated as a fraction of the dry matter feed intake (e.g., 0.08 for
cattle). Use country-specific values where available.
10.42

-1
1
2
18.45 = conversion factor for dietary GE per kg of dry matter (MJ kg ). This value is relatively constant
across a wide range of forage and grain-based feeds commonly consumed by livestock.
3
4
5
Representative DE% values for various livestock categories are provided in Section 10.2, Table 10.2 of this
report. The value for ash content fraction can range substantially between livestock types and should reflect
national circumstances.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
B o Values
The maximum methane-producing capacity of the manure (Bo) varies by species and diet. The preferred method
to obtain Bo measurement values is to use data from country-specific published sources, measured with a
standardised method. It is important to standardise the Bo measurement, including the method of sampling, and
to confirm if the value is based on total as-excreted VS or biodegradable VS, since the Tier 2 calculation is based
on total as-excreted VS. If country-specific Bo measurement values are not available, default values are provided
in Tables 10A-4 through 10A-9.
14
MCFs
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Default methane conversion factors (MCFs) are provided in Table 10.17 for different manure management
systems and by annual average temperatures. MCFs are determined for a specific manure management system
and represent the degree to which Bo is achieved. The amount of methane generated by a specific manure
management system is affected by the extent of anaerobic conditions present, the temperature of the system, and
the retention time of organic material in the system. Default MCF values for lagoons presented in Table 10.17
include the effect of longer retention times, and as a result, are higher than other systems under most
circumstances.
23
24
25
26
27
Since liquid-based systems are very sensitive to temperature effects, where possible default MCF values for
these systems have been presented in Table 10.17 for specific annual average temperatures in each climate range.
While these temperature ranges should cover most climate conditions, areas that have extreme high or low
annual average temperatures outside the 10 to 28 degree Celsius range should utilize the end-of-range (i.e., 10 or
28 degree) values or investigate developing country-specific values.
28
29
30
31
32
33
These default values may not encompass the potentially wide variation within the defined categories of
management systems. Therefore, country-specific MCFs that reflect the specific management systems used in
particular countries or regions should be developed if possible. This is particularly important for countries with
large animal populations or with multiple climate regions. In such cases, and if possible, field measurements
should be conducted for each climate region to replace the default MCF values. Measurements should include
the following factors:
34
Timing of storage/application;
35
36
Feed and animal characteristics at the measurement site (see Section 10.2 for type of data that would be
pertinent);
37
Length of storage;
38
Manure characteristics (e.g., VS influent and effluent concentrations for liquid systems);
39
Determination of the amount of manure left in the storage facility (methanogenic inoculum);
40
Time and temperature distribution between indoor and outdoor storage;
41
Daily temperature fluctuation; and
42
Seasonal temperature variation.
43
44
10.43
1
TABLE 10.17
MCF VALUES BY TEMPERATURE FOR MANURE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
MCFs by Average Annual Temperature (C)
System
Cool
10
11
12
Temperate
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Source and Comments
Warm
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Pasture/Range/Paddock
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
Judgement of IPCC Expert Group in

combination with Hashimoto and Steed
(1994).
Daily Spread
0.1%
0.5%
1.0%
Hashimoto and Steed (1993).
Solid Storage
2.0%
4.0%
5.0%

combination with Amon, et. al (2001), which
shows emissions of approximately 2% in
winter and 4% in summer. Warm climate is
based on judgement of IPCC Expert Group
and Amon, et. al (1998).
Dry Lot
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%

combination with Hashimoto and Steed
(1994).
With
natural
crust cover
10%
11% 13% 14% 15% 17%
18%
20%
22%
24%
26%
29%
31%
34%
37%
41%
44%
48%
When slurry tanks are used as fed-batch

storage/digesters, MCF should be calculated
according to Formula 1.
Liquid/Slurry
Without
natural
crust cover
10.44

combination with Mangino et. al (2001) and
Sommer (2000). The estimated reduction
due to the crust cover (40%) is an annual
average value based on a limited data set and
50% can be highly variable dependent on
temperature, rainfall, and composition.
17%
19% 20% 22% 25% 27%
29%
32%
35%
39%
42%
46%
50%
55%
60%
65%
71%
78%

combination with Mangino et. al (2001).
80% When slurry tanks are used as fed-batch
storage/digesters, MCF should be calculated
according to Formula 1.

1
System
Cool
10
Uncovered Anaerobic Lagoon
66%
11
12
Temperate
13
14
15
68% 70% 71% 73% 74%
16
75%
17
76%
18
77%
19
77%
20
78%
21
78%
Source and Comments
Warm
22
78%
23
79%
24
79%
25
79%
26
79%
27
80%
28
Uncovered lagoon MCFs vary based on
80% several factors, including temperature,
retention time, and loss of volatile solids
from the system (through removal of lagoon
effluent and/or solids).
combination with Moller, et. al (2004) and
Zeeman (1994).
< 1 month
3%
3%
30%
Pit Storage below animal

confinements
> 1 month
17%
19% 20% 22% 25% 27%
29%
32%
35%
39%
42%
46%
50%
55%
60%
10.45
65%
71%
78%
Note that the ambient temperature, not the

stable temperature is to be used for
determining the climatic conditions. When
pits used as fed-batch storage/digesters,
MCF should be calculated according to
Formula 1.
Note that the ambient temperature, not the
stable temperature is to be used for
80%
determining the climatic conditions. When
pits used as fed-batch storage/digesters,
MCF should be calculated according to
Formula 1.
1
System
Cool
10
Anaerobic Digester
11
> 1 month
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0-100%
0-100%
10%
10%
10%

combination with Safley et. al (1992).
30%

combination with Moller, et. al (2004).
Expect emissions to be similar, and possibly
greater, than pit storage, depending on
organic content and moisture content.
3%
17%
20
0-100%
Cattle and swine deep

< 1 month
bedding
deep
13
Source and Comments
Warm
Should be subdivided in different categories,

considering amount of recovery of the
biogas, flaring of the biogas and storage after
digestion. Calculation with Formula 1.
Burned for Fuel
Cattle and swine

bedding (cont.)
12
Temperate
19%
20%
3%
22%
25%
27%
29%
32%
35%
39%
42%
46%
50%
55%
60%
65%
71%
78%
80%
Judgement of IPCC Expert Group in combination

with Mangino et. al (2001).
Composting - In-Vesselb
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
Judgement of IPCC Expert Group and Amon et al.

(1998). MCFs are less than half of solid storage.
Not temperature dependant.
Composting - Static Pileb
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%

(1998). MCFs are less than half of solid storage.
Not temperature dependant.
Composting - Intensive Windrowb
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%

(1998). MCFs are slightly less than solid storage.
Less temperature dependant.
Composting - Passive Windrowb
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%

(1998). MCFs are slightly less than solid storage.
Less temperature dependant.
10.46

1
System
Cool
10
11
12
Temperate
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Source and Comments
Warm
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Poultry manure with litter
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
Judgement of IPCC Expert Group. MCFs are

similar to sol id storage but with generally constant
warm temperatures.
Poultry manure without litter
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
Judgement of IPCC Expert Group. MCFs are

similar to dry lot at a warm climate.
0%
MCFs are near zero. Aerobic treatment can result

in the accumulation of sludge which may be treated
in other systems. Sludge requires removal and has
large VS values. It is important to identify the next
management process for the sludge and estimate
the emissions from that management process if
significant.
Aerobic Treatment
0%
0%
Formula 1 (Timeframe for inputs should reflect operating period of digester):

MCF = [{CH4 prod - CH4 used - CH4 flared + (MCFstorage /100 * Bo * VSstorage * 0.67 )}/ (Bo* VSstorage * 0.67)] *100
Where:
CH4 prod = methane production in digester , (kg CH4) . Note: When a gas tight coverage of the storage for digested manure is used, the gas production of the storage should be included.
CH4 used = amount of methane gas used for energy, (kg CH4 )
CH4 flared = amount of methane flared, (kg CH4 )
MCFstorage = MCF for CH4 emitted during storage of digested manure (%)
VSstorage = amount of VS excreted that goes to storage prior to digestion (kg VS)
When a gas tight storage is included: MCFstorage = 0 ; otherwise MCFstorage = MCF value for liquid storage
a
Definitions for manure management systems are provided in Table 10. 18.
Composting is the biological oxidation of a solid waste including manure usually with bedding or another organic carbon source typically at thermophilic temperatures produced by microbial heat production.
2
3
10.47
2
3
There are two main types of activity data for estimating CH4 emissions from manure management: (1) animal
population data and (2) manure management system usage data.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
The animal population data should be obtained using the approach described in Section 10.2. As noted in
Section 10.2, it is good practice to conduct a single livestock characterisation that will provide the activity data
for all emissions sources relying on livestock population data. It is important to note, however, that the level of
disaggregation in the livestock population data required to estimate emissions from manure management may
differ from those used for other sources, such as enteric fermentation. For example, for some livestock
population species/categories, such as cattle, the enhanced characterisation required for the Tier 2 enteric
fermentation estimate could be aggregated to broader categories that are sufficient for this source category. For
other livestock species, such as swine, it may be preferable to have more disaggregation of weight categories for
manure management calculations than for enteric fermentation. However, consistency in total livestock
categories should be retained throughout the inventory.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Inventory agencies in countries with varied climatic conditions are encouraged to obtain population data for each
major climatic zone. In addition, where possible, the associated annual average temperature for locations where
livestock manure is managed in liquid-based systems (e.g., pits, tanks, and lagoons) should be obtained. This
will allow more specific selection of default factors or MCF values for those systems more sensitive to
temperature changes. Ideally, the regional population breakdown can be obtained from published national
livestock statistics, and the temperature data from national meteorological statistics. If regional data are not
available, experts should be consulted regarding regional production (e.g., milk, meat, and wool) patterns or land
distribution, which may provide the required information to estimate the regional animal distributions.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
To implement the Tier 2 method, the portion of manure managed in each manure management system must also
be collected for each representative animal species. Table 10.18 summarizes the main types of manure
management systems. Quantitative data should be used to distinguish whether the system is judged to be a solid
storage or liquid/slurry. The borderline between dry and liquid can be drawn at 20% dry matter content. Note
that in some cases, manure may be managed in several types of manure management systems. For example,
manure flushed from a dairy freestall barn to an anaerobic lagoon may first pass through a solids separation unit
where some of the manure solids are removed and managed as a solid. Therefore, it is important to carefully
consider the fraction of manure that is managed in each type of system.
30
31
32
33
34
35
The best means of obtaining manure management system distribution data is to consult regularly published
national statistics. If such statistics are unavailable, the preferred alternative is to conduct an independent survey
of manure management system usage. If the resources are not available to conduct a survey, experts should be
consulted to obtain an opinion of the system distribution. Volume 1 Chapter 2 Approaches to Data Collection
describes how to elicit expert judgement. Similar expert elicitation protocols can be used to obtain manure
management system distribution data.
36
37
E m i ss io n f a c t o r s
38
39
40
41
42
43
There are large uncertainties associated with the default emission factors for Tier 1 (see Tables 10.14 to 10.16).
The uncertainty range for the default factors is estimated to be +30%. Improvements achieved by Tier 2
methodologies are estimated to reduce uncertainty ranges in the emission factors to +20%. Accurate and welldesigned emission measurements from well characterised types of manure and manure management systems can
help reduce these uncertainties further. These measurements must account for temperature, moisture conditions,
aeration, VS content, duration of storage, and other aspects of treatment.
44
45
46
The default values may have a large uncertainty for an individual country because they may not reflect the
specific manure management conditions present within the country. Uncertainties can be reduced by developing
and using MCF, Bo, and VS values that reflect country/region specific conditions.
47
10.48

1
TABLE 10.18
DEFINITIONS OF MANURE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
System
Definition
Pasture/Range/Paddock
The manure from pasture and range grazing animals is allowed to lie as deposited, and is not
managed.
Daily Spread
Manure is routinely removed from a confinement facility and is applied to cropland or pasture
within 24 hours of excretion.
Solid Storage
The storage of manure, typically for a period of several months, in unconfined piles or stacks.
Manure is able to be stacked due to the presence of a sufficient amount of bedding material or loss
of moisture by evaporation.
Dry Lot
A paved or unpaved open confinement area without any significant vegetative cover where
accumulating manure may be removed periodically.
Liquid/Slurry
Manure is stored as excreted or with some minimal addition of water in either tanks or earthen
ponds outside the animal housing, usually for periods less than one year.
Uncovered Anaerobic
Lagoon
A type of liquid storage system designed and operated to combine waste stabilization and storage.
Lagoon supernatant is usually used to remove manure from the associated confinement facilities
to the lagoon. Anaerobic lagoons are designed with varying lengths of storage (up to a year or
greater), depending on the climate region, the volatile solids loading rate, and other operational
factors. The water from the lagoon may be recycled as flush water or used to irrigate and fertilise
fields.
Pit Storage below

animal confinements
Collection and storage of manure usually with little or no added water typically below a slatted
floor in an enclosed animal confinement facility, usually for periods less than one year.
Anaerobic Digester
Animal excreta with or without straw are collected and anaerobically digested in a large
containment vessel or covered lagoon. Digesters are designed and operated for waste stabilization
by the microbial reduction of complex organic compounds to CO2 and CH4, which is captured
and flared or used as a fuel.
Burned for Fuel
The dung and urine are excreted on fields. The sun dried dung cakes are burned for fuel.
Cattle and swine deep

bedding
As manure accumulates, bedding is continually added to absorb moisture over a production cycle
and possibly for as long as 6 to 12 months. This manure management system also is known as a
bedded pack manure management system and may be combined with a dry lot or pasture.
Composting - InVessela
Composting, typically in an enclosed channel, with forced aeration and continuous mixing.
Composting - Static
Pilea
Composting in piles with forced aeration but no mixing.
Composting - Intensive
Composting in windrows with regular (at least daily) turning for mixing and aeration.
Windrowa
Composting - Passive
Windrowa
Composting in windrows with infrequent turning for mixing and aeration.
Poultry manure with

litter
Similar to cattle and swine deep bedding except usually not combined with a dry lot or pasture.
Typically used for all poultry breeder flocks and for the production of meat type chickens
(broilers) and other fowl.
May be similar to open pits in enclosed animal confinement facilities or may be designed and
Poultry manure without operated to dry the manure as it accumulates. The latter is known as a high-rise manure
litter
management system and is a form of passive windrow composting when designed and operated
properly.
Aerobic Treatment
The biological oxidation of manure collected as a liquid with either forced or natural aeration.
Natural aeration is limited to aerobic and facultative ponds and wetland systems and is due
primarily to photosynthesis. Hence, these systems typically become anoxic during periods without
sunlight.
a
Composting is the biological oxidation of a solid waste including manure usually with bedding or another organic carbon source typically at
thermophilic temperatures produced by microbial heat production.
10.49
1
A ct iv ity data Livesto ck popu la tion s
2
3
See Section 10.2 Livestock and Feed Characterisation for discussion on uncertainty of animal population and
characterisation data.
A ct iv ity data Manu re ma nagement sy stem u sag e
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
The uncertainty of the manure management system usage data will depend on the characteristics of each
country's livestock industry and how information on manure management is collected. For example, for
countries that rely almost exclusively on one type of management system, such as pasture and range, the
uncertainty associated with management system usage data can be 10% or less. However, for countries where
there is a wide variety of management systems used with locally different operating practices, the uncertainty
range in management system usage data can be much higher, in the range of 25% to 50%, depending on the
availability of reliable and representative survey data that differentiates animal populations by system usage.
Preferably, each country should estimate the uncertainty associated with their management system usage data by
using the methods described in Volume I, Chapter 3.
15
10.4.5 Completeness, time series, quality assurance / Quality

control and reporting
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
A complete inventory should estimate CH4 emissions from all systems of manure management for all livestock
species/categories identified in Section 10.2. Countries are encouraged to use manure management system
definitions that are consistent with those presented in Table 10.18 to ensure that all types of systems are being
accounted for. Population data should be cross-checked between main reporting mechanisms (such as FAO and
national agricultural statistics databases) to ensure that information used in the inventory is complete and
consistent. Because of the widespread availability of the FAO database of livestock information, most countries
should be able to prepare, at a minimum, Tier 1 estimates for the major livestock categories. For more
information regarding the completeness of livestock characterisation, see Section 10.2.
24
25
26
Developing a consistent time series of emission estimates for this source category requires, at a minimum,
collection of an internally consistent time series of livestock population statistics. General guidance on the
development of a consistent time series is addressed in Volume 1 Chapter 5 (Time Series Consistency).
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
If significant changes in manure management practices have occurred over time, the Tier 1 method will not
provide an accurate time series of emissions (since the Tier 1 default factors are based on a historical set of
parameters), and the Tier 2 method should be considered. When developing a time series for the Tier 2 method it
is also necessary to collect country-specific manure management system data. In cases when manure
management system data are not available for some period during the time series, trends can be used to
extrapolate data from a sample area or region to the entire country, if climatic conditions are similar (i.e.,
temperature and rainfall). National livestock experts from government, industry, or universities should be
consulted where possible to develop trends in management system usage and characteristics.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
If the emission estimation method has changed, historical data that are required by the current method should be
collected and used to recalculate emissions for that period. If such data are not available, it may be appropriate to
create a trend with recent data and use the trend to back-estimate management practices for the time series. For
example, it may be known that certain livestock industries are converting to more intensive management systems
in lieu of grazing. Historically, this changeover should be captured in the time series of emissions, through
modifications to the manure management system allocation. It may be necessary to base this allocation on expert
judgment from national experts where extensive survey data are not available. Volume 1 Chapter 5 provides
additional guidance on how to address recalculation issues. Also, Section 10.2 suggests approaches for the
animal population aspects. The inventory text should thoroughly explain how the change in farm practices or
implementation of mitigation measures has affected the time series of activity data or emission factors.
45
46
47
48
49
It is good practice to implement general quality control checks as outlined in Volume 1 Chapter 6, Quality
Assurance/Quality Control and Verification, and expert review of the emission estimates. Additional quality
control checks and quality assurance procedures may also be applicable, particularly if higher tier methods are
used to determine emissions from this source. The general QA/QC related to data processing, handling, and
reporting should be supplemented with procedures discussed below.
50
51
52
53
54
A ct iv ity data check

The inventory agency should review livestock data collection methods, in particular checking that livestock
subspecies data were collected and aggregated correctly. The data should be cross-checked with previous
years to ensure the data are reasonable and consistent with the expected trend. Inventory agencies should
document data collection methods, identify potential areas of bias (e.g., systematic under-reporting of
14
10.50

1
2
animal populations to statistical agencies by individual livestock owners), and evaluate the
representativeness of the data.
3
4
5
6
Manure management system allocation should be reviewed on a regular basis to determine if changes in the
livestock industry are being captured. Conversion from one type of management system to another, and
technical modifications to system configuration and performance, should be captured in the system
modeling for the affected livestock.
7
8
9
10
11
National agricultural policy and regulations may have an effect on parameters that are used to calculate
manure emissions, and should be reviewed regularly to determine what impact they may have. For example,
guidelines to reduce manure runoff into water bodies may cause a change in management practices, and thus
affect the MCF value for a particular livestock category. Consistency should be maintained between the
inventory and ongoing changes in agricultural practices.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
R ev ie w of em is sio n fa cto rs
If using the Tier 1 method (using default IPCC emission factors), the inventory agency should evaluate how
well the default VS excretion rates, Bo values, and manure management practices represent the defined
animal population and manure characteristics of the country. This should be done by reviewing the
background information from Tables 10A-4 to 10A-9 to see how well the default input parameters match the
inventory area. If there is not a good match, substitution of more appropriate country-specific parameters
can be used to develop an improved emission factor.
19
20
21
If using the Tier 2 method, the inventory agency should cross-check the country-specific parameters (e.g.,
VS excretion rates, Bo, and MCF) against the IPCC defaults. Significant differences between countryspecific parameters and default parameters should be explained and documented.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
If using the Tier 2 method, derivation of VS rates should be compared to background assumptions used for
the enteric fermentation Tier 2 inventory where applicable. For example, the gross energy and digestible
energy components used in the enteric fermentation inventory can be used to cross-check independentlyderived VS rates. Application of Equation 10.24 (Volatile Solid Excretion Rates) can be used in this case for
such a cross-comparison on ruminants. For all animals, on a gross basis, VS rates should be consistent with
the feed intake of the animal (i.e., waste energy should not exceed intake energy) and be consistent with the
range of DE% values reported in Section 10.2, Table 10.2 of this report.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Whenever possible, available measurement data, even if they represent only a small sample of systems,
should be reviewed relative to assumptions for MCF values and CH4 production estimates. Representative
measurement data may provide insights into how well current assumptions predict CH4 production from
manure management systems in the inventory area, and how certain factors (e.g., temperature, system
configuration, retention time) are affecting emissions. Because of the relatively small amount of
measurement data available for these systems worldwide, any new results can improve the understanding of
these emissions and possibly their prediction.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Ext er na l rev ie w
The inventory agency should utilise experts in manure management and animal nutrition to conduct expert
peer review of the methods and data used. While these experts may not be familiar with greenhouse gas
emissions, their knowledge of key input parameters to the emission calculation can aid in the overall
verification of the emissions. For example, animal nutritionists can evaluate VS production rates to see if
they are consistent with feed utilization research for certain livestock species. Practicing farmers can provide
insights into actual manure management techniques, such as storage times and mixed-system usage.
Wherever possible, these experts should be completely independent of the inventory process in order to
allow a true external review.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
estimates as outlined in Volume 1 Chapter 6 (Quality Assurance/Quality Control and Verification). When
country-specific data (e.g., emission factors, manure management practices, and manure characteristics such as
VS and Bo) have been used, the derivation of or references for these data should be clearly documented and
reported along with the inventory results under the appropriate IPCC source category. To improve transparency,
emission estimates from this source category should be reported along with the activity data and emission factors
used to determine the estimates.
52
The following information should be documented:
53
54
55
56
All activity data (e.g., livestock population data by species/category and by region), including sources used,
complete citations for the statistical database from which data were collected, and (in cases where activity
data were not available directly from databases) the information and assumptions that were used to derive
the activity data;
10.51
1
Climatic conditions (e.g. average temperature during manure storage) in regions if applicable;
2
3
Manure management system data, by livestock species/category and by region, if applicable. If manure
management systems different than those defined in this chapter are used, these should be described.
The frequency of data collection, and estimates of accuracy and precision.
Emission factors documentation, including:
(i)
References for the emission factors that were used (IPCC default or otherwise).
7
8
9
10
11
(ii)
The scientific basis of these emission factors and methods, including definition of input parameters
and description of the process by which these emission factors and methods are derived, as well as
describing sources and magnitudes of uncertainties. (In inventories, in which country- or regionspecific emission factors were used or in which new methods other than those described here were
used).
12
13
If the Tier 1 method is used, all default emission factors used in the emissions estimation for the specific
livestock population species/category.
14
If the Tier 2 method is used, documentation of emission factor calculation components, including:
15
16
(i)
VS and Bo values for all livestock population species/category in inventory, whether countryspecific, region-specific, or IPCC default.
17
(ii)
MCF values for all manure management systems used, whether country-specific or IPCC default.
18
19
10.5 N 2 O EMISSIONS FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The section describes how to estimate the N2O produced, directly and indirectly, during the storage and
treatment of manure before it is applied to land or otherwise used for feed, fuel, or construction purposes. The
term manure is used here collectively to include both dung and urine (i.e., the solids and the liquids) produced
by livestock. The N2O emissions generated by manure in the system pasture, range, and paddock occur directly
and indirectly from the soil, and are therefore reported under the category N2O Emissions from Managed Soils
(see Chapter 11 Section 11.2). The emissions associated with the burning of dung for fuel are to be reported
under Fuel Combustion (see Volume 2 Energy), or under Waste Combustion (see Volume 5 Waste) if burned
without energy recovery.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Direct N2O emissions occur via combined nitrification and denitrification of nitrogen contained in the manure.
The emission of N2O from manure during storage and treatment depends on the nitrogen and carbon content of
manure, and on the duration of the storage and type of treatment. Nitrification (the oxidation of ammonia
nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen) is a necessary prerequisite for the emission of N2O from stored animal manures.
Nitrification is likely to occur in stored animal manures providing there is a sufficient supply of oxygen.
Nitrification does not occur under anaerobic conditions. Nitrites and nitrates are transformed to N2O and
dinitrogen (N2) during the naturally occurring process of denitrification, an anaerobic process. There is general
agreement in the scientific literature that the ratio of N2O to N2 increases with increasing acidity, nitrate
concentration, and reduced moisture. In summary, the production and emission of N2O from managed manures
requires the presence of either nitrites or nitrates in an anaerobic environment preceded by aerobic conditions
necessary for the formation of these oxidized forms of nitrogen. In addition, conditions preventing reduction of
N2O to N2, such as a low pH or limited moisture, must be present.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Indirect emissions result from volatile nitrogen losses that occur primarily in the forms of ammonia and NOx.
The fraction of excreted organic nitrogen that is mineralized to ammonia nitrogen during manure collection and
storage depends primarily on time, and to a lesser degree temperature. Simple forms of organic nitrogen such as
urea (mammals) and uric acid (poultry) are rapidly mineralized to ammonia nitrogen, which is highly volatile
and easily diffused into the surrounding air (Asman et al., 1998; Monteny and Erisman, 1998). Nitrogen losses
begin at the point of excretion in houses and other animal production areas (e.g., milk parlors) and continue
through on-site management in storage and treatment systems (i.e., manure management systems). Nitrogen is
also lost through runoff and leaching into soils from the solid storage of manure at outdoor areas, in feedlots and
where animals are grazing in pastures. Pasture losses are considered separately in Chapter 11 Section 11.2, N2O
Emissions from Managed Soils, as are emissions of nitrogen compounds from grazing livestock.
50
51
52
53
Due to significant direct and indirect losses of manure nitrogen in management systems it is important to
estimate the remaining amount of animal manure nitrogen available for application to soils or for use in feed,
fuel, or construction purposes. This value is used for calculation N2O Emissions from Managed soils (see
Chapter 11 Section 11.2). The methodology to estimate manure nitrogen that is directly applied to soils, or
10.52

1
2
available for use in feed, fuel, or construction purposes is described in this chapter under Section 10.5.4
Coordination with Reporting for N2O Emissions from Managed Soils".
4
5
6
7
The level of detail and methods chosen for estimating N2O emissions from manure management systems will
depend upon national circumstances and the decision tree in Figure 10.4 describes good practice in choosing a
method accordingly. The following sections describe the different Tiers referenced in the decision tree for
calculating direct and indirect N2O emissions from manure management systems.
Direct N 2 O Emissions from Manure Management
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Tier 1:
The Tier 1 method entails multiplying the total amount of N excretion (from all livestock
species/categories) in each type of manure management system by an emission factor for that type of manure
management system (see Equation 10.25). Emissions are then summed over all manure management systems.
The Tier 1 method is applied using IPCC default N2O emission factors, default nitrogen excretion data, and
default manure management system data (see Annex 10A.2, Tables 10A-4 to 10A-8 for default management
system allocations).
15
16
17
Tier 2: A Tier 2 method follows the same calculation equation as Tier 1 but would include the use of countryspecific data for some or all of these variables. For example, the use of country specific nitrogen excretion rates
for livestock categories would constitute a Tier 2 methodology.
18
19
20
21
Tier 3: A Tier 3 method utilizes alternative estimation procedures based on a country-specific methodology.
For example, a process-based, mass balance approach which tracks nitrogen throughout the system starting with
feed input through final use/disposal could be utilized as a Tier 3 procedure. Tier 3 methods should be well
documented to clearly describe estimation procedures.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
To estimate emissions from manure management systems, the livestock population must first be divided into
categories that reflect the varying amounts of manure produced per animal as well as the manner in which the
manure is handled. This division of manure by type of system should be the same as that used to characterize
methane emissions from manure management (see Section 10.4). For example, if Tier 1 default emission factors
are used for calculating CH4 emissions, then the manure management systems usage data from Tables 10A-4 to
10A-8 should be applied. Detailed information on how to characterise the livestock population for this source is
provided in Section 10.2.
29
The following five steps are used to estimate direct N2O emissions from manure management:
30
Step 1: Collect population data from the Livestock Population Characterisation;
31
32
Step 2: Use default values or develop the annual average nitrogen excretion rate per head (Nex(T)) for each
defined livestock species/category T;
33
34
Step 3: Use default values or determine the fraction of total annual nitrogen excretion for each livestock
species/category T that is managed in each manure management system S (MS(T,S));
35
Step 4: Use default values or develop N2O emission factors for each manure management system S (EF3(S));
36
37
38
Step 5: For each manure management system type S, multiply its emission factor (EF3(S)) by the total amount of
nitrogen managed (from all livestock species/categories) in that system, to estimate N2O emissions from that
manure management system. Then sum over all manure management systems.
39
40
41
42
In some cases, manure nitrogen may be managed in several types of manure management systems. For example,
manure flushed from a dairy freestall barn to an anaerobic lagoon may first pass through a solids separation unit
where some of the manure nitrogen is removed and managed as a solid. Therefore, it is important to consider
carefully the fraction of manure nitrogen that is managed in each type of system.
43
The calculation of direct N2O emissions from manure management is based on the following equation:
44
45
EQUATION 10.25
DIRECT N2O EMISSIONS FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT
46

44
N 2 OD ( mm ) = (N (T ) Nex (T ) MS (T , S ) ) EF3( S )
S T
28
47
Where:
48
N2OD(mm) = Direct N2O emissions from manure management in the country, kg N2O yr-1
10.53
1
N(T) = Number of head of livestock species/category T in the country
Nex(T) = Annual average N excretion per head of species/category T in the country, kg N animal-1 yr-1
3
4
MS(T,S) = Fraction of total annual nitrogen excretion for each livestock species/category T that is managed
in manure management system S in the country, dimensionless
5
6
EF3(S) =Emission factor for direct N2O emissions from manure management system S in the country, kg
N2O-N/kg N in manure management system S
S = Manure management system
44/28 = Conversion of (N2O-N)(mm) emissions to N2O(mm) emissions
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
There may be losses of nitrogen in other forms (e.g., ammonia and NOx) as manure is managed on site. Nitrogen
in the volatilized form of ammonia may be deposited at sites downwind from manure handling areas and
contribute to indirect N2O emissions (see below). Countries are encouraged to consider using a mass balance
approach (Tier 3) to track the manure nitrogen excreted, managed on site in manure management systems, and
ultimately applied to managed soils. The estimation of the amount of manure nitrogen which is directly applied
to managed soils or otherwise available for use as feed, fuel or construction purposes is described in the Section
on Coordination with reporting for N2O Emissions from Managed Soils. See Section 11.2 in Chapter 11 for
procedures to calculate N2O emissions from managed manure nitrogen applied to soils.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Indirect N 2 O Emissions from Manure Management

Tier 1: The Tier 1 calculation of N volatilisation in forms of NH3 and NOx from manure management systems
is based on multiplication of the amount of nitrogen excreted (from all livestock categories) and managed in each
manure management system by a fraction of volatilised nitrogen (see Equation 10.26). N losses are then summed
over all manure management systems. The Tier 1 method is applied using default nitrogen excretion data,
default manure management system data (see Annex 10A.2, Tables 10A-4 to 10A-8) and default fractions of N
losses from manure management systems due to volatilisation (see Table 10.22):
25
26
27
EQUATION 10.26
N LOSSES DUE TO VOLATILISATION FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT
28
FracGasMS
N volatilization MMS = (N (T ) Nex(T ) MS (T ,S ) )
100
S T

(
,
)
T
S

29
Where:
30
Nvolatilization-MMS = amount of manure nitrogen that is lost due to volatilisation of NH3 and NOx, kg N yr-1
31
32
33
34
35
36
FracGasMS = percent of managed manure nitrogen for livestock category T that volatilises as NH3 and NOx
in the manure management system S, %
37
10.54

Figure 10.4
Decision Tree for N 2 O Emissions from Manure Management (Note 1)
2
3
START
4
5
Box 3: Tier 3
Do
you have a countryspecific Tier 3
methodology?

Tier 3 method
YES
NO
Is a Tier 2 livestock
population characterization,
available and do you have countryspecific N excretion rates, fractions of N
losses, EFs and management
system usage
data?
NO
Is N2O from
manure management a key
category (Note 2) and is the
species a significant share of
emissions
(Note 3)?
Collect data for

Tier 2 method
YES
NO
YES (all or some)
Estimate direct and

indirect N2O emissions
using Tier 2 method with
available country-specific
inputs
Estimate direct and

indirect N2O emissions
using Tier 1 method and
IPCC defaults
Box 2: Tier 2
Box 1: Tier 1
Note 1: : N2O emissions from manure management systems include both direct and indirect sources
10.55
1
2
The indirect N2O emissions from volatilisation of N in forms of NH3 and NOx (N2OG(mm)) are estimated using
Equation 10.27:
3
EQUATION 10.27
INDIRECT N2O EMISSIONS DUE TO VOLATILISATION OF N FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT
4
5
N 2 OG ( mm ) = ( N volatilization MMS EF4 )
44
28
Where:
8
9
N2OG(mm) = Indirect N2O emissions due to volatilization of N from manure management in the country, kg
N2O yr-1
10
11
12
13
EF4 = Emission factor for N2O emissions from atmospheric deposition of nitrogen on soils and water
surfaces, kg N2O-N/kg NH3-N and NOx-N emitted (default value 0.01 kg N2O-N/kg NH3-N and NOxN given in the Chapter 11 Section 11.2 (N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, Indirect Emissions),
Table 11.3)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Tier 2: Countries may wish to develop a Tier 2 methodology for better consideration of national circumstances
and to reduce uncertainty of estimates as much as possible. As for direct N2O emission from manure
management, a Tier 2 method would follow the same calculation equation as Tier 1 but include the use of
country-specific data for some or all of these variables. For example, the use of country specific nitrogen
excretion rates for livestock categories would constitute a Tier 2 method. National NH3 emission inventories
developed by some countries could be used for Tier 2 estimation of nitrogen volatilisation from manure
management systems. A Tier 2 method would require more detailed characterisation of the flow of nitrogen
throughout the animal housing and manure management systems used in the country. Double counting of
emissions associated with the application of managed manure should be avoided, as well as manure associated
with pasture and grazing operations, which should be calculated and reported under Chapter 11 Section 11.2
(N2O Emissions from Managed Soils).
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
There are extremely limited measurement data on leaching and runoff losses from various manure management
systems. The greatest N losses due to run-off and leaching typically occur where animals are on a drylot. In
drier climates, runoff losses are smaller than in high rainfall areas and have been estimated in the range from 3 to
6% of N excreted (Eghball and Power, 1994). Studies by Bierman et al. (1999) found nitrogen lost in run-off
was 5 to 19% of N excreted and 10 to 16% leached into soil, while other data show relatively low loss of
nitrogen through leaching in solid storage (less than 5% of N excreted) but greater loss could also occur (Rotz,
2004). Further research is needed in this area to improve the estimated losses and the conditions and practices
under which such losses occur. Equation 10.28 should only be used where there is country-specific information
on the fraction of nitrogen loss due to leaching and run-off from manure management systems available.
Therefore, estimation of N losses from leaching and run off from manure management should be considered part
of a Tier 2 or Tier 3method.
37
38
Nitrogen that leaches into soil and/or runs off during solid storage of manure at outdoor areas or in feedlots is
derived as follows:
39
40
41
EQUATION 10.28
N LOSSES DUE TO LEACHING FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
42
FracleachMS
N leaching MMS = (N (T ) Nex(T ) MS (T ,S ) )
(T ,S )
100
S T

43
Where:
44
Nleaching-MMS = amount of manure nitrogen that leached from manure management systems, kg N yr-1
45
46
47
48
10.56

1
2
FracleachMS = percent of managed manure nitrogen losses for livestock category T due to runoff and
leaching during solid and liquid storage of manure (typical range 1-20%)
3
4
The indirect N2O emissions from leaching and run-off of nitrogen from manure management systems (N2OL(mm))
are estimated using Equation 10.29:
5
6
EQUATION 10.29
INDIRECT N2O EMISSIONS DUE TO LEACHING FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT
N 2OL ( mm ) = (N leaching MMS EF5 )
7
8
44
28
Where:
9
10
N2OL(mm) = Indirect N2O emissions due to leaching and run-off from manure management in the country,
kg N2O yr-1
11
12
13
EF5 = Emission factor for N2O emissions from nitrogen leaching and run-off, kg N2O-N/kg N leached and
run-off (default value 0.0075 kg N2O-N/kg N leaching/runoff, given in the Chapter 11 Section 11.2
(N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, Indirect Emissions), Table 11.3
14
15
16
Tier 3: To reduce uncertainty of the estimates, a Tier 3 method could be developed with country-specific
emission factors for volatilisation and nitrogen leaching and run-off based on actual measurements.
17
18
19
20
21
All losses of N through manure management systems (both direct and indirect) need to be excluded from the
amount of manure N that is available for application to soils and which is reported in Chapter 11, Section 11.2
N2O Emissions from Managed Soils.
Refer to the subsection on Coordination with Reporting for N2O
Emissions from Managed Soils later in this chapter for guidance on calculating total N losses from manure
management systems.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Annual average nitrogen excretion rates, Nex ( T )
29
30
31
32
33
If country-specific data cannot be collected or derived, or appropriate data are not available from another country,
the IPCC default nitrogen excretion rates presented in Table 10.19 can be used. These rates are presented in units
of nitrogen excreted per 1000 kg of animal per day. These rates can be applied to livestock sub-categories of
varying ages and growth stages using a typical average animal mass (TAM) for that population sub-category, as
34
35
EQUATION 10.30
ANNUAL N EXCRETION RATES
Tier 1: Annual nitrogen excretion rates should be determined for each livestock category defined by the
livestock population characterisation. Country-specific rates may either be taken directly from documents or
reports such as agricultural industry and scientific literature, or derived from information on animal nitrogen
intake and retention (as explained below). In some situations, it may be appropriate to use excretion rates
developed by other countries that have livestock with similar characteristics.
Nex(T ) = N rate (T )
36
TAM
365 days / year
1000
37
Where:
38
Nex(T) = annual N excretion for livestock category T, kg N animal-1 yr-1
39
Nrate(T) = default N excretion rate, kg N/1000 kg animal mass/day (see Table 10.19)
40
TAM(T) = typical animal mass for livestock category T, kg
41
42
43
44
Default TAM values are provided in Tables 10A-4 to 10A-9 in Annex 10A.2. However it is preferable to collect
country-specific TAM values due to the sensitivity of nitrogen excretion rates to different weight categories. For
example, market swine may vary from nursery pigs weighing less than 30 kilograms to finished pigs that weigh
10.57
1
2
over 90 kilograms. By constructing animal population groups that reflect the various growth stages of market
pigs, countries will be better able to estimate the total nitrogen excreted by their swine population.
3
4
5
6
7
8
When estimating the Nex(T) for animals whose manure is classified in the manure management system burned
for fuel (Table 10.21, Default Emission Factors for Direct N2O Emissions from Manure Management), it should
be kept in mind that the dung is burned and the urine stays in the field. As a rule of thumb, 50% of the nitrogen
excreted is in the dung and 50% is in the urine. If the burned dung is used as fuel, then emissions are reported
under the IPCC category Fuel Combustion, whereas if the dung is burned without energy recovery the emissions
should be reported under the IPCC category Waste Incineration.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Tier 2: The annual amount of N excreted by each livestock species/category depends on the total annual N
intake and total annual N retention of the animal. Therefore, N excretion rates can be derived from N intake and
N retention data. Annual N intake (i.e., the amount of N consumed by the animal annually) depends on the
annual amount of feed digested by the animal, and the protein content of that feed. Total feed intake depends on
the production level of the animal (e.g., growth rate, milk production, draft power). Annual N retention (i.e. the
fraction of N intake that is retained by the animal for the production of meat, milk, or wool) is a measure of the
animal's efficiency of production of animal protein from feed protein. Nitrogen intake and retention data for
specific livestock species/categories may be available from national statistics or from animal nutrition specialists.
Nitrogen intake can also be calculated from data on feed and crude protein intake developed in Section 10.2.
Default N retention values are provided in Table 10.20, Default Values for the Fraction of Nitrogen in Feed
Taken in by Animals that is Retained by the Different Animal Species/Categories. Rates of annual N excretion
for each livestock species/category (Nex(T)) are derived as follows:
21
EQUATION 10.31
ANNUAL N EXCRETION RATES (TIER 2)
22
23
Nex(T ) = N int ake(T ) (1 N retention (T ) )
24
25
Where:
26
Nex(T) = annual N excretion rates, kg N animal-1 yr-1
27
Nintake(T) = the annual N intake per head of animal of species/category T , kg N animal-1 yr-1
28
Nretention(T) = fraction of annual N intake that is retained by animal of species/category T, dimensionless
29
30
31
32
10.58

TABLE 10.19
DEFAULT VALUES FOR NITROGEN EXCRETION (KG/1000 KG ANIMAL MASS/DAY) a
Region
Category of Animal
North America
Dairy Cattle
0.44
Western Europe Eastern Europe

0.48
0.35
Oceania
Latin America
Africa
Middle East
Asia
0.44
0.48
0.60
0.70
0.47
Other Cattle
0.31
0.33
0.35
0.50
0.36
0.63
0.79
0.34
Swineb
0.50
0.68
0.74
0.73
1.64
1.64
1.64
0.50
Market
0.42
0.51
0.55
0.53
1.57
1.57
1.57
0.42
Breeding
0.24
0.42
0.46
0.46
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.24
Poultry
0.83
0.83
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
Hens >/= 1 yr
0.83
0.96
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
Pullets
0.62
0.55
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Other Chickens
0.83
0.83
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
Broilers
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
Turkeys
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
Ducks
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
Sheep
0.42
0.85
0.9
1.13
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
Goats
0.45
1.28
1.28
1.42
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.37
Horses (and mules, asses)
0.3
0.26
0.3
0.3
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
Camels
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
Buffaloc
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
Mink and polecat (kgN/head/yr)
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
Rabbits (kgN/head/yr)
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
12.09
12.09
12.09
12.09
12.09
12.09
12.09
12.09
Fox and racoon (kgN/head/yr)
The uncertainty in these estimates is 50%.

a
Summarized from Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines, 1997; European Environmental Agency, 2002; USA EPA National NH3 Inventory Draft Report, 2004; and data of GHG inventories of Annex I Parties submitted to
the Secretariat UNFCCC in 2004.
b
Nitrogen excretion for swine are based on an estimated country population of 90% market swine and 10% breeding swine.
c
Modified from European Environmental Agency, 2002.
d
Data of Hutchings et al., 2001.
10.59
1
TABLE 10.20
DEFAULT VALUES FOR THE FRACTION OF NITROGEN IN FEED INTAKE OF LIVESTOCK THAT IS RETAINED BY THE
DIFFERENT LIVESTOCK SPECIES/CATEGORIES (FRACTION N-INTAKE RETAINED BY THE ANIMAL)
Nretention(T)
(kg N retained/animal/year) (kg N intake/animal/year)-1
Livestock category
Dairy cows
0.2
Other cattle
0.07
Buffalo
0.07
Sheep
0.1
Goats
0.1
Camels
0.07
Swine
0.3
Horses
0.07
Poultry
0.3
The uncertainty in these estimates is 50%.

Source: Judgement of IPCC Expert Group (see Co-chairs, Editors and Experts; N2O Emissions from Manure Management).
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Example of Tier 2 M etho d fo r Estima t ing N itrogen Excret ion for Catt le
Nitrogen excretion may be calculated based on the same dietary assumptions used in modelling enteric
fermentation emissions (see Section 10.2). The amount of nitrogen excreted by cattle can be estimated as the
difference between the total nitrogen taken in by the animal and the total nitrogen retained for growth and milk
production. Equations 10.32 and 10.33 can be used to calculate the variables for nitrogen intake and nitrogen
retained for use in Equation 10.31. The total nitrogen intake rate is derived as follows:
10
11
EQUATION 10.32
N INTAKE RATES FOR CATTLE
12
CP %
GE 100
=
18.45 6.25
N int ake (T )
13
Where:
14
Nintake(T) = daily N consumed per animal of category T, kg N animal-1 day-1
15
16
GE = gross energy intake of the animal, in enteric model, based on digestible energy, milk production,
pregnancy, current weight, mature weight, rate of weight gain, and IPCC constants, MJ day-1
17
18
18.45 = conversion factor for dietary GE per kg of dry matter (MJ/kg). This value is relatively constant
19
CP% = percent crude protein in diet, input
20
6.25 = conversion from kg of dietary protein to kg of dietary N, kg feed protein (kg N)-1
21
22
The total nitrogen retained is derived as follows:
10.60

EQUATION 10.33
N RETAINED RATES FOR CATTLE
1
2
N retention (T )
Milk PR% WG 268 7.03 NE g
Milk
WG
100
+
=
1000
6.38
6.25

Where:
Nretention(T) = daily N retained per animal of category T, kg N animal-1 day-1
Milk = milk production, kg day-1(applicable to dairy cows only)
7
8
Milk PR% = percent of protein in milk, calculated as [1.9 + 0.4 * %Fat], where % fat is an input, assumed
to be 4 percent (applicable to dairy cows only)
6.38 = conversion from milk protein to milk N, kg Protein (kg N)-1
10
WG = weight gain, input for each livestock category, kg day-1
11
268 and 7.03 = constants from Equation 3-8 in NRC (1996)
12
13
NEg = net energy for growth, calculated in livestock characterisation, based on current weight, mature
weight, rate of weight gain, and IPCC constants, MJ day-1
14
1000 = conversion from grams per kilogram, g kg-1
15
6.25 = conversion from kg dietary protein to kg dietary N, kg Protein (kg N)-1
16
17
18
19
Annual nitrogen excretion data are also used for the calculation of direct and indirect N2O emissions from
managed soils (see Chapter 11 Section 11.2 (N2O Emissions from Managed Soils)). The same rates of N
excretion, and methods of derivation, that are used to estimate N2O emissions from manure management should
be used to estimate N2O emissions from managed soils.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Emission Factors for Direct N 2 O Emissions from Manure Management

The best estimate will be obtained using country-specific emission factors that have been fully documented in
peer reviewed publications. It is good practice to use country-specific emission factors that reflect the actual
duration of storage and type of treatment of animal manure in each management system that is used. Good
practice in the derivation of country-specific emission factors involves the measurement of emissions (per unit
of manure N) from different management systems, taking into account variability in duration of storage and
types of treatment. When defining types of treatment, conditions such as aeration and temperature should be
taken into account. If inventory agencies use country-specific emission factors, they are encouraged to provide
justification for these values via peer-reviewed documentation.
29
30
31
32
33
34
If appropriate country-specific emission factors are unavailable, inventory agencies are encouraged to use the
default emission factors presented in Table 10.21, Default Emission Factors for Direct N2O Emissions from
Manure Management. This table contains default emission factors by manure management system. Note that
emissions from liquid/slurry systems without a natural crust cover, anaerobic lagoons, and anaerobic digesters
are considered negligible based on the absence of oxidized forms of nitrogen entering these systems combined
with the low potential for nitrification and denitrification to occur in the system.
10.61
1
TABLE 10.21
DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS FOR DIRECT N2O EMISSIONS FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT
System
EF3
(kg N2O-N/kg
Nitrogen
excreted)
Definition
Uncertainty
ranges of EF3
Sourcea
Pasture/Range/
Paddock
The manure from pasture and range

grazing animals is allowed to lie as is,
and is not managed.
Direct and indirect N2O emissions associated with the manure deposited on
agricultural soils and pasture, range, paddock systems are treated in Chapter
11, Section 11.2 N2O Emissions from Managed Soils
Daily Spread
Manure is routinely removed from a

confinement facility and is applied to
cropland or pasture within 24 hours of
excretion. N2O emissions during
storage and treatment are assumed to
be zero. N2O emissions from land
application are covered under the
Agricultural Soils category.
Not Applicable
Judgement by IPCC Expert Group

(see Co-chairs, Editors and
Experts; N2O Emissions from
Manure Management).
Solid Storageb
The storage of manure, typically for a

period of several months, in unconfined
piles or stacks. Manure is able to be
stacked due to the presence of a
sufficient amount of bedding material
or loss of moisture by evaporation.
0.005
Factor of 2
Judgement of IPCC Expert Group

in combination with Amon et al.
(2001), which shows emissions
ranging from 0.0027 to 0.01 kg
N2O-N/kg N.
Dry Lot
A paved or unpaved open confinement

area without any significant vegetative
cover where accumulating manure may
be removed periodically. Dry lots are
most typically found in dry climates
but also are used in humid climates.
0.02
Factor of 2

in combination with Kulling
(2003).
Liquid/Slurry
Manure is stored as
excreted or with some
minimal addition of
water
to
facilitate
handling and is stored
in either tanks or
earthen ponds.
With
natural
crust cover
0.005
Factor of 2

in combination with Sommer et
al.(2000).
Without
natural
crust cover
Not Applicable

in combination with the following
studies: Harper et. al (2000), Lague
et. al (2004), Monteny et. al (2001),
and Wagner-Riddle and Marinier
(2003). Emissions are believed
negligible based on the absence of
oxidized forms of nitrogen entering
systems in combination with low
potential for nitrification and
denitrification in the system.
Uncovered
Anaerobic
Lagoon
Anaerobic lagoons are designed and

operated to combine waste stabilization
and storage. Lagoon supernatant is
usually used to remove manure from
the associated confinement facilities to
the lagoon. Anaerobic lagoons are
designed with varying lengths of
storage (up to a year or greater),
depending on the climate region, the
volatile solids loading rate, and other
operational factors. The water from the
lagoon may be recycled as flush water
or used to irrigate and fertilise fields.
Not Applicable

et. al (2004), Monteny et. al (2001),
Pit
Storage
below
animal
confinements
Collection and storage of manure

usually with little or no added water
typically below a slatted floor in an
enclosed animal confinement facility.
0.002
Factor of 2

studies: Amon et. al (2001),
Kulling (2003), and Sneath et. al
(1997).
10.62

TABLE 10.21
System
Definition
EF3
(kg N2O-N/kg
Nitrogen
excreted)
Uncertainty
ranges of EF3
Not Applicable
Sourcea

et. al (2004) Monteny et. al (2001),
Anaerobic
Digester
Anaerobic digesters are designed and

operated for waste stabilization by the
microbial reduction of complex organic
compounds to CH4 and CO2, which is
captured and flared or used as a fuel.
Burned for Fuel

or as Waste
The dung is excreted on fields. The sun

dried dung cakes are burned for fuel.
The emissions associated with the burning of the dung are to be reported
under the IPCC category 'Fuel Combustion' if the dung is used as fuel and
under the IPCC category 'Waste Incineration' if the dung is burned without
energy recovery.
Urine N deposited on pasture and

paddock
Direct and indirect N2O emissions associated with the urine deposited on
agricultural soils and pasture, range, paddock systems are treated in Chapter
11 Section 11.2 N2O Emissions from Managed Soils
Cattle and swine

deep bedding
As
manure
accumulates, bedding is
continually added to
absorb moisture over a
production cycle and
possibly for as long as 6
to 12 months. This
manure
management
system also is known as
a bedded pack manure
management
system
and may be combined
with a dry lot or
pasture.
No mixing
0.01
Factor of 2
Average value based on Sommer

and Moller
(2000), Sommer
(2000), Amon et al. (1998), and
Nicks et al. (2003).
Active
mixing
0.07
Factor of 2
Average value based on Nicks et

al.(2003) and Moller et al. (2000).
Some literature cites higher values
to 20% for well maintained, active
mixing, but those systems included
treatment for ammonia which is not
typical.
Composting
In-Vesselc
Composting, typically in an enclosed

channel, with forced aeration and
continuous mixing.
0.006
Factor of 2
Judgement of IPCC Expert Group.

Expected to be similar to static
piles.
Composting
Static Pilec
Composting in piles
aeration but no mixing.
0.006
Factor of 2
Hao et al. (2001).
Composting
Intensive
Windrowc
Composting in windrows with regular

turning for mixing and aeration.
0.1
Factor of 2

Expected to be greater than passive
windrows
and
intensive
composting
operations,
as
emissions are a function of the
turning frequency.
Composting
Passive
Windrowc
Composting
in
windrows
with
infrequent turning for mixing and
aeration.
0.01
Factor of 2
Hao et al. (2001).
Poultry manure
with litter
Similar to deep bedding systems.

Typically used for all poultry breeder
flocks and for the production of meat
type chickens (broilers) and other fowl.
0.001
Factor of 2

based on the high loss of ammonia
from these systems, which limits
the availability of nitrogen for
nitrification/denitrification.
Poultry manure
without litter
May be similar to open pits in enclosed

animal confinement facilities or may be
designed and operated to dry the
manure as it accumulates. The latter is
known as a high-rise manure
management system and is a form of
passive windrow composting when
designed and operated properly.
0.001
Factor of 2

based on the high loss of ammonia
from these systems, which limits
the availability of nitrogen for
nitrification/denitrification.
with
forced
10.63
TABLE 10.21
System
Aerobic
Treatment
EF3
(kg N2O-N/kg
Nitrogen
excreted)
Uncertainty
ranges of EF3
Natural
aeration
systems
0.01
Factor of 2

Nitrification-denitrification is used
widely for the removal of nitrogen
in the biological treatment of
municipal
and
industrial
wastewaters with negligible N2O
emissions. Limited oxidation may
increase emissions compared to
forced aeration systems.
Forced
aeration
systems
0.005
Factor of 2

Nitrification-denitrification is used
widely for the removal of nitrogen
in the biological treatment of
municipal
and
industrial
wastewaters with negligible N2O
emissions.
Definition
The
biological
oxidation of manure
collected as a liquid
with either forced or
natural
aeration.
Natural aeration is
limited to aerobic and
facultative ponds and
wetland systems and is
due
primarily
to
photosynthesis. Hence,
these systems typically
become anoxic during
periods
without
sunlight.
Sourcea
Also see Dustan (2002), which compiled information from some of the original references cited.
Quantitative data should be used to distinguish whether the system is judged to be a solid storage or liquid/slurry. The borderline between
dry and liquid can be drawn at 20% dry matter content.
c
Composting is the biological oxidation of a solid waste including manure usually with bedding or another organic carbon source typically at
thermophilic temperatures produced by microbial heat production.
Emission Factors for Indirect N 2 O Emissions from Manure Management
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
In order to estimate indirect N2O emissions from manure management two fractions of nitrogen losses (due to
volatilization and leaching/run-off), and two indirect N2O emissions factors associated with these losses (EF4 and
EF5) are needed. Default values for volatilization N losses are presented in the Table 10.22. Values represent
average rates for N loss in the forms of NH3 and NOx, with most of the loss in the form of NH3. Ranges reflect
values that appear in the literature. The values represent conditions without any significant nitrogen control
measures in place. Countries are encouraged to develop country-specific values, particularly related to ammonia
losses where component emissions may be well characterized as part of larger air quality assessments and where
emissions may be affected by nitrogen reduction strategies. For example, detailed methodologies for estimating
NH3 and other nitrogen losses using mass balance/mass flow procedures are described in the EMEP/CORINAIR
Atmospheric Inventory Guidebook, Chapter 1009 (European Environmental Agency, 2002).
13
14
The fraction of manure nitrogen that leaches from manure management systems (FracleachMS) is highly uncertain
and should be developed as a country-specific value applied in Tier 2 method.
15
16
Default values for EF4 (N volatilisation and re-deposition) and EF5 (N leaching/run off) are given in Chapter 11
Table 11.3 (Default Emission, Volatilisation and Leaching Factors for Indirect Soil N2O Emissions).
17
18
19
There are two main types of activity data for estimating N2O emissions from manure management systems: (1)
livestock population data, and (2) manure management system usage data.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Livestock population data, N ( T )

The animal population data should be obtained using the approach described in Section 10.2. If using default
nitrogen excretion rates to estimate N2O emissions from manure management systems, a Tier 1 livestock
population characterisation is sufficient. To estimate N2O emissions from manure management using calculated
nitrogen excretion rates, a Tier 2 characterisation must be performed. As noted in Section 10.2, good practice in
characterising livestock populations is to conduct a single characterisation that will provide the activity data for
all emissions sources that depend on livestock population data.
27
10.64

TABLE 10.22
DEFAULT VALUES FOR NITROGEN LOSS DUE TO VOLATILISATION OF NH3 AND NOX FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT
Animal Type
Swine
Dairy Cow
Poultry
Other Cattle
Other c
Manure Management Systema
N Loss from MMS due to Volatilisation of

N-NH3 and N-NOx (%)b
FracGasMS (Range of FracGasMS)
Anaerobic Lagoon
40% (25 75)
Pit Storage
25% (15 30)
Deep Bedding
40% (10 60)
Liquid/Slurry
48% (15 60)
Solid Storage
45% (10 65)
Anaerobic Lagoon
35% (20 80)
Liquid/Slurry
40% (15 45)
Pit Storage
28% (10 40)
Dry lot
20% (10 35)
Solid Storage
30% (10 40)
Daily Spread
7% (5 60)
Poultry without litter
55% (40 70)
Anaerobic Lagoon
40% (25 75)
Poultry with litter
40% (10 60)
Dry lot
30% (20 50)
Solid Storage
45% (10 65)
Deep Bedding
30% (20 40)
Deep Bedding
25% (10 30)
Solid Storage
12% (5 20)
Manure Management System here includes associated N losses at housing and final storage system.
Volatilization rates based on judgement of IPCC Expert Group and following sources: Rotz ( 2003), Hutchings et al. (2001), and U.S EPA
(2004).
c
Other includes sheep, horses, and fur-bearing animals.
Manure management system usage data, MS ( T , S )
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
The manure management system usage data used to estimate N2O emissions from manure management should
be the same as those that are used to estimate CH4 emissions from manure management (see Table 10.18 for a
summary of the main types of manure management systems). The portion of manure managed in each manure
management system must be collected for each representative livestock category. Note that in some cases,
manure may be managed in several types of manure management systems. For example, manure flushed from a
dairy freestall barn to an anaerobic lagoon may first pass through a solids separation unit where some of the
manure solids are removed and managed as a solid. Therefore, it is important to carefully consider the fraction of
manure that is managed in each type of system.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
The best means of obtaining manure management system distribution data is to consult regularly published
national statistics. If such statistics are unavailable, the preferred alternative is to conduct an independent survey
of manure management system usage. If the resources are not available to conduct a survey, experts should be
consulted to obtain an opinion of the system distribution. If country-specific manure management system usage
data are not available, default values should be used. The IPCC default values for dairy cows, other cattle,
buffalo, swine (market and breeding swine), and poultry should be taken from Tables 10A-4 through 10A-8 of
Annex 10A.2. Manure from other animal categories is typically managed in pastures and grazing operations.
19
10.5.4 Coordination with Reporting for N 2 O Emissions From

Managed Soils
20
21
Following storage or treatment in any system of manure management, nearly all the manure will be applied to
land. The emissions that subsequently arise from the application of the manure to soil are to be reported under
18
10.65
1
2
3
4
the category N2O Emissions from Managed Soils. The methods for estimating these emissions are discussed in
Chapter 11 Section 11.2. In estimating N2O emissions from managed soils, the amount of animal manure
nitrogen that is directly applied to soils, or available for use in feed, fuel, or construction purposes, are
considered.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
A significant proportion of the total nitrogen excreted by animals in managed systems (i.e., all livestock except
those in pasture and grazing conditions) is lost prior to final application to managed soils or for use as feed, fuel,
or for construction purposes. In order to estimate the amount of animal manure nitrogen that is directly applied
to soils, or available for use in feed, fuel, or construction purposes (i.e., the value which is used in Chapter 11
Equation 11.1 or 11.2), it is necessary to reduce the total amount of nitrogen excreted by animals in managed
systems by the losses of N through volatilisation (i.e., NH3, N2 and NOx), conversion to N2O and losses through
leaching and run off.
12
13
14
15
16
17
Where organic forms of bedding material (straw, sawdust, chippings, etc.) are used, the additional nitrogen from
the bedding material should also be considered as part of the managed manure N applied to soils. Bedding is
typically collected with the remaining manure and applied to soils. It should be noted, however, that since
mineralization of nitrogen compounds in beddings occurs more slowly compared to manure and the
concentration of ammonia fraction in organic beddings is negligible, both volatilization and leaching losses
during storage of bedding are assumed to be zero (European Environmental Agency, 2002).
18
19
The estimate of managed manure nitrogen available for application to managed soils, or available for use in feed,
fuel, or construction purposes is based on the following equation:
20
21
22
EQUATION 10.34
MANAGED MANURE N AVAILABLE FOR APPLICATION TO MANAGED SOILS, FEED, FUEL OR
CONSTRUCTION USES
N MMS _ Avb
23

1 Frac LossMS
(N (T ) Nex(T ) MS (T ,S ) )
100
=
S (T )
N (T ) MS (T ,S ) N beddingMS
24
Where:
25
26
NMMS_AVB = amount of managed manure nitrogen available for application to managed soils or for feed,
fuel, or construction purposes, kg N yr-1
27
28
Nex(T) = Annual average N excretion per animal of species/category T in the country, kg N animal-1 yr-1
29
30
31
32
FracLossMS = amount of managed manure nitrogen for livestock category T that is lost in the manure
management system S, % (see Table 10.23)
33
34
NbeddingMS = amount of nitrogen from bedding (to be applied for solid storage and deep bedding MMS if
known organic bedding usage), kg N animal-1 yr-1
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Bedding materials vary greatly and inventory compilers should develop values for NbeddingMS based on the
characteristics of bedding material used in their livestock industries. Limited data from scientific literature
indicates the amount of nitrogen contained in organic bedding material applied for dairy cows and heifers is
usually around 7 kg N/animal/year, for other cattle is 4 kg N/animal/yr, for market and breeding swine is around
0.8 and 5.5 kg N/animal/yr respectively. For deep bedding systems, the amount of N in litter is approximately
double these amounts (Webb, 2001; Dhler et al., 2002).
44
45
46
47
48
Table 10.23 presents default values for total nitrogen losses from manure management systems. These default
values include losses that occur from the point of excretion, including animal housing losses, manure storage
losses, and losses from leaching and runoff at the manure storage system where applicable. For example, values
provided for dairy anaerobic lagoon systems include nitrogen losses that occur in the dairy barn and milking
parlour prior to the collection and treatment of manure, as well as those that occur from the lagoon.
10.66

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
There is a high level of variability in the range of total nitrogen losses from managed manure systems. As shown
in Table 10.23, the majority of these are due to volatilization losses, primarily ammonia losses that occur rapidly
following the excretion of the manure. However, losses also occur in the form of NO3, N2O, and N2 as well from
leaching and runoff that occurs where manure is stored in piles. The values in Table 10.23 reflect average values
for typical housing/storage combinations for each animal category. Countries are encouraged to develop countryspecific values, particularly related to ammonia losses where component emissions may be well characterised for
local practices as part of larger air quality assessments and where emissions may be affected by nitrogen
reduction strategies.
9
10
11
12
13
Countries may wish to develop an alternative approach for better consideration of national circumstances and to
reduce uncertainty of estimates as much as possible. This approach would entail more detailed characterisation
of the flow of nitrogen through the components of the animal housing and manure management systems used in
the country, accounting for any mitigation activity (e.g., the use of covers over slurry tanks), and consideration
of local practices, such as type of bedding material used.
TABLE 10.23
DEFAULT VALUES FOR TOTAL NITROGEN LOSS FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT
Animal Category
Swine
Dairy Cow
Poultry
Other Cattle
Other c
Manure Management Systema
Total N Loss from MMSb

FracLossMS (Range of FracLossMS)
Anaerobic Lagoon
78% (55 99)
Pit Storage
25% (15 30)
Deep Bedding
50% (10 60)
Liquid/Slurry
48% (15 60)
Solid Storage
50% (20 70)
Anaerobic Lagoon
77% (55 99)
Liquid/Slurry
40% (15 45)
Pit Storage
28% (10 40)
Dry lot
30% (10 35)
Solid Storage
40% (10 65)
Daily Spread
22% (15 60)
Poultry without litter
55% (40 70)
Anaerobic Lagoon
77% (50 99)
Poultry with litter
50% (20 80)
Dry lot
40% (20 50)
Solid Storage
50% (20 70)
Deep Bedding
40% (10 50)
Deep Bedding
35% (15 40)
Solid Storage
15% (5 20)
Manure Management System here includes associated N losses at housing and final storage system.
Total N loss rates based on judgement of IPCC Expert Group and following sources: Rotz ( 2003), Hutchings et al. (2001), and U.S EPA
(2004). Rates include losses in forms of NH3, NOx, N2O, and N2 as well from leaching and runoff from solid storage and dry lots. Values
represent average rates for typical housing and storage components without any significant nitrogen control measures in place. Ranges
reflect values that appear in the literature. Where measures to control nitrogen losses are in place, alternative rates should be developed to
reflect those measures.
c
Other includes sheep, horses, and fur-bearing animals.
14
15
16
Em iss io n fac tor s N itrog en ex cr etion rat e s
17
18
19
Uncertainty ranges for the default N excretion rates are estimated at about +50% (Source: Judgement by IPCC
Expert Group). The uncertainty ranges for the default N retention values provided here are also +50% (see Table
10.20). If inventory agencies derive N excretion rates using accurate in-country statistics on N intake and N
10.67
1
2
3
retention, the uncertainties associated with the N excretion rates may be reduced substantially. The degree of
uncertainty may be further reduced by using direct emission measurements of nitrogen losses from specific
manure management systems.
Em iss io n fac tor s D ire ct N 2 O emis s io n s
5
6
7
8
9
There are large uncertainties associated with the default emission factors for this source category (-50% to
+100%). Accurate and well-designed emission measurements from well characterised types of manure and
manure management systems can help reduce these uncertainties. These measurements must account for
temperature, moisture conditions, aeration, manure N content, metabolisable carbon, duration of storage, and
other aspects of treatment.
10
E m i ss io n f a c t o r s In d ir e ct N 2 O emis sio ns
11
12
13
14
15
16
Uncertainty ranges for default N losses due to volatilisation of NH3 and NOx and total N losses from manure
management systems are presented in the Tables 10.22 and 10.23, respectively. The uncertainty associated with
default emission factor for nitrogen volatilisation and re-deposition (EF4) is given in Table 11.3 of Chapter 11.
The uncertainty range for the default emission factor for leaching and run off (EF5) is also provided in Table
11.3. Caution should be taken when developing country-specific emission factors for volatilisation and redeposition of nitrogen, since direct measurements could include transboundary atmospheric transport.
17
A ct iv ity data Livesto ck popu la tion s
18
19
See Section 10.2 (Livestock Population and Feed Characterisation) for discussion on uncertainty of animal
population and feed characterisation data.
20
A ct iv ity data Manu re ma nagement sy stem u sag e
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
The uncertainty of the manure management system usage data will depend on the characteristics of each
country's livestock industry and how information on manure management is collected. For example, for
countries that rely almost exclusively on one type of management system, such as dry lot, the uncertainty
associated with management system usage data can be 10% or less. However, for countries where there is a
wide variety of management systems used with locally different operating practices, the uncertainty in
management system usage data can be much higher, in the range of 25% to 50%, depending on the availability
of reliable and representative survey data that differentiates animal populations by system usage. Preferably,
each country should estimate the uncertainty associated with their management system usage data by using the
methods described in Volume I, Chapter 3.
31
10.5.6 Completeness, time series, quality assurance / quality

control and reporting
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
A complete inventory should estimate N2O emissions from all systems of manure management for all livestock
species/categories. Countries are encouraged to use manure management system definitions that are consistent
with those presented in Table 10.18. Population data should be cross-checked between main reporting
mechanisms (such as FAO and national agricultural statistics databases) to ensure that information used in the
inventory is complete and consistent. Because of the widespread availability of the FAO database of livestock
information, most countries should be able to prepare, at a minimum, Tier 1 estimates for the major livestock
categories. For more information regarding the completeness of livestock characterisation, see Section 10.2.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Developing a consistent time series of emission estimates for this source category requires, at a minimum, the
collection of an internally consistent time series of livestock population statistics. General guidance on the
development of a consistent time series is addressed in Volume 1 Chapter 5 of this report. In most countries, the
other two activity data sets required for this source category (i.e. N excretion rates and manure management
system usage data), as well as the manure management emission factors, will be kept constant for the entire time
series. However, in some cases, there may be reasons to modify these values over time. For example, farmers
may alter livestock feeding practices which could affect nitrogen excretion rates. A particular system of manure
management may change due to operational practices or new technologies such that a revised emission factor is
warranted. These changes in practices may be due to the implementation of explicit greenhouse gas mitigation
measures, or may be due to changing agricultural practices without regard to greenhouse gases. Regardless of the
driver of change, the parameters and emission factors used to estimate emissions must reflect the change. The
inventory text should thoroughly explain how the change in farm practices or implementation of mitigation
measures has affected the time series of activity data or emission factors.
52
53
54
It is good practice to implement general quality control checks as outlined in Volume 1 Chapter 6, Quality
Assurance/Quality Control and Verification, and expert review of the emission estimates. Additional quality
control checks and quality assurance procedures may also be applicable, particularly if higher tier methods are
30
10.68

1
2
used to determine emissions from this source. The general QA/QC related to data processing, handling, and
reporting should be supplemented with procedures discussed below:
Activity data check
4
5
6
7
8
The inventory agency should review livestock data collection methods, in particular checking that livestock
subspecies data were collected and aggregated correctly with consideration for the duration of production
cycles. The data should be cross-checked with previous years to ensure the data are reasonable and
consistent with the expected trend. Inventory agencies should document data collection methods, identify
potential areas of bias, and evaluate the representativeness of the data.
9
10
11
12
Manure management system allocation should be reviewed on a regular basis to determine if changes in the
livestock industry are being captured. Conversion from one type of management system to another, and
technical modifications to system configuration and performance, should be captured in the system
modelling for the affected livestock.
13
14
15
16
17
National agricultural policy and regulations may have an effect on parameters that are used to calculate
manure emissions, and should be reviewed regularly to determine what impact they may have. For example,
guidelines to reduce manure runoff into water bodies may cause a change in management practices, and
thus affect the N distribution for a particular livestock category. Consistency should be maintained between
the inventory and ongoing changes in agricultural practices.
18
19
20
If using country-specific data for Nex(T) and MS(T,S), the inventory agency should compare these values to
the IPCC default values. Significant differences, data sources, and methods of data derivation, should be
documented.
21
22
The nitrogen excretion rates, whether default or country-specific values, should be consistent with feed
intake data as determined through animal nutrition analyses.
23
Review of emission factors
24
25
26
The inventory agency should evaluate how well the implied N2O emission factors and nitrogen excretion
rates compare with alternative national data sources and with data from other countries with similar
livestock practices. Significant differences should be investigated.
27
28
29
If using country-specific emission factors, the inventory agency should compare them to the default factors
and note differences. The development of country-specific emission factors should be explained and
documented, and the results peer-reviewed by independent experts.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
External review
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Whenever possible, available measurement data, even if they represent only a small sample of systems,
should be reviewed relative to assumptions for N2O emission estimates. Representative measurement data
may provide insights into how well current assumptions predict N2O production from manure management
systems in the inventory area, and how certain factors (e.g., feed intake, system configuration, retention time)
are affecting emissions. Because of the relatively small amount of measurement data available for these
systems worldwide, any new results can improve the understanding of these emissions and possibly their
prediction.
The inventory agency should utilise experts in manure management and animal nutrition to conduct expert
peer review of the methods and data used. While these experts may not be familiar with greenhouse gas
emissions, their knowledge of key input parameters to the emission calculation can aid in the overall
verification of the emissions. For example, animal nutritionists can evaluate N production rates to see if
they are consistent with feed utilization research for certain livestock species. Practicing farmers can
provide insights into actual manure management techniques, such as storage times and mixed-system usage.
Wherever possible, these experts should be completely independent of the inventory process in order to
allow a true external review.
46
47
48
49
50
estimates as outlined in Volume 1 Chapter 6 (Quality Assurance/Quality Control and Verification). When
country-specific emission factors, fractions of N losses, N excretion rates, or manure management system usage
data have been used, the derivation of or references for these data should be clearly documented and reported
along with the inventory results under the appropriate IPCC source category.
51
52
53
N2O emissions from different types of manure management systems have to be reported according to categories
in Table 10.18. N2O emissions from all types of manure management systems are to be reported under manure
management, with two exceptions:
10.69
1
2
3
Emissions from the manure management system for pasture, range, and paddock are to be reported under
the IPCC source category N2O Emissions from Managed Soils because this manure is deposited directly on
soils by the livestock.
4
5
6
7
Emission from the manure management system burned for fuel, are to be reported under the IPCC category
Fuel Combustion if the dung is used as fuel and under the IPCC category Waste Incineration if the dung is
burned without energy recovery. It should be noted, however, if the urine nitrogen is not collected for
burning it must be reported under N2O emissions from pasture, range, and paddock animals.
10.5.7 Use of Worksheets
9
10
11
12
13
Use the worksheets for Livestock N2O contained in Annex 1 to calculate and report inventory information for
default methodologies described in Chapter 10.5 N2O Emission from Manure Management. The following is a
summary of the step-by-step instructions to follow when completing the worksheets. Note that columns are
referred to using the symbols of the variables that both appear in the equations, as well as in column headings of
the worksheets.
14
15
16
Step 1: Calculation of N excretion from manure management systems (Sheet 1 of 3 - Direct N2O Emissions
from Manure Management). Make extra copies of Sheet 1 of 3, and complete one for each manure management
systems (MMS)).
17
18
Step 1A: Collect population data from the Livestock Population Characterisation and enter
corresponding values in column N(T);
19
20
21
Step 1B: Use default values Nrate and TAM (Equation 10.30 and using data from Table 10.19 and
Table A4-A9) or develop the annual average nitrogen excretion rate per head (Nex(T)) for each defined
livestock species/category T and enter these values in columns Nrate and TAM, or Nex(T), respectively;
22
23
24
Step 1C: Enter in column MS(T,S) default values (see Tables 10A-4 through 10A-8 of Annex 10A.2) or
determine the fraction of total annual nitrogen excretion for each livestock species/category T that is
managed in each manure management system S (MS(T,S));
25
26
27
28
29
30
Step 1D: Multiply the number of heads (column N(T)) by the value of N excretion rate per head (Nex(T))
for each livestock species/category T (column Nex(T)) and by the fraction of manure nitrogen per MMS
(column MS(T,S)) in order to estimate total nitrogen excretion for each MMS in kilograms per year
(column NEMMS). Enter the results in column NEMMS of this sheet, and in column NEMMS of Sheet 2 of
3 Indirect Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Manure Management and column NEMMS of Sheet 3 of 3
Available Nitrogen for Soil Application, Feed, Fuel and Construction from Manure Management.
31
32
Step 2: Calculation of direct N2O emissions from manure management systems (Sheet 1 of 3 - Direct N2O
Emissions from Manure Management).
33
34
Step 2A: Use default values (see Table 10.21) or develop direct N2O emission factors for each manure
management system S (EF3(S)) and enter corresponding emission factor in the column EF3(S);
35
36
37
38
Step 2B: For each manure management system type S, multiply its emission factor (column EF3(S)) by
the amount of nitrogen managed (column NEMMS) in that system, to estimate direct N2O emissions per
MMS. Note that emissions estimates should be reported in kg of N2O. Enter the results in the column
N2OD(mm) of this sheet.
39
40
Step 3: Calculation of indirect N2O emissions from manure management systems (Sheet 2 of 3 Indirect N2O
Emissions from Manure Management. Make extra copies of Sheet 3 of 5, one for each MMS).
41
42
43
Step 3A: Enter in column FracGasMS default values (see Table 10.22) or determine country-specific
fraction of managed livestock manure nitrogen that volatilises as NH3 and NOx for each defined
livestock species/category T per each MMS (FracGasMS);
44
45
46
Step 3B: Multiply the fraction of manure nitrogen that volatilises as NH3 and NOx (column FracGasMS)
by the total amount of nitrogen excreted in each MMS per livestock categories (column NEMMS) to
estimate amount of manure nitrogen that is lost due to volatilisation of NH3 and NOx (Nvolatilizations-MMS);
47
48
49
Step 3C: Use default value (see Table 11.3, Chapter 11 N2O Emissions from Managed Soils) or
develop country-specific emission factor for indirect N2O emission from atmospheric deposition of
nitrogen on soils and water surfaces and enter the emission factor in the column EF4;
50
51
Step 3D: Multiply the amount of manure nitrogen that is lost due to volatilisation of NH3 and NOx
(column Nvolatilizations-MMS) by the emission factor (column EF4), to calculate annual indirect N2O
10.70

1
2
emissions per MMS. Note that emissions estimates should be reported in kg of N2O. Enter the results
in the column N2OG(mm) of this sheet.
3
4
5
Step 4: Calculation of manure N that is available for application to soils or for use in feed, fuel or construction
purposes from manure management systems (Sheet 3 of 3 - Managed manure N available for application to
managed soils, feed, fuel or construction uses. Make extra copies of Sheet 3 of 3, one for each MMS).
6
7
8
Step 4A: Enter in column FraclossMS default values (see Table 10.23) or develop country-specific
fraction of total nitrogen loss from manure managed in each MMS for each livestock species/category T
(FraclossMS);
9
10
11
12
Step 4B: If country-specific values for organic bedding usage are available for solid storage or deep
bedding MMS, calculate the amount of N from bedding by multiplying the number of animals
associated with these two systems by the N content in bedding per animal. Enter results obtained in the
column NbeddingMS.
13
14
15
16
Step 4C: Calculate managed manure N available for application to managed soils, feed, fuel or
construction using Equation 10.35 and enter obtained results in column NMMS_AVB. Then sum over all
manure management systems. This value is used for calculation of N2O emissions from managed soils
(see worksheets in Annex 1).
17
10.71
Annex 10A.1 Data Underlying Methane Default Emission

Factors For Enteric Fermentation
3
4
5
This annex presents the data used to develop the default emission factors for methane emissions from enteric
fermentation. The Tier 2 method was implemented with these data to estimate the default emission factors for
cattle and buffalo.
6
7
8
10.72

1
2
TABLE 10A.1
DATA FOR ESTIMATING TIER 1 ENTERIC FERMENTATION CH4 EMISSION FACTORS FOR DAIRY COWS IN TABLE 10.11
3
4
Regions
Weight
Kg
Weight Gain
kg/day
Milk
kg/day
Work
hrs/day
%
Pregnant
Digestibility
of Feed,
(DE%)
CH4 Conversion
Factor, (Ym)
North Americaa
600
Stall Fed
23.0
90%
75%
6.5%
Western Europe
600
Stall Fed
16.4
90%
70%
6.5%
Eastern Europeb
550
Stall Fed
7.0
80%
60%
6.5%
Oceaniac
500
Pasture/Range
6.0
80%
60%
6.5%
Latin Americad
400
Pasture/Range
2.2
80%
60%
6.5%
Asiae
350
Stall Fed
4.5
80%
60%
6.5%
Africa & Middle East
275
Stall Fed
1.3
67%
60%
6.5%
Indian Subcontinentf
275
Stall Fed
2.5
50%
55%
6.5%
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Feeding Situation
Based on estimates for the United States
Based on estimates for the former USSR
Based on average estimate for region.
Based on estimates for Brazil.
Based on estimates for China.
Based on estimates for India.
Source: Gibbs and Johnson (1993).
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10.73
TABLE 10A.2
DATA FOR ESTIMATING TIER 1 ENTERIC FERMENTATION CH4 EMISSION FACTORS FOR OTHER CATTLE IN TABLE 10.11
Pregnant
%
Digestibility of
Feed, (DE%)
CH4 Conversion
Factor (Ym)
Day Weighted
Population Mix %
Emission Factors
kg CH4/head/yr
80%
60%
6.5%
36%
76
0.0
0%
60%
6.5%
2%
81
0.0
0.0
0%
NA
0.0%
16%
Pasture/Range
0.0
0.0
0%
65%
6.5%
8%
48
0.7
Pasture/Range
0.0
0.0
0%
65%
6.5%
17%
55
375
0.4
Pasture/Range
0.0
0.0
0%
60%
6.5%
11%
66
Feedlot cattle
415
1.3
Stall Fed
0.0
0.0
0%
75%
3.0%
11%
33
Mature Males
600
0.0
Pasture/Range
0.0
0%
60%
6.5%
22%
66
Replacement/growing
400
0.4
Pasture/Range
0.0
0.0
0%
60%
6.5%
54%
73
Calves on milk
230
0.3
Pasture/Range
0.0
0.0
0%
65%
0.0%
15%
Calves on forage
230
0.3
Pasture/Range
0.0
0.0
0%
65%
6.5%
8%
35
Mature Females
500
0.0
Pasture/Range
3.3
67%
60%
6.5%
30%
75
Mature Males
600
0.0
Pasture/Range
0.0
0.0
0%
60%
6.5%
22%
66
Young
230
0.4
Pasture/Range
0.0
0.0
0%
60%
6.5%
48%
45
Mature Females
400
0.0
Pasture/Range
2.4
67%
55%
6.5 %
51%
71
Mature Males
450
0.0
Pasture/Range
0.0
0.0
0%
55%
6.5%
11%
61
Young
200
0.3
Pasture/Range
0.0
0.0
0%
55%
6.5%
38%
46
Sub-Category
Weight
kg
Weight Gain
kg/day
Feeding Situation
Mature Females
500
0.0
Pasture/Range
3.3
Mature Males
800
0.0
Pasture/Range
0.0
Calves on milk
100
0.9
Pasture/Range
Calves on forage
185
0.9
Growing heifers/steers
265
Replacement/growing
Based on estimates for the United States; . b Based on estimates for the former USSR;
Milk
kg/day
Work
hrs/day
North Americaa
0.0
Western Europe
0.0
Eastern Europeb
0.0
Oceaniac
0.0
Based on average estimate for region.
1
2
3
10.74

1
TABLE 10A.2 (CONTINUED)
DATA FOR ESTIMATING TIER 1 ENTERIC FERMENTATION CH4 EMISSION FACTORS FOR OTHER CATTLE IN TABLE 10.11
Weight
kg
Weight Gain
kg/day
Mature Females
400
0.0
Large Areas
Mature Males
450
0.0
Large Areas
0.0
Young
230
0.3
Large Areas
Mature Females-Farming
325
0.0
Mature Females-Grazing
300
0.0
Mature Males-Farming
450
0.0
Mature Males-Grazing
400
Young
Pregnant
%
Digestibility
of Feed,
(DE%)
CH4
Conversion
Factor,
(Ym)
Day
Weighted
Population
Mix %
Emission
Factors
kg
CH4/head/yr
67%
60%
6.5%
37%
64
0.0
0%
60%
6.5%
6%
61
0.0
0.0
0%
60%
6.5%
58%
49
Asiae
1.1
0.55
33%
55%
6.5%
27%
50
1.1
0.00
50%
60%
6.5%
9%
46
Stall Fed
0.0
1.37
0%
55%
6.5%
24%
59
0.0
Pasture/Range
0.0
0.00
0%
60%
6.5%
8%
48
200
0.2
Pasture/Range
0.0
0.00
0%
60%
6.5%
32%
36
Mature Females
200
0.0
Stall Fed
Africa
0.3
0.55
33%
55%
6.5%
13%
32
Draft Bullocks
275
0.0
Stall Fed
0.0
1.37
0%
55%
6.5%
13%
41
Mature Females-Grazing
200
0.0
Large Areas
0.3
0.00
33%
55%
6.5%
6%
41
Bulls Grazing
275
0.0
Large Areas
0.0
0.00
0%
55%
6.5%
25%
49
Young
75
0.1
Pasture/Range
0.0
0.00
0%
60%
6.5%
44%
16
Indian Subcontinentf
0.6
0.00
33%
50%
6.5%
40%
28
Sub-category
Stall Fed
Pasture/Range
Milk
kg/day
Work
hrs/day
Latin Americad
1.1
0.0
Mature Females
125
0.0
Stall Fed
Mature Males
200
0.0
Stall Fed
0.0
2.74
0%
50%
6.5%
10%
42
80
0.1
Stall Fed
0.0
0.00
0%
50%
6.5%
50%
23
Young
d
Feeding Situation
Based on estimates for the Brazil.; Based on estimates for the China.; Based on estimates for India; Source: Gibbs and Johnson (1993)
10.75
1
TABLE 10A.3
DATA FOR ESTIMATING TIER 1 ENTERIC FERMENTATION CH4 EMISSION FACTORS FOR BUFFALO
Sub-category
Weight
Weight Gain
kg
kg/day
Feeding Situation
Milk
Work
kg/day
hrs/day
Pregnant
%
Digestibilit
y of Feed,
(DE%)
CH4
Conversion,
Factor (Ym)
Day Weighed
Population Mix
Emissions
Factors
kg CH4/head/yr
Indian Subcontinenta
Adult Males
350 - 550
0.00
Stall Fed
0.00
1.37
0%
55%
6.5%
14%
55 - 77
Adult Females
250 - 450
0.00
Stall Fed
2.70
0.55
33%
55%
6.5%
40%
57 - 80
Young
100 - 300
0.15
Stall Fed
0.00
0.00
0%
55%
6.5%
46%
23 - 50
Other Countriesb
Adult Males
350 - 550
0.00
Stall Fed
0.00
1.37
0%
55%
6.5%
45%
55 - 77
Adult Females
250 - 450
0.00
Stall Fed
0.00
0.55
25%
55%
6.5%
45%
45 - 67
Young
100 - 300
0.15
Stall Fed
0.15
0.00
0%
55%
6.5%
10%
23 - 50
Based on estimates for India.

Based on estimates for China.
Source: Gibbs and Johnson (1993).
b
2
3
4
5
6
7
10.76

Annex 10A.2 Data Underlying Methane Default Emission

Factors for Manure Management
3
4
5
This annex presents the data used to develop the default emission factors for methane emissions from manure
management. The Tier 2 method was implemented with these data to estimate the default emission factors for
each livestock category.
10.77
1
Table 10A-4
Manure Management Methane Emission Factor Derivation for Dairy Cows
Annual Average Temperature (C)
Cool
Temp
Warm
Lagoon1
66%
68%
70%
71%
73%
74%
75%
76%
77%
77%
78%
78%
78%
79%
79%
79%
79%
80%
80%
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Liquid/
Slurry1
17%
19%
20%
22%
25%
27%
29%
32%
35%
39%
42%
46%
50%
55%
60%
65%
71%
78%
80%
Manure Management System MCFs

Pasture/
Range/
Daily
Burned
Drylot
Paddock Spread Digester
for Fuel
1.0%
1.0%
0.1%
10.0%
10.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.1%
10.0%
10.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.1%
10.0%
10.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.1%
10.0%
10.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.1%
10.0%
10.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.0%
10.0%
10.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.0%
10.0%
10.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.0%
10.0%
10.0%
Solid
Storage
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
Other
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
Emission Factors
kg CH4 per head per year
Dairy Cow Characteristics

Region
Massa
Bob
VSc
kg
m3CH4/kg VS
kg/hd/day
North America
604
0.24
5.4
Western Europe
600
0.24
5.1
Eastern Europe
550
0.24
4.5
Oceania
500
0.24
3.5
Latin America
400
0.13
2.9
Africa
275
0.13
1.9
Middle East
275
0.13
1.9
Asia
350
0.13
2.8
Indian Subcontinent
275
0.13
2.6
a
Average dairy cow mass for each region (default estimates are 10%)
b
Bo estimates are 15%
Manure Management System Usage (MS%)
Cool
10
15.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.0%
0.0%
27.0%
35.7%
17.5%
1.0%
1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
38.0%
1.0%
26.3%
36.8%
60.0%
0.0%
1.0%
1.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10.8%
20.0%
18.0%
76.0%
36.0%
83.0%
80.0%
20.0%
27.0%
18.4%
7.0%
2.5%
8.0%
62.0%
5.0%
2.0%
29.0%
19.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
6.0%
17.0%
7.0%
51.0%
2.6%
0.5%
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
48
21
11
23
1
1
2
9
5
11
50
23
12
24
1
1
2
10
5
12
53
25
13
25
1
1
2
10
5
Temperate
13
55
27
14
26
1
1
2
11
5
14
58
29
15
26
1
1
2
12
5
15
63
34
20
27
1
1
2
13
5
16
65
37
21
28
1
1
2
14
5
17
68
40
22
28
1
1
2
15
5
18
71
43
23
28
1
1
2
16
5
19
74
47
25
29
1
1
2
17
5
20
78
51
27
29
1
1
2
18
5
Warm
21
81
55
28
29
1
1
2
20
5
22
85
59
30
29
1
1
2
21
5
23
89
64
33
29
1
1
2
23
5
24
93
70
35
30
1
1
2
24
5
25
98
75
37
30
1
1
2
26
5
26
27
28
105
83
42
31
2
1
2
28
5
110
90
45
31
2
1
3
31
6
112
92
46
31
2
1
3
31
6
1
Lagoon and Liquid/Slurry MCFs are calculated based on the van't Hoff-Arrhenius
Average VS production per head per day for the average dairy cow (default estimates are equation relating temperature to biological activity. Lagoon MCFs are also calculated
based on longer (up to a year) retention times. [Mangino, et. al (2001)]
20%)
c
d
For North America, "Other" manure management system MCFs represent deep pits, which
have the same MCF values as Liquid/Slurry.
Emission Factors (EF) for each region are calculated based on eq.10.23.
Sources: For North America, dairy cow mass values are from Safley (2000) and VS values are estimated based on an analysis of feed data from Petersen et.al (2003). North American manure management
system usage values are estimated using data from the 1992 and 1997 USDA's Census of Agriculture and National Animal Health Monitoring System Reports. Bo values are from Morris (1976) and
Bryant, et.al. (1976). For Western and Eastern Europe manure management system usage, mass and VS values based on the analysis of national GHG inventories of Annex I countires submitted to the
secretariat UNFCCC in 2004. For the rest of the world, the detailed information for dairy cows are developed in Gibbs and Johnson (1993), and manure management system usage and Bo estimates are
from Safley et. al (1992). Methane conversion factor data are from Woodbury and Hashimoto (1993). MCFs for lagoons and liquid/slurry systems are based on data obtained from an analysis of these
systems in the United States.
10.78

Table 10A-5
Manure Management Methane Emission Factor Derivation for Other Cattle
Pasture/
Liquid/ Solid
Range/
Daily
Burned
1
1
Slurry
Storage
Drylot
Paddock
Spread Digester for Fuel Other
Lagoon
Cool
10
66%
17%
2.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.1%
10.0%
10.0%
1.0%
11
68%
19%
2.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.1%
10.0%
10.0%
1.0%
12
70%
20%
2.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.1%
10.0%
10.0%
1.0%
13
71%
22%
2.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.1%
10.0%
10.0%
1.0%
14
73%
25%
2.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.1%
10.0%
10.0%
1.0%
Temp
15
74%
27%
4.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
1.0%
16
75%
29%
4.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
1.0%
17
76%
32%
4.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
1.0%
18
77%
35%
4.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
1.0%
19
77%
39%
4.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
1.0%
20
78%
42%
4.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
1.0%
21
78%
46%
4.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
1.0%
22
78%
50%
4.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
1.0%
23
79%
55%
4.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
1.0%
24
79%
60%
4.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
1.0%
25
79%
65%
4.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
1.0%
Warm
26
79%
71%
5.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.0%
10.0%
10.0%
1.0%
27
80%
78%
5.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.0%
10.0%
10.0%
1.0%
28
80%
80%
5.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.0%
10.0%
10.0%
1.0%
Emission Factors
Other Cattle Characteristics

Region
B ob
Mass
VS
Cool
kg
m CH4/kg VS
kg/hd/day
North America
389
0.19
2.4
Western Europe
420
0.18
2.6
Eastern Europe
391
0.17
2.7
Oceania
330
0.17
3.0
Latin America
305
0.1
2.5
Africa
173
0.1
1.5
Middle East
173
0.1
1.5
Asia
319
0.1
2.3
Indian Subcontinent
110
0.1
1.4
a
Average other cattle mass for each region (default estimates are 25%)
b
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
25.2%
22.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
39.0%
44.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
18.4%
0.0%
0.0%
9.0%
0.0%
1.0%
1.0%
46.0%
4.0%
81.5%
32.0%
20.0%
91.0%
99.0%
95.0%
79.0%
50.0%
22.0%
0.0%
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
2.0%
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.0%
17.0%
2.0%
53.0%
0.0%
2.0%
13.5%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Average VS production per head per day for the average non-dairy cow (default estimates equation relating temperature to biological activity. Lagoon MCFs are also calculated
are 35%)
c
Sources: For North America, other cattle mass are from Safley (2000) and USDA's Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook and VS values are estimated based on an analysis of feed data from
Petersen, et.al (2003). North American manure management system usage values are estimated using data from the 1992 and 1997 USDA's Census of Agriculture and National Animal Health
Monitoring System Reports. Bo data are values reported in Hashimoto (1981). For Western and Eastern Europe manure management system usage, average mass, Bo, and VS values based on the
analysis of national GHG inventories of Annex I countires submitted to the secretariat UNFCCC in 2004. For the rest of the world, the detailed information for cattle are developed in Gibbs and
Johnson (1993), and manure management system usage and Bo estimates are from Safley et. al (1992). Methane conversion factor data are from Woodbury and Hashimoto (1993). MCFs for lagoons
and liquid/slurry systems are based on data obtained from an analysis of these systems in the United States.
Temperate
Warm
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
7
7
8
8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 24 25 26
6
6
7
7
8
9 10 11 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 21 23 23
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
10.79
Table 10A-6
Manure Management Methane Emission Factor Derivation for Buffalo
Pasture/
Liquid/
Solid
Range/
Daily
Burned
1
1
Lagoon
Slurry
Storage Drylot
Paddock
Spread Digester for Fuel
Cool
10
66%
17%
2.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.1%
10.0%
10.0%
11
68%
19%
2.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.1%
10.0%
10.0%
12
70%
20%
2.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.1%
10.0%
10.0%
13
71%
22%
2.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.1%
10.0%
10.0%
14
73%
25%
2.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.1%
10.0%
10.0%
Temp
15
74%
27%
4.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
16
75%
29%
4.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
17
76%
32%
4.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
18
77%
35%
4.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
19
77%
39%
4.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
20
78%
42%
4.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
21
78%
46%
4.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
22
78%
50%
4.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
23
79%
55%
4.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
24
79%
60%
4.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
25
79%
65%
4.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
10.0%
10.0%
Warm
26
79%
71%
5.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.0%
10.0%
10.0%
27
80%
78%
5.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.0%
10.0%
10.0%
28
80%
80%
5.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.0%
10.0%
10.0%
Other
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
Emission Factors
Buffalo Characteristics
Region
Mass
kg
VS
Bo
3
m CH4/kg VS
(not applicable)
0.1
0.1
(not applicable)
0.1
(not applicable)
0.1
0.1
0.1
Cool
10
kg/hd/day
North America
Western Europe
380
Eastern Europe
380
Oceania
Latin America
380
Africa
Middle East
380
Asia
380
Indian Subcontinent
295
a
Average buffalo mass for each region
b
Average VS production per head per day for the average buffalo
3.9
3.9
0%
0%
20%
24%
0%
0%
3.9
0%
0%
0%
3.9
3.9
3.1
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
(not applicable)
79%
0%
0%
29%
(not applicable)
0%
99%
(not applicable)
0%
20%
41%
50%
4%
19%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
47%
4
5
11
4
5
12
5
5
Temperate
13
5
6
14
5
6
15
6
7
16
7
8
0%
0%
0%
1%
19%
4%
21%
0%
0%
1%
42%
5%
55%
19%
0%
0%
4
1
4
4
1
4
4
1
4
4
1
4
4
1
4
5
2
5
5
2
5
Warm
17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Not Applicable
7
8
9
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
8
9 10 11 11 12 13 15 16 17 19 19
Not Applicable
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Not Applicable
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
equation relating temperature to biological activity. Lagoon MCFs are also calculated
Sources: The detailed information for buffalo are developed in Gibbs and Johnson (1993),and manure management system usage and Bo estimates are from Safley et. al (1992). Methane conversion factor data
are from Woodbury and Hashimoto (1993). MCFs for lagoons and liquid/slurry systems are based on data obtained from an analysis of these systems in the United States.
10.80

Table 10A-7
Manure Management Methane Emission Factor Derivation for Market Swine
Cool
Temp
Warm
Liquid/ Solid
Lagoon1 Slurry1 Storage Drylot
66%
17%
2.0%
1.0%
68%
19%
2.0%
1.0%
70%
20%
2.0%
1.0%
71%
22%
2.0%
1.0%
73%
25%
2.0%
1.0%
74%
27%
4.0%
1.5%
75%
29%
4.0%
1.5%
76%
32%
4.0%
1.5%
77%
35%
4.0%
1.5%
77%
39%
4.0%
1.5%
78%
42%
4.0%
1.5%
78%
46%
4.0%
1.5%
78%
50%
4.0%
1.5%
79%
55%
4.0%
1.5%
79%
60%
4.0%
1.5%
79%
65%
4.0%
1.5%
79%
71%
5.0%
2.0%
80%
78%
5.0%
2.0%
80%
80%
5.0%
2.0%
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Pit
Pit
<1 month
>1 month
3.0%
17%
3.0%
19%
3.0%
20%
3.0%
22%
3.0%
25%
3.0%
27%
3.0%
29%
3.0%
32%
3.0%
35%
3.0%
39%
3.0%
42%
3.0%
46%
3.0%
50%
3.0%
55%
3.0%
60%
3.0%
65%
30.0%
71%
30.0%
78%
30.0%
80%
Daily
Spread
Digester
0.1%
10.0%
0.1%
10.0%
0.1%
10.0%
0.1%
10.0%
0.1%
10.0%
0.5%
10.0%
0.5%
10.0%
0.5%
10.0%
0.5%
10.0%
0.5%
10.0%
0.5%
10.0%
0.5%
10.0%
0.5%
10.0%
0.5%
10.0%
0.5%
10.0%
0.5%
10.0%
1.0%
10.0%
1.0%
10.0%
1.0%
10.0%
Other
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
Emission Factors
Market Swine Characteristics

Region
Massa
B ob
VSc
kg
m3CH4/kg VS
kg/hd/day
North America
46
0.48
0.27
Western Europe
50
0.45
0.3
Eastern Europe
50
0.45
0.3
Oceania
45
0.45
0.28
Latin America
28
0.29
0.3
Africa
28
0.29
0.3
Middle East
28
0.29
0.3
Asia
28
0.29
0.3
Indian Subcontinent
28
0.29
0.3
a
Average marker swine mass for each region (default estimates are 20%)
b

32.8%
8.7%
3.0%
54.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.0%
18.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.0%
6.0%
14.0%
40.0%
22.0%
4.2%
13.7%
42.0%
3.0%
10.0%
6.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.0%
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
15.0%
41.0%
87.0%
69.0%
54.0%
30.0%
0.0%
2.8%
24.7%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.0%
40.6%
69.8%
24.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
17.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Cool
0.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
7.0%
8.0%
0.0%
3.0%
5.7%
28.0%
40.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.0%
1
Average VS production per head per day for the average market swine (default estimates equation relating temperature to biological activity. Lagoon MCFs are also calculated
are 25%)
c
Sources: For North America, mass, VS, and Bo values are from Safley (2000), USDA's Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, and Hashimoto (1984), respectively. North American manure
management system usage data are estimated using data from the 1992 and 1997 USDA's Census of Agriculture and National Animal Health Monitoring System Reports. For Western and Eastern Europe
manure management system usage, mass of animals, Bo and VS values based on the analysis of national GHG inventories of Annex I countires submitted to the secretariat UNFCCC in 2004. For the rest of
the world, swine feed intake data are from Crutzen et. al (1986), and manure management system usage and Bo estimates are from Safley et. al (1992). Methane conversion factor data are from Woodbury
and Hashimoto (1993). MCFs for lagoons and liquid/slurry systems are based on data obtained from an analysis of these systems in the United States.
Temperate
Warm
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 15 15 16 17 18 18 19 20 22 23 23
6
6
7
7
8
9
9 10 11 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 21 21
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7 10 10 10
11 11 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
10.81
Table 10A-8
Manure Management Methane Emission Factor Derivation for Breeding Swine
Cool
Temp
Warm
Liquid/ Solid
Pit
Pit
Lagoon1 Slurry1 Storage Drylot <1 month >1 month
66%
17%
2.0%
1.0%
3.0%
17%
68%
19%
2.0%
1.0%
3.0%
19%
70%
20%
2.0%
1.0%
3.0%
20%
71%
22%
2.0%
1.0%
3.0%
22%
73%
25%
2.0%
1.0%
3.0%
25%
74%
27%
4.0%
1.5%
3.0%
27%
75%
29%
4.0%
1.5%
3.0%
29%
76%
32%
4.0%
1.5%
3.0%
32%
77%
35%
4.0%
1.5%
3.0%
35%
77%
39%
4.0%
1.5%
3.0%
39%
78%
42%
4.0%
1.5%
3.0%
42%
78%
46%
4.0%
1.5%
3.0%
46%
78%
50%
4.0%
1.5%
3.0%
50%
79%
55%
4.0%
1.5%
3.0%
55%
79%
60%
4.0%
1.5%
3.0%
60%
79%
65%
4.0%
1.5%
3.0%
65%
79%
71%
5.0%
2.0%
30.0%
71%
80%
78%
5.0%
2.0%
30.0%
78%
80%
80%
5.0%
2.0%
30.0%
80%
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Daily
Spread
Digester
Other
0.1%
10.0%
1.0%
0.1%
10.0%
1.0%
0.1%
10.0%
1.0%
0.1%
10.0%
1.0%
0.1%
10.0%
1.0%
0.5%
10.0%
1.0%
0.5%
10.0%
1.0%
0.5%
10.0%
1.0%
0.5%
10.0%
1.0%
0.5%
10.0%
1.0%
0.5%
10.0%
1.0%
0.5%
10.0%
1.0%
0.5%
10.0%
1.0%
0.5%
10.0%
1.0%
0.5%
10.0%
1.0%
0.5%
10.0%
1.0%
1.0%
10.0%
1.0%
1.0%
10.0%
1.0%
1.0%
10.0%
1.0%
Emission Factors
Breeding Swine Characteristics

Region
Mass
Bob
VS
kg
m3CH4/kg VS
kg/hd/day
North America
198
0.48
0.5
Western Europe
198
0.45
0.46
Eastern Europe
180
0.45
0.5
Oceania
180
0.45
0.5
Latin America
28
0.29
0.3
Africa
28
0.29
0.3
Middle East
28
0.29
0.3
Asia
28
0.29
0.3
Indian Subcontinent
28
0.29
0.3
a
Average breed swine mass for each region (default estimates are 20%)
b
c

32.8%
8.7%
3.0%
54.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.0%
Average VS production per head per day for the average breed swine (default estimates
are 25%)
18.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.0%
6.0%
14.0%
40.0%
22.0%
4.2%
13.7%
42.0%
3.0%
10.0%
6.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.0%
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
15.0%
41.0%
87.0%
69.0%
54.0%
30.0%
0.0%
2.8%
24.7%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.0%
40.6%
69.8%
24.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
17.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Cool
0.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
7.0%
8.0%
0.0%
3.0%
5.7%
28.0%
40.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.0%
Temperate
Warm
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 31 32 34 35 37 39 41 44 45
9 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 22 23 25 27 29 32 33
4
5
5
5
5
6
7
7
7
8
8
9
9 10 11 12 16 17 17
20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
equation relating temperature to biological activity. Lagoon MCFs are also calculated
Sources: For North America, mass, VS, and Bo values are from Safley (2000), USDA's Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, and Hashimoto (1984), respectively. North American manure
management system usage data are estimated using data from the 1992 and 1997 USDA's Census of Agriculture and National Animal Health Monitoring System Reports. For Western and Eastern Europe
manure management system usage, mass of animals, Bo and VS values based on the analysis of national GHG inventories of Annex I countires submitted to the secretariat UNFCCC in 2004. For the rest
of the world, swine feed intake data are from Crutzen et. al (1986), and manure management system usage and Bo estimates are from Safley et. al (1992). Methane conversion factor data are from
Woodbury and Hashimoto (1993). MCFs for lagoons and liquid/slurry systems are based on data obtained from an analysis of these systems in the United States.
10.82

Developing
130
0.7
3.25
4
0.94
0.26
1.8
NR
NR
NR
0.02
0.39
1.8
NR
NR
NR
0.02
0.39
0.9
NR
NR
NR
0.01
0.36
6.8
NR
NR
NR
0.07
0.36
2.7
NR
NR
NR
0.02
0.36
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.02
0.24
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
65%
68%
70%
73%
74%
75%
76%
76%
77%
78%
78%
78%
78%
79%
79%
80%
80%
80%
80%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.64
1.64
1.64
1.64
1.64
1.64
1.64
1.64
1.64
1.64
1.64
2.19
2.19
2.19
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
1.14
1.14
1.14
1.14
1.14
1.14
1.14
1.14
1.14
1.14
1.14
1.52
1.52
1.52
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.20
1.20
1.20
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
1.13
1.18
1.21
1.26
1.28
1.30
1.31
1.32
1.33
1.35
1.35
1.36
1.36
1.37
1.38
1.38
1.38
1.39
1.39
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Turkeys
130
0.7
3.25
4
0.94
0.33
Broilers
238
0.7
5.96
4
1.72
0.26
Layers (wet)
Ducks
Poultry
Developed
Layers (dry)
Developing
Mule/Asses
Developed
Developing
Developed
Developing
Developed
Developing
Developed
Country
Developed
Developing
Table 10A-9
Manure Management Methane Emission Factor Derivation
Sheep
Goats
Camels
Horses
Animal
Animal Characteristics
Mass (kg)
Digest (%)
Intake/d (kg Feed)
% Ash (Dry Basis)
VS/day (kg VS)
Bo (m3/kg VS)
Cool
Temperate
Annual Average
Temperature (C)
Warm
Cool
Temperate
Annual Average
Temperature (C)
Warm
48.5
0.60
1.08
8.00
0.40
0.19
28
0.5
0.7
8
0.32
0.13
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.20
0.20
0.20
38.5
30
217
217
377
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.76
0.76
5.42
5.42
5.96
8
8
8
8
4
0.3
0.35
2.49
2.49
2.13
0.18
0.13
0.26
0.21
0.3
1.0% 1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0% 1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0% 1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0% 1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0% 1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.5% 1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5% 1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5% 1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5% 1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5% 1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5% 1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5% 1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5% 1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5% 1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5% 1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5% 1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
2.0% 2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0% 2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0% 2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
Emission Factors (kg CH4 per head per year)
0.13
0.11
1.58
1.28
1.56
0.13
0.11
1.58
1.28
1.56
0.13
0.11
1.58
1.28
1.56
0.13
0.11
1.58
1.28
1.56
0.13
0.11
1.58
1.28
1.56
0.20
0.17
2.37
1.92
2.34
0.20
0.17
2.37
1.92
2.34
0.20
0.17
2.37
1.92
2.34
0.20
0.17
2.37
1.92
2.34
0.20
0.17
2.37
1.92
2.34
0.20
0.17
2.37
1.92
2.34
0.20
0.17
2.37
1.92
2.34
0.20
0.17
2.37
1.92
2.34
0.20
0.17
2.37
1.92
2.34
0.20
0.17
2.37
1.92
2.34
0.20
0.17
2.37
1.92
2.34
0.26
0.22
3.17
2.56
3.13
0.26
0.22
3.17
2.56
3.13
0.26
0.22
3.17
2.56
3.13
NR = Not reported.
Emission factors, except for poultry, were developed from feed intake values and feed digestibilities used to develop the enteric fermentation emission factors (see Appendix 10A.1). MCFs and Bo values are reported in Woodbury
and Hashimoto (1993). All manure except for Layers (wet) is assumed to be managed in dry systems, which is consistent with the manure management system usage reported in Woodbury and Hashimoto (1993). Poultry for
developed countries was subdivided into five categories. Layers (dry) represent layers in a "without bedding" waste management system; Layers (wet) represent layers in an anaerobic lagoon waste managemnet system.
Estimates of animal mass are 30%, VS values are 50% and Bo values are 15%
10.83
1
2
Table 10A-9 (cont.)
Manure Management Methane Emission Factor Derivation
Animal Characteristics
Animal
a
Deer
b
Reindeer
c
Rabbits
b
Fur-Bearing Animals
b
Ostrich
a
Mass
VS
Bo
(kg)
NR
NR
1.60
NR
NR
(kg VS/day)
NR
0.39
0.10
0.14
1.16
(m /kg VS)
NR
0.19
0.32
0.25
0.25
Manure
Management System
MCF
NR
2.0%
1.0%
8.0%
8.0%
Emission Factors
(kg CH4 per head per year)
0.22
0.36
0.08
0.68
5.67
Sneath (1997) cited in the GHG inventory of United Kingdom.
Estimations of Agricultural University of Norway, Institute of Chemistry and Biotechnology, Section for Microbiology.
c
Data obtained from the GHG inventory of Italy, 2004.
NR = Not reported.
10.84

References
SECTION 10.2 LIVESTOCK POPULATION AND FEED CHARACTERISATION
3
4
5
AAC (Australian Agricultural Council) (1990). Feed Standards for Australian Livestock Ruminants.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) Publications, East Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia.
6
7
AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients (1990) Nutritive Requirements of Ruminant Animals:
Energy. Rep. 5, CAB International, Wallingford, U.K.
8
9
Agricultural and Food Research Council (AFRC) Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients (1993)
Energy and Protein Requirements of Ruminants. 24-159, CAB International, Wallingford, U.K.
10
11
12
Bamualim, A. and Kartiarso (1985) Nutrition of draught animals with special reference to Indonesia. In:
Draught Animal Power for Production. J.W. Copland (ed.). Australian Centre for International agricultural
Research (ACIAR), Proceedings Series No. 10. ACIAR, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia.
13
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) (1999) Statistical Database.
14
15
Gibbs, M.J. and D.E. Johnson (1993), "Livestock Emissions." In: International Methane Emissions, US
Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
16
17
18
19
Gibbs, M.J., D. Conneely, D. Johnson, K.R. Lassey, and M.J. Ulyatt. 2002. CH4 emissions from enteric
fermentation. In: Background Papers: IPCC Expert Meetings on Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty
Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, p 297320. IPCC-NGGIP, Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan.
20
21
22
Ibrahim, M.N.M. (1985) Nutritional status of draught animals in Sri Lanka. In: Draught Animal Power for
Production, J.W. Copland (ed.). ACIAR (Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research)
Proceedings Series No. 10. ACIAR, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia.
23
24
Jurgen, M. H. (1988) Animal Feeding and Nutrition, Sixth Edition, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company,
Dubuque, Iowa, U.S.A.
25
26
27
Lawrence, P.R. (1985) A review of nutrient requirements of draught oxen. In: Draught Animal Power for
Production. J.W. Copland (ed.). ACIAR (Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research)
Proceedings Series No. 10. ACIAR, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia.
28
29
National Research Council (NRC) (1984) Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C. U.S.A.
30
NRC (1989) Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 6th, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. U.S.A.
31
NRC (1996) Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. U.S.A.
32
NRC (2001). Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 7th Ed., Nat. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.
33
34
35
SECTION 10.3 METHANE EMISSIONS FROM DOMESTIC LIVESTOCK ENTERIC

FERMENTATION
36
37
38
Clark, H., Brookes, I., Walcroft, A. 2003. Enteric methane emissions from New Zealand ruminants 1999-2001
calculated using an IPCC Tier 2 approach. http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/resources/reports/nirapr03/chapter5.pdf.
39
40
Crutzen, P.J., I. Aselmann and W. Seiler 1986. "Methane Production by Domestic Animals, Wild Ruminants,
Other Herbivorous Fauna, and Humans," Tellus 38B:271-284
41
42
Diarra, B. 1994. Net energy value of soybean hulls as feed for sheep. Dissertation. Colorado State University, Ft
Collins, CO
43
44
Donovan, K. and L. Baldwin (1999). Results of the AAMOLLY model runs for the Enteric Fermentation Model.
University of California, Davis.
45
46
47
48
Hindrichsen I., M. Kreuzer, A. Machmuller, KE. Knudsen, J. Madsen, and H.R. Wettstein. 2003. Methane
release and energy expenditure of dairy cows fed concentrates characterized by different carbohydrates. In:
Prog. in Res. En. & Prot. Metabol. (Souffrant, W.B, and CC. Metges, eds.) Wageningen Acad. Pub, The
Netherlands, EAAP Publ. 109:413-416.
10.85
1
2
Johnson, K., Huyler, M., Westberg, H., Lamb, B., Zimmerman, P. 1994. Measurement of methane emissions
from ruminant livestock using a SF6 tracer technique. Environmental. Sci. Tech., 28: 359-362.
Johnson, K.A., Johnson, D.E., 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. J. Anim. Sci., 73: 2483-2492
4
5
Judd, M.J., F.M. Kelliher, M.J. Ulyatt, K.R. Lassey, K.R. Tate, I.D. Shelton, M.J. Harvey, and C.F. Walker
(1999) Net methane emissions from grazing sheep, Global Change Biol., 5, pp. 647657.
6
7
Kujawa, M. 1994. Energy partitioning in steers fed cottonseed hulls or sugar beet pulp. Dissertation, Colorado
State University, Ft Collins, CO.
8
9
Kurihara , M., T. Magner, R.A. Hunter, and G.J. McCrabb (1999) Methane production and energy partition of
cattle in the tropics. British Journal of Nutrition, 81, pp. 227-234.
10
11
Lassey, K.R., 2006 Livestock methane emission: from the individual grazing animal through national inventories
to the global methane cycle. Agric. For. Meteorol. (In Press).
12
13
Lassey, K.R., M.J. Ulyatt, R.J. Martin, C.F. Walker, and I.D. Shelton (1997) Methane emissions measured
directly from grazing livestock in New Zealand, Atmos. Environ., 31, pp. 2905-2914.
14
15
16
Leuning, R., S.K. Baker, I.M. Jamie, C.H. Hsu, L. Klein, O.T. Denmead, and D.W.T. Griffith (1999) Methane
emission from free-ranging sheep: a comparison of two measurement methods, Atmos. Environ., 33, pp.
13571365.
17
18
Murray, B.R., A.M. Bryant, and R.A. Leng (1978) Methane production in the rumen and lower gut of sheep
given lucerne chaff: effect of level of intake, Br. J. Nutr., 39, pp. 337-345.
19
20
National Research Council (NRC). 1989. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 6th Ed., Nat. Acad. Press,
Washington, DC.
21
22
National Research Council (NRC). 1996. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, 7th Edit., Nat. Acad. Press,
Washington, DC.
23
24
National Research Council (NRC). 2001. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 7th Ed., Nat. Acad. Press,
Washington, DC.
25
26
27
Pinares-Patino, C.S., Ulyatt, M.J., Waghorn, G.C., Lassey, K.R., Barry, T.N., Holmes, C.W., Johnson, D.E. 2003.
Methane emission by alpaca and sheep fed on Lucerne hay or grazed on pastures of perennial ryegrass/white
clover or birds foot trefoil. J. Agric. Sci. 140:215-226.
28
29
30
Ulyatt, M.J., K.R. Lassey, I.D. Shelton and C.F. Walker (2002a). Seasonal variation in methane emission from
dairy cows and breeding ewes grazing ryegrass/white clover pasture in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal
of Agricultural Research 45:217226.
31
32
33
Ulyatt, M.J., K.R. Lassey, I.D. Shelton and C.F. Walker (2002b). Methane emission from dairy cows and
wether sheep fed subtropical grass-dominant pastures in midsummer in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal
of Agricultural Research 45:227234.
34
35
Ulyatt, M.J., Lassey, K.R., Shelton, I.D., Walker, C.F., 2005. Methane emission from sheep grazing four
pastures in late summer in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal Agricultural Research 48: 385-390.
36
37
SECTION 10.4 METHANE EMISSIONS FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT
38
39
40
41
Amon, B. Th. Amon, J. Boxberger, and A. Pollinger (1998) Emissions of NH3, N2O, and CH4 from composted
and anaerobically stored farmyard manure. Pages 209-216 in Martinez J, Maudet M-N (eds) Ramiran 98,
Proc. 8th Int. Conf. on the FAO ESCORENA Network on Recycling of Agricultural, Municipal and
Industrial Residues in Agriculture. Rennes, France.
42
43
44
Amon, B., Th. Amon, J. Boxberger, and Ch. Alt. (2001) Emissions of NH3, N2O, and CH4 from Dairy Cows
Housed in a Farmyard Manure Tying Stall (Housing, Manure Storage, Manure Spreading). Nutrient Cycling
in Agroecosystems, 60: pp. 103-113.
45
ASAE (1999) ASAE Standards 1999, 46th Edition. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
46
47
48
Hashimoto, A. and J. Steed (1993) Methane Emissions from Typical U.S. Livestock Manure Management
Systems. Draft report prepared for ICF Incorporated under contract to the Global Change Division of the
Office of Air and Radiation, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
49
50
Hill, D.T. (1982) Design of Digestion Systems for Maximum Methane Production. Transactions of the ASAE,
25(1): pp. 226-230.
10.86

1
2
Hill, D.T. (1984) Methane Productivity of the Major Animal Types. Transactions of the ASAE 27(2): pp. 530540.
3
4
5
Mangino, J., D. Bartram, and A. Brazy (2001) Development of a Methane Conversion Factor to Estimate
Emissions from Animal Waste Lagoons. Presented at U.S. EPAs 17th Annual Emission Inventory
Conference, Atlanta GA, April 16-18, 2002.
6
7
Moller, H. B., S. G. Sommer, and B. Ahring (2004) Biological Degradation and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
during Pre-Storage of Liquid Animal Manure. Journal of Environmental Quality, 33: pp. 27-36.
8
9
10
Peterson, K., and H. Jacobs (2003) 1990-2002 Volatile Solids and Nitrogen Excretion Rates Deliverable Under
EPA Contract No. GS-10F-0124J, Task Order 004-02. Memorandum to EPA from ICF Consulting. August
28, 2003.
11
12
13
Safley, L.M., M.E. Casada, J.W. Woodbury, and K.F. Roos (1992) Global Methane Emissions from Livestock
and Poultry Manure. US Environmental Protection Agency, Global Change Division, Washington, D.C.,
February 1992, EPA/400/1091/048.
14
15
16
17
Sneath, R.W., V. R. Phillips, G. M. Demmers, L. R. Burgess, and J. L. Short, (1997) Long Term Measurements
of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from UK Livestock Buildings. Bio-Engineering Division, Silsoe Research
Institute, Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedford, MK45 4HS. Livestock Environment: Proceedings of the Fifth
International Symposium. Bloomington MN. May 29-31, 1997.
18
19
Sommer, S. G., S. O. Petersen, and H. T. Sogaard (2000) Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Stored Livestock
Slurry. Journal of Environmental Quality, 29: pp. 744-751.
20
21
Steed Jr, J. and A.G. Hashimoto. (1994) Methane Emissions from Typical Manure Management Systems.
Bioresource Technology 50: pp. 123-130.
22
23
USDA (1996) Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, National Engineering Handbook (NEH). Part
651, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. July.
24
25
26
Woodbury, J.W., and A. Hashimoto (1993) Methane Emissions from Livestock Manure. In International
Methane Emissions, US Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change Division, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A.
27
28
Zeeman, G. (1994) Methane production/emission in storages for animal manure. Fertilizer Research 37: 207211, 1994. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.
29
30
SECTION 10.5 NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT
31
32
33
34
Amon, B. Th. Amon, J. Boxberger, and A. Pollinger (1998) Emissions of NH3, N2O, and CH4 from composted
and anaerobically stored farmyard manure. Pages 209-216 in Martinez J, Maudet M-N (eds) Ramiran 98,
Proc. 8th Int. Conf. on the FAO ESCORENA Network on Recycling of Agricultural, Municipal and
Industrial Residues in Agriculture. Rennes, France.
35
36
37
Amon, B., Th. Amon, J. Boxberger, and Ch. Alt. (2001) Emissions of NH3, N2O, and CH4 from Dairy Cows
Housed in a Farmyard Manure Tying Stall (Housing, Manure Storage, Manure Spreading). Nutrient Cycling
38
39
Asman, W.A.H., M.A. Sutton, and J.K. Schjoerring. 1998. Ammonia: emission, atmospheric transport and
deposition. New Phytol., 139, p. 27-48
40
41
42
Bierman, S., G.E. Erickson, T,J, Klopfenstein, R.A. Stock, and D.H. Shain. 1999. Evaluation of nitrogen and
organic matter balance in the feedlot as affected by level and source of dietary fiber. J. Anim. Sci. 77:16451653.
43
44
45
Dhler, H., Eurich-Menden, B., Dmmgen, U., Osterburg, B., Lttich, M., Bergschmidt, A., Berg, W., Brunsch,
R.,
2002.
BMVEL/UBA-Ammoniak-Emissionsinventar
der
deutschen
Landwirtschaft
und
Minderungsszenarien bis zum Jahre 2010. Texte 05/02. Umweltbundesamt, Berlin.
46
47
Dustan, Andrew (2002) Review of methane and nitrous oxide emission factors in cold climates. Institutet for
jordbruks-och miljoteknik, JTI-rapport, Lantbruk & Industri, 299.
48
Eghball, B., and J.F. Power. 1994. Beef cattle feedlot manure management. J. Soil Water Cons. 49:113-122.
49
50
European Environmental Agency. 2002. Joint EMEP/CORINAIR Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook,
3rd ed., July 2002, Copenhagen.
10.87
1
2
Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., L. Speelman, and J.H.M. Metz. 1998. Effect of type of aviary, manure and litter
handling on the emission kinetics of ammonia from layer houses. Br. Poult. Sci., 39, p. 379-392.
3
4
Hao, X., C. Chang, F.J. Larney, and G.R. Travis (2001) Greenhouse Gas Emissions during Cattle Feedlot
Manure Composting. Journal Environmental Quality 30: pp. 376-386.
5
6
Harper, L.A., R.R. Sharpe, and T.B. Parkin (2000) Gaseous Emissions from Anaerobic Swine Lagoons:
Ammonia, Nitrous Oxide, and Dinitrogen Gas. Journal of Environmental Quality 29: pp. 1356-1365.
7
8
Hutchings, N.J., S.G. Sommer, J.M. Andersen, and W.A.H. Asman. 2001. A detailed ammonia emission
inventory for Denmark. Atmospheric Environment, 35, p. 1959-1968.
9
10
11
Klling, D.R., H. Menzi, F. Sutter, P. Lischer, and M. Kreuzer (2003) Ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane
emissions from differently stored dairy manure derived from grass- and hay-based rations. Nutrient Cycling
12
13
14
Lague C., T. A. Fonstad, A. Marquis, S. P. Lemay, S. Godbout, and R. Joncas (2004) Greenhouse Gas Emissions
from Swine Operations in Qubec and Saskatchewan: Benchmark Assessments. Climate Change Funding
Initiative in Agriculture (CCFIA), Canadian Agricultural Research Council, Ottawa, ON.
15
16
17
Meisinger, J.J. and W.E. Jokela. (2000). Ammonia Volatilization from Dairy and Poultry Manure. In: Managing
Nutrients and Pathogens from Animal Agriculture. Natural Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service,
Ithaca, NY. March 28-30, 2000. NRAES-130, p.334-354.
18
19
Moller, H.B., S.G. Sommer and B.H. Anderson (2000) Nitrogen mass balance in deep litter during the pig
fattening cycle and during composting. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 137:235-250.
20
21
Monteny, G. J., C. M. Groesetein, and M. A. Hilhorst (2001) Interactions and coupling between emissions of
methane and nitrous oxide from animal husbandry. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 60: pp. 123-132.
22
23
24
Monteny, G.J. and J.W. Erisman. 1998. Ammonia emissions from dairy cow buildings: A review of
measurement techniques, influencing factors and possibilities for reduction. Neth. J. Agric. Sci., 46, p. 225247.
25
26
Moreira, V.R. and L.D. Satter. (2004). Estimating nitrogen loss from dairy farms. Pedology, submitted, May
2004.
27
28
National Research Council (NRC). 1996. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, 7th Revised Ed., Nat. Acad.
Press, Washington., DC
29
30
31
Nicks, B., M. Laitat, M. Vandenheede, A. Desiron, C. Verhaege, and B. Canart (2003) Emissions of Ammonia,
Nitrous Oxide, Methane, Carbon Dioxide, and Water Vapor in the Raising of Weaned Pigs on Straw-Based
and Sawdust-Based Deep Litters. Animal Research Journal, 52: pp. 299-308.
32
33
Rotz, C.A. 2004. Management to reduce nitrogen losses in animal production. J. Anim. Sci. 82(E. Suppl.):E119E137.
34
35
36
37
Sneath, R.W., V. R. Phillips, G. M. Demmers, L. R. Burgess, and J. L. Short, (1997) Long Term Measurements
of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from UK Livestock Buildings. Bio-Engineering Division, Silsoe Research
Institute, Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedford, MK45 4HS. Livestock Environment: Proceedings of the Fifth
International Symposium. Bloomington MN. May 29-31, 1997.
38
39
Sommer, S.G. and H.B. Moller (2000). Emission of greenhouse gases during composting of deep litter from pig
production effect of straw content. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 134:327-335.
40
41
Sommer, S.G., S.O. Petersen, and H.T. Sgaard (2000) Greenhouse Gas Emission from Stored Livestock Slurry.
Journal of Environmental Quality 29: pp. 744-751.
42
43
US EPA (2004) National Emission Inventory Ammonia Emissions from Animal Husbandry Operations, Draft
Report. January 30, 2004.
44
45
46
Wagner-Riddle, C., M. Marinier (2003) Improved Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimates from Manure Storage
Systems. Prepared for Climate Change Funding Initiative in Agriculture, Final Project Report, Component 23 Projects, Climate Change Science and Technology.
47
48
Webb, J. 2001. Estimating the potential for ammonia emissions from livestock excreta and manures. Environ.
Pollut. 111, p. 395-406.
49
50
10.88
Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions

2
3
4
CHAPTER 11
N2O EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED

SOILS, AND CO2 EMISSIONS FROM
LIME AND UREA APPLICATION
11.1
1
Authors
2
3
Cecile De Klein (New Zealand), Rafael Novoa Soto-Aquilar (Chile), Stephen M. Ogle (USA), Keith A. Smith
(UK), Philippe Rochette (Canada), and Thomas C. Wirth (USA)
4
5
Brian G. McConkey (Canada), Arvin R. Mosier (USA) and Kristin Rypdal (Norway)
Contributing Author
Stephen Williams (USA)
11.2

Contents
11.1
Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 5
11.2
N2O Emissions from Managed Soils........................................................................................................... 5
11.2.1
Direct N2O Emissions .......................................................................................................................... 6
11.2.1.1
Choice of Method....................................................................................................................... 7
11.2.1.2
Choice of emission factors ....................................................................................................... 11
11.2.1.3
Choice of Activity data............................................................................................................. 13
11.2.1.4
11.2.2
Indirect N2O Emissions................................................................................................................. 20
10
11.2.2.1
Choice of method ..................................................................................................................... 21
11
11.2.2.2
Choice of emission, volatilisation and leaching factors............................................................ 25
12
11.2.2.3
Choice of activity data.............................................................................................................. 25
13
11.2.2.4
14
11.2.3
Completeness, Time Series, QA/QC.................................................................................................. 27
15
11.2.3.1
Completeness............................................................................................................................ 27
16
11.2.3.2
Developing a Consistent Time Series....................................................................................... 27
17
11.2.3.3
Inventory quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC).............................................................. 28
18
11.2.3.4
Reporting and Documentation.................................................................................................. 28
19
11.3
CO2 Emissions from Liming ..................................................................................................................... 29
20
11.3.1
Choice of Method .............................................................................................................................. 29
21
11.3.2
Choice of Emission Factors ............................................................................................................... 30
22
11.3.3
Choice of Activity Data ..................................................................................................................... 30
23
11.3.4
Uncertainty Assessment..................................................................................................................... 32
24
11.3.5
25
11.3.5.1
Completeness............................................................................................................................ 32
26
11.3.5.2
Time Series Consistency .......................................................................................................... 32
27
11.3.5.3
Quality Assurance/Quality Control .......................................................................................... 33
28
11.3.5.4
29
11.4 CO2 Emissions from Urea Fertilization......................................................................................................... 34
30
11.4.1
Choice of Method .............................................................................................................................. 34
31
11.4.2
Choice of Emission Factors ............................................................................................................... 35
32
11.4.3
Choice of Activity Data ..................................................................................................................... 35
33
11.4.4
Uncertainty Assessment..................................................................................................................... 35
34
11.4.5
35
11.4.5.1
Completeness............................................................................................................................ 37
36
11.4.5.2
Time Series Consistency .......................................................................................................... 37
37
11.4.5.3
Quality Assurance/Quality Control .......................................................................................... 37
38
11.4.5.4
11.3
Equations
Equation 11.1 Direct N2O Emissions from Managed Soils (Tier 1) .............................................................9
Equation 11.2 Direct N2O Emissions from Managed Soils (Tier 2) ..........................................................10
Equation 11.3 N from organic N additions Applied to Soils (TIER 1)......................................................13
Equation 11.4 N from Animal manure Applied to Soils (TIER 1) .............................................................14
6
7
Equation 11.5 N in urine and dung deposited by grazing animals on pasture, range
and paddock (TIER 1)........................................................................................................14
Equation 11.6 N From Crop Residues and forage/pasture renewal (Tier 1) ...............................................15
Equation 11.7 Dry-weight correction of reported crop yields ....................................................................16
10
Equation 11.7A Alternative approach to estimate FCR (using Table 2) ......................................................17
11
12
Equation 11.8 N mineralised in mineral soils as a result of loss of soil C through change in
land use or management (Tiers 1 and 2) ............................................................................17
13
Equation 11.9 N2O from Atmospheric Deposition of N Volatilised from Managed Soils (Tier 1) ............23
14
15
Equation 11.10 N2O from N Leaching/Runoff from Managed Soils In Regions Where
Leaching/Runoff Occurs (Tier 1).......................................................................................23
16
Equation 11.11 N2O from Atmospheric Deposition of N Volatilised from Managed Soils (Tier 2) ..........24
17
Equation 11.12 Annual carbon emissions from lime application (CO2) .....................................................29
18
Equation 11.13 Annual Carbon emissions from Urea application (CO2) ..................................................34
19
Figures
20
21
22
Figure 11.1. Schematic diagram illustrating the sources and pathways of N

that result in direct and indirect N2O emissions from soils and waters. ...............................7
23
Figure 11.2
Decision tree for direct N2O emissions from managed soils................................................8
24
Figure 11.3
Decision tree for indirect N2O emissions from managed soils...........................................22
25
Figure 11.4 Decision tree for identification of appropriate tier to estimate CO2 emissions from liming....31
26
27
Figure 11.5 Decision tree for identification of appropriate tier to estimate CO2 emissions from urea
fertilisation .........................................................................................................................36
28
Tables
29
30
Table 11.1 Default Emission Factors to Estimate Direct N2O Emissions from Managed Soils .................12
31
Table 11.2 Default Factors for estimation of N Added to Soils from Crop Residues a..............................18
32
Table 11.2 Default Factors for estimation of N Added to Soils from Crop Residues a..............................19
33
Table 11.3 Default Emission, Volatilisation and Leaching Factors for Indirect Soil N2O Emissions ........26
34
11.4

11.1 INTRODUCTION
2
3
4
5
Chapter 11 provides a description of the generic methodologies to be adopted for the inventory of nitrous oxide
(N2O) emissions from managed soils, including indirect N2O emissions from additions of N to land due to
deposition and leaching, and emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) following additions of liming materials and
urea-containing fertiliser.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Managed soils1 are all soils on land, including forest land, which is managed. For N2O, the basic three-tier
approach is the same as used in the IPCC Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry
(GPG-LULUCF) for grassland and cropland, and in the IPCC Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty
Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (GPG2000) for agricultural soils while relevant parts of
the GPG-LULUCF methodology have been included for forest land. Because the methods are based on pools
and fluxes that can occur in all the different land-use categories and because in most cases, only national
aggregate (i.e., non-land use specific) data are available, generic information on the methodologies, as applied at
the national level is given here, including:
14
a general framework for applying the methods, and appropriate equations for the calculations,
15
16
an explanation of the processes governing N2O emissions from managed soils (direct and indirect) and
CO2 emissions from liming and urea fertilisation, and the associated uncertainties,
17
18
choice of methods, emission factors (including default values) and activity data, and volatilisation and
leaching factors.
19
20
If activity data are available for specific land-use categories, the equations provided can be implemented for
specific land-use categories.
21
The changes of the 2006 Guidelines relative to 1996 Guidelines include are the following:
22
provision of advice on estimating CO2 emissions associates with use of urea as a fertilizer;
23
full sectoral coverage of indirect N2O emissions;
24
extensive literature review leading to revised emission factors for nitrous oxide from agricultural soils;
25
26
Removal of biological nitrogen fixation as a direct source of N2O because of the lack of evidence of
significant emissions arising from the fixation process.
27
28
11.2 N 2 O EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED SOILS
29
30
31
32
This section presents the methods and equations for estimating total national anthropogenic emissions of N2O
(direct and indirect) from managed soils. The generic equations presented here can also be used for estimating
N2O within specific land-use categories or by condition-specific variables (e.g., N additions to rice paddies) if
the country can disaggregate the activity data to that level (i.e. N use activity within a specific land use).
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Nitrous oxide is produced naturally in soils through the processes of nitrification and denitrification. Nitrification
is the aerobic microbial oxidation of ammonium to nitrate, and denitrification is the anaerobic microbial
reduction of nitrate to nitrogen gas (N2). Nitrous oxide is a gaseous intermediate in the reaction sequence of
denitrification and a by-product of nitrification that leaks from microbial cells into the soil and ultimately into
the atmosphere. One of the main controlling factors in this reaction is the availability of inorganic N in the soil.
This methodology therefore estimates N2O emissions using human-induced net N additions to soils (e.g.,
synthetic or organic fertilisers, deposited manure, crop residues, sewage sludge), or of mineralisation of N in soil
organic matter following drainage/management of organic soils, or cultivation/land-use change on mineral soils
(e.g., forestland/grassland/settlement converted to cropland).
Managed land is defined in Chapter 1, Section 1.1.
11.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
The emissions of N2O that result from anthropogenic N inputs or N mineralisation occur through both a direct
pathway (i.e. directly from the soils to which the N is added/released), and through two indirect pathways, (a)
following volatilisation of NH3 and NOx from managed soils and from fossil fuel combustion and biomass
burning, and the subsequent redeposition of these gases and their products NH4+ and NO3- to soils and waters,
and (b) after leaching and runoff of N, mainly as NO3-, from managed soils. The principal pathways are
illustrated in Figure 11.1.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Direct emissions of N2O from managed soils are estimated separately from indirect emissions, though using a
common set of activity data. The Tier 1 methodologies do not take into account different land cover, soil type,
climatic conditions or management practices (other than specified above). Neither do they take account of any
lag time for direct emissions from crop residues N, and allocate these emissions to the year in which the residues
are returned to the soil. These factors are not considered for direct or (where appropriate, indirect) emissions
because limited data are available to provide appropriate emission factors. Countries that have data to show that
default factors are inappropriate for their country should utilise Tier 2 equations or Tier 3 approaches and include
a full explanation for the values used.
15
11.2.1
16
17
18
In most soils, an increase in available N enhances nitrification and denitrification rates which then increase the
production of N2O. Increases in available N can occur through human-induced N additions or change of land use
and/or management practices that mineralise soil organic N.
19
20
The following N sources are included in the methodology for estimating direct N2O emissions from managed
soils:
Direct N 2 O Emissions
21
Synthetic N fertilisers (FSN);
22
Organic N applied as fertiliser (e.g. animal manure, compost, sewage sludge, rendering waste) (FON);
23
Urine and dung N deposited on pasture, range and paddock by grazing animals (FPRP);
24
25
N in crop residues (above and below ground), including from N-fixing crops2 and from forages during
pasture renewal3 (FCR);
26
27
N mineralisation associated with loss of soil organic matter resulting from change of land use or
management of mineral soils (FSOM);
28
Drainage/management of organic soils (i.e., histosols)4 (FOS).
29
Biological nitrogen fixation has been removed as a direct source of N2O because of the lack of evidence of significant
emissions arising from the fixation process itself (Rochette and Janzen, 2005). These authors concluded that the N2O
emissions induced by the growth of legume crops/forages may be estimated solely as a function of the above- and belowground nitrogen inputs from crop/forage residue (the nitrogen residue from forages is only accounted for during pasture
renewal). Conversely, the release of N by mineralisation of soil organic matter as a result of change of land use or
management is now included as an additional source. These are significant adjustments to the methodology previously
described in the 1996 IPCC Guidelines.
The nitrogen residue from perennial forage crops is only accounted for during periodic pasture renewal, i.e. not necessarily
on an annual basis as is the case with annual crops.
Soils are organic if they satisfy the requirements 1 and 2, or 1 and 3 below (FAO, 1998): 1. Thickness of 10 cm or more. A
horizon less than 20 cm thick must have 12 percent or more organic carbon when mixed to a depth of 20 cm; 2. If the soil
is never saturated with water for more than a few days, and contains more than 20 percent (by weight) organic carbon
(about 35 percent organic matter); 3. If the soil is subject to water saturation episodes and has either: (i) at least 12 percent
(by weight) organic carbon (about 20 percent organic matter) if it has no clay; or (ii) at least 18 percent (by weight) organic
carbon (about 30 percent organic matter) if it has 60 percent or more clay; or (iii) an intermediate, proportional amount of
organic carbon for intermediate amounts of clay (FAO, 1998).
11.6

1
2
Figure 11.1. Schematic diagram illustrating the sources and pathways of N that result in direct
and indirect N 2 O emissions from soils and waters.
3
4
5
6
7
Note: Sources of N applied to, or deposited on, soils are represented with arrows on the left-hand side of the
graphic. Emission pathways are also shown with arrows including the various pathways of volatilisation of NH3
and NOx from agricultural and non-agricultural sources, deposition of these gases and their products NH4+ and
NO3-, and consequent indirect emissions of N2O are also illustrated. On the lower right-hand side is a cut-away
view of a representative sections of managed land; histosol cultivation is represented here.
9
10
11
11.2.1.1
C HOICE
12
The decision tree in Figure 11.2 provides guidance on which tier method to use.
OF
M ETHOD
13
11.7
1
Figure 11.2
Decision tree for direct N 2 O emissions from managed soils
2
START
3
4
For
each N source ask:
Do you have countryspecific activity data
(Note 1)?
NO
Obtain countryspecific data
YES
Is this
a key category and is
this N source
significant? (Note 2
and Note 3)
YES
NO
Box 1: Tier 1
Do you
have rigorously
documented countryspecific emission factors
for EF1, EF2, and/or
EF3PRP?
Estimate emissions using Tier 1

equations, default emission factors,
FAO activity data for mineral N fertiliser
use and livestock populations, and
expert opinion on other activity data.
YES
NO

equation and available country-specific
emission factors, or Tier 3 methods.
Box 3: Tier 2 or 3
Estimate emissions using the Tier 1

default emission factor value and
country-specific activity data.
Box 2: Tier 1
Note 1: N sources include: synthetic N fertiliser, organic N additions, urine and dung deposited during
grazing, crop/forage residue, mineralisation of N contained in soil organic matter that accompanies C loss
from soils following a change in land use or management and drainage/management of organic soils.
Other organic N additions (e.g. compost, sewage sludge, rendering waste) can be included in this
calculation if sufficient information is available. The waste input is measured in units of N and added as
an additional source sub-term under FON in Equation 11.1 to be multiplied by EF1.
Note 3: As a rule of thumb, a sub-category would be significant if it accounts for 25-30% of emissions
from the source category.
11.8

1
2
Tier 1
In its most basic form, direct N2O emissions from managed soils are estimated using Equation 11.1 as follows:
3
4
5
EQUATION 11.1
DIRECT N2O EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED SOILS (TIER 1)
N 2ODirect - N = N 2O - N N inputs + N 2O - N OS + N 2O - N PRP
Where:
[(FSN + FON + FCR + FSOM ) EF1 ] +

N 2O - N N inputs =
[(FSN + FON + FCR + FSOM )FR EF1FR ]
8
9
10
N 2O - N OS
11
(FOS ,CG ,Temp EF2CG ,Temp ) + (FOS ,CG ,Trop EF2CG ,Trop ) +
= (FOS ,F ,Temp , NR EF2 F ,Temp , NR ) + (FOS ,F ,Temp , NP EF2 F ,Temp , NP ) +

(F
OS ,F ,Trop EF2 F ,Trop )
N 2O - N PRP = [(FPRP ,CPP EF3 PRP ,CPP ) + (FPRP ,SO EF3 PRP ,SO )]
12
13
Where:
14
N2ODirect -N = annual direct N2O-N emissions produced from managed soils, kg N2O-N yr-1
15
N2O-NN inputs = annual direct N2O-N emissions from N inputs to managed soils, kg N2O-N yr-1
16
N2O-NOS = annual direct N2O-N emissions from managed organic soils, kg N2O-N yr-1
17
N2O-NPRP = annual direct N2O-N emissions from urine and dung inputs to grazed soils, kg N2O-N yr-1
18
FSN = annual amount of synthetic fertiliser N applied to soils, kg N yr-1
19
20
21
FON = annual amount of animal manure, compost, sewage sludge and other organic N additions applied
to soils (Note: If including sewage sludge, cross-check with Waste sector to ensure there is no double
counting of N2O emissions from the N in sewage sludge), kg N yr-1
22
23
FCR = annual amount of N in crop residues (above and below ground), including N-fixing crops, and from
forage/pasture renewal, returned to soils, kg N yr-1
24
25
FSOM = annual amount of N in mineral soils that is mineralised, in association with loss of soil C from soil
organic matter as a result of changes to land use or management, kg N yr-1
26
27
28
FOS = annual area of managed/drained organic soils, hectares (Note: the subscripts CG, F, Temp, Trop,
NR and NP refer to Cropland and Grassland, Forest, Temperate, Tropical, Nutrient Rich, and
Nutrient Poor, respectively)
29
30
31
FPRP = annual amount of urine and dung N deposited by grazing animals on pasture, range and paddock,
kg N yr-1 (Note: the subscripts CPP and SO refer to Cattle, Poultry and Pigs, and Sheep and Other
animals, respectively)
32
EF1 = emission factor for N2O emissions from N inputs, kg N2O-N (kg N input)-1(Table 11.1)
11.9
1
2
EF1FR is the emission factor for N2O emissions from N inputs to flooded rice, kg N2O-N (kg N input)-1
(Table 11.1) 5
3
4
5
EF2 = emission factor for N2O emissions from drained/managed organic soils, kg N2O-N ha-1 yr-1; (Table
11.1) (Note: the subscripts CG, F, Temp, Trop, NR and NP refer to Cropland and Grassland, Forest
soil, Temperate, Tropical, Nutrient Rich, and Nutrient Poor, respectively)
6
7
8
EF3PRP = emission factor for N2O emissions from urine and dung N deposited on pasture, range and
paddock by grazing animals, kg N2O-N (kg N input)-1; (Table 11.1) (Note: the subscripts CPP and
SO refer to Cattle, Poultry and Pigs, and Sheep and Other animals, respectively)
9
10
11
Conversion of N2O-N emissions to N2O emissions for reporting purposes is performed by using the following
equation:
N2O = N2O-N 44/28
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Tier 2
If more detailed emission factors and corresponding activity data are available to a country than are presented in
Equation 11.1, further disaggregation of the terms in the equation can be undertaken. For example, if emission
factors and activity data are available for the application of synthetic fertilisers and organic N (FSN and FON)
under different conditions i, Equation 11.1 would be expanded to become6:
19
20
21
EQUATION 11.2
N 2ODirect - N = (FSN + FON )i EF1i + (FCR + FSOM ) EF1 + N 2O - N OS + N 2O - N PRP
22
23
24
Where:
25
26
EF1i = emission factors developed for N2O emissions from synthetic fertiliser and organic N application
under conditions i (kg N2O-N (kg N input)-1); i = 1, n.
27
28
29
30
Equation 11.2 may be modified in a variety of ways to accommodate any combination of N source-, crop type-,
management-, land use-, climate-, soil- or other condition-specific emission factors that a country may be able to
obtain for each of the individual N input variables (FSN, FON, FCR, FSOM, FOS, FPRP).
31
32
Conversion of N2O-N emissions to N2O emissions for reporting purposes is performed by using the following
equation:
33
N2O = N2O-N 44/28
When the total annual quantity of N applied to flooded paddy rice is known, this N input may be multiplied by a lower
default emission factor applicable to this crop, EF1FR (Table 11.1) (Akiyama et al. 2005) or, where a country-specific
emission factor has been determined, by that factor instead. Although there is some evidence that intermittent flooding (as
described in Chapter 5.5) can increase N2O emissions, current scientific data indicate that EF1FR also applies to intermittent
flooding situations.
It is important to note that Equation 11.2 is just one of many possible modifications to Equation 11.1 when using the Tier 2
method. The eventual form of Equation 11.2 will depend upon the availability of condition-specific emission factors and
the ability to which a country can disaggregate its activity data.
11.10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Tier 3
Tier 3 methods are modelling or measurement approaches. Models are useful because in appropriate forms they
can relate the soil and environmental variables responsible for N2O emissions to the size of those emissions.
These relationships may then be used to predict emissions from whole countries or regions for which
experimental measurements are impracticable. Models should only be used after validation by representative
experimental measurements. Care should also be taken to ensure that the emission estimates developed through
the use of models or measurements account for all anthropogenic N2O emissions.7 Guidance that provides a
sound scientific basis for the development of a Tier 3 Model-Based Accounting System is given in Chapter 2
Section 2.5.
10
11.2.1.2
C HOICE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Three emission factors are needed to estimate direct N2O emissions from managed soils. The default values
presented here may be used in the Tier 1 equation or in the Tier 2 equation in combination with country-specific
emission factors. The first (EF1) refers to the amount of N2O emitted from the various synthetic and organic N
applications to soils, including crop residue and mineralisation of soil organic carbon in mineral soils due to
land-use change or management. The second (EF2) refers to the amount of N2O emitted from an area of
drained/managed organic soils, and the third (EF3PRP) estimates the amount of N2O emitted from urine and dung
N deposited by grazing animals on pasture, range and paddock. Default emission factors for the Tier 1 method
are summarised in Table 11.1.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
In the light of new evidence the default value for EF1 has been set at 1% of the N applied to soils or released
through activities that result in mineralisation of organic matter in mineral soils8. In many cases, this factor will
be adequate, however, there are recent data to suggest that this emission factor could be disaggregated based on
(1) environmental factors (climate, soil organic C content, soil texture, drainage and soil pH); and (2)
management-related factors (N application rate per fertiliser type, type of crop, with differences between
legumes, non-leguminous arable crops, and grass) (Bouwman et al 2002, Stehfest and Bouwman, in press).
Countries that are able to disaggregate their activity data from all or some of these factors may choose to use
disaggregated emission factors with the Tier 2 approach.
OF EMISSION FACTORS
27
Natural N2O emissions on managed land are assumed to be equal to emissions on unmanaged land. These latter emissions
are very low. Therefore, nearly all emissions on managed land are considered anthropogenic. Estimates using the IPCC
methodology are of the same magnitude as total measured emissions from managed land. The so-called 'background'
emissions estimated by Bouwman (1996) (i.e. approx. 1 kg N2O-N/ha/yr under zero fertiliser N addition) are not natural
emissions but are mostly due to contributions of N from crop residue. These emissions are anthropogenic and accounted
for in the IPCC methodology.
The value of EF1 has been changed from 1.25% to 1%, as compared to the 1996 IPCC Guidelines, as a result of new
analyses of the available experimental data (Bouwman et al., 2002a,b; Stehfest and Bouwman, in press; Novoa and Tejeda,
in press). These analyses draw on a much larger number of measurements than were available for the earlier study that
gave rise to the previous value used for EF1 (Bouwman, 1996). The mean value for fertiliser- and manure-induced
emissions calculated in these reviews is close to 0.9%; however, it is considered that, given the uncertainties associated
with this value and the inclusion in the inventory calculation of other contributions to the nitrogen additions (e.g. from crop
residues and the mineralisation of soil organic matter), the round value of 1% is appropriate.
11.11
1
TABLE 11.1
DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS TO ESTIMATE DIRECT N2O EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED SOILS
Emission Factor
Default Value
Uncertainty Range
EF1 for N additions from mineral fertilisers, organic

amendments and crop residues, and N mineralised from mineral
soil as a result of loss of soil carbon [kg N2O-N (kg N)-1]
0.01
0.003-0.03
EF1FR for flooded rice fields [kg N2O-N (kg N)-1]
0.003
0.000-0.006
EF2 CG, Temp for temperate organic crop and grassland soils (kg
N2O-N ha-1)
2-24
EF2 CG, Trop for tropical organic crop and grassland soils (kg
N2O-N ha-1)
16
5- 48
EF2F, Temp, Org, R for temperate organic nutrient rich forest soils
(kg N2O-N ha-1)
0.6
0.16-2.4
EF2F, Temp, Org, P for temperate organic nutrient poor forest soils
(kg N2O-N ha-1)
0.1
0.02-0.3
0-24
EF3PRP, CPP for cattle (dairy, non-dairy and buffalo), poultry and
pigs [kg N2O-N (kg N)-1]
0.02
0.007-0.06
EF3PRP, SO for sheep and other animals [kg N2O-N (kg N)-1]
0.01
0.003-0.03
EF2F, Trop for tropical organic forest soils (kg N2O-N ha-1)
Sources:
EF1: Bouwman et al. 2002a,b; Stehfest & Bouwman, in press; Novoa & Tejeda in press; EF1FR: Akiyama et al., 2005; EF2CG, Temp, EF2CG, Trop,
EF2F,Trop: Klemedtsson et al., 1999, IPCC Good Practice Guidance, 2000; EF2F, Temp: Alm et al., 1999; Laine et al., 1996; Martikainen et al.,
1995; Minkkinen et al., 2002: Regina et al., 1996; Klemedtsson et al., 2002; EF3, CPP, EF3, SO: de Klein, 2004.
2
3
4
5
The default value for EF2 is 8 kg N2O-N ha-1 yr-1 for temperate climates. Because mineralisation rates are
assumed to be about 2 times greater in tropical climates than in temperate climates, the emission factor EF2 is 16
kg N2O-N ha-1 yr-1 for tropical climates9. Climate definitions are given in Chapter 3, Annex 3A.5.
6
7
The default value for EF3PRP is 2 % of the N deposited by all animal types except sheep and other animals.
For these latter species a default emission factor of 1% of the N deposited may be used10.
The values of EF2, for both temperate and tropical climates, have been changed from the values provided in the 1996 IPCC
Guidelines to those contained in the Good Practice Guidance (2000).
10
The addition of a default emission factor for sheep is a change from the 1996 IPCC Guidelines. The default emission factor
value for EF3PRP has been disaggregated for different animal types based on a recent review on N2O emissions from urine
and dung depositions (de Klein, 2004). This review indicated that the emission factor for sheep is lower than that for cattle
and that a value of 1% of the nitrogen deposited is more appropriate. Reasons for the lower EF3PRP for sheep include more
even urine distribution (smaller and more frequent urinations), and smaller effects on soil compaction during grazing.
There are no or very limited data for N2O emission factors of other animal types, and the emission factor for poultry and
swine remains at 2% of nitrogen deposited. However, a value of 1% of the nitrogen deposited may be used for animals
classified as other animals which includes goats, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, reindeer, and camelids, as these are
likely to have nitrogen excretion rates and patterns that are more similar to sheep than to cattle. The review further
suggested that a disaggregation of EF3PRP for dung vs. urine nitrogen could also be considered. However, this is difficult to
implement as it is unlikely that countries have the required information readily available to assess excretion rates in urine
and dung. However, this approach may be considered by countries that use a higher tier methodology. Finally, the review
revealed that current information is insufficient or inconclusive to allow for disaggregation of EF3PRP based on climate
region, soil type or drainage class, and/or grazing intensity.
11.12

11.2.1.3
C HOICE
2
3
This section describes generic methods for estimating the amount of various N inputs to soils (FSN, FON, FPRP,
FCR, FSOM, FOS) that are needed for the Tier 1 and Tier 2 methodologies (Equations 11.1 and 11.2).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
The term FSN refers to the annual amount of synthetic N fertiliser applied to soils11. It is estimated from the total
amount of synthetic fertiliser consumed annually. Annual fertiliser consumption data may be collected from
official country statistics, often recorded as fertiliser sales and/or as domestic production and imports. If
country-specific data are not available, data from the International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFIA)
(http://www.fertilizer.org/ifa/statistics.asp) on total fertiliser use by type and by crop, or from the Food and
Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO):
11
(http://apps.fao.org/faostat/collections?version=ext&hasbulk=0&subset=agriculture)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
on synthetic fertiliser consumption, can be used. It may be useful to compare national statistics to international
databases such as those of the IFIA and FAO. If sufficient data are available, fertiliser use may be disaggregated
by fertiliser type, crop type and climatic regime for major crops. These data may be useful in developing revised
emission estimates if inventory methods are improved in the future. It should be noted that most data sources
(including FAO) might limit reporting to agricultural N uses, although applications may also occur on forest
land, settlements, or other lands. This unaccounted N is likely to account for a small proportion of the overall
emissions. However, it is recommended that countries seek out this additional information whenever possible.
19
20
21
22
23
24
Applied Organic N Fertilisers (F O N )
OF
A CTIVITY
DATA
Applied Synthetic Fertiliser (F S N )
The term applied organic N fertiliser (FON) refers to the amount of organic N inputs applied to soils other than
by grazing animals and is calculated using Equation 11.39. This includes applied animal manure, sewage sludge
applied to soil, compost applied to soils, as well as other organic amendments of regional importance to
agriculture (e.g., rendering waste, guano, brewery waste, etc.). Organic N fertiliser (FON) is calculated using
Equation 11.3:
25
26
EQUATION 11.3
N FROM ORGANIC N ADDITIONS APPLIED TO SOILS (TIER 1)
27
FON = FAM + FSEW + FCOMP + FOOA
28
29
Where:
30
31
FON = total annual amount of organic N fertiliser applied to soils other than by grazing animals, kg N
yr-1
32
FAM = annual amount of animal manure N applied to soils, kg N yr-1
33
34
FSEW = annual amount of total sewage N (coordinate with Waste sector to ensure that sewage N is not
double-counted) that is applied to soils, kg N yr-1
11
For the Tier 1 approach, the amounts of applied mineral nitrogen fertilisers (FSN) and of applied organic nitrogen fertilisers
(FON) are no longer adjusted for the amounts of NH3 and NOx volatilisation after application to soil. This is a change from
the methodology described in the 1996 IPCC Guidelines. The reason for this change is that field studies that have
determined N2O emission factors for applied N were not adjusted for volatilisation when they were estimated. In other
words, these emission factors were determined from: fertiliser-induced N2O-N emitted / total amount of N applied, and not
from: fertiliser-induced N2O-N emitted / (total amount of N applied NH3 and NOx volatilised). As a result, adjusting the
amount of N input for volatilisation before multiplying it with the emission factor would in fact underestimate total N2O
emissions. Countries using Tier 2 or Tier 3 approaches should be aware that correction for NH3/NOx volatilisation after
mineral or organic N application to soil may be required depending on the emission factor and/or the inventory
methodology used.
11.13
1
2
FCOMP = annual amount of total compost N applied to soils (ensure that manure N in compost is not
double-counted), kg N yr-1
3
4
FOOA = annual amount of other organic amendments used as fertiliser (e.g, rendering waste, guano,
brewery waste, etc.), kg N yr-1
5
6
7
8
9
10
The term FAM is determined by adjusting the amount of manure N available (NMMS_Avb; see Equation 10.34 in
Chapter 10) for the amount of managed manure used for feed (FracFEED), burned for fuel (FracFUEL), or used for
construction (FracCNST) as shown in Equation 11.4. Data for FracFUEL, FracFEED, FracCNST can be obtained from
official statistics or a survey of experts. However, if these data are not available use NMMS_Avb as FAM without
adjusting for FracFUEL, FracFEED, FracCNST.
11
12
13
EQUATION 11.4
N FROM ANIMAL MANURE APPLIED TO SOILS (TIER 1)
[ (
FAM = N MMS Avb 1 Frac FEED + Frac FUEL + FracCNST
14
15
)]
Where:
16
17
18
NMMS_Avb = amount of managed manure N available for soil application, feed, fuel or construction, kg
N yr-1 (see Equation 10.34 in Chapter 10)
19
FracFEED = fraction of managed manure used for feed
20
FracFUEL = fraction of managed manure used for fuel
21
FracCNST = fraction of managed manure used for construction
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
The term FPRP refers to the annual amount of N deposited on pasture, range and paddock soils by grazing
animals. It is important to note that the N from managed animal manure applied to soils is included in the FAM
term of FON. The term FPRP is estimated using Equation 11.5 from the number of animals in each livestock
species/category T (N(T)), the annual average amount of N excreted by each livestock species/category T (Nex(T)),
and the fraction of this N deposited on pasture, range and paddock soils by each livestock species/category T
(MS(T,PRP)). The data needed for this equation can be obtained from the livestock chapter (see Chapter 10,
Section 10.5).
31
Equation 11.5 provides an estimate of the amount of N deposited by grazing animals:
Urine and Dung from Grazing Animals (F P R P )
32
33
34
EQUATION 11.5
N IN URINE AND DUNG DEPOSITED BY GRAZING ANIMALS ON PASTURE, RANGE AND PADDOCK (TIER 1)
FPRP = (N (T ) Nex(T ) ) MS (T ,PRP )
35
36
Where:
37
38
FPRP = annual amount of urine and dung N deposited on pasture, range, paddock and by grazing animals,
kg N yr-1
39
N(T) = number of head of livestock species/category T in the country, head (See Chapter 10, Section 10.2)
11.14

1
2
Nex(T) = annual average N excretion per head of species/category T in the country, kg N (animal - yr)-1
(see Chapter 10, Section 10.5)
3
4
MS(T,PRP) = fraction of total annual N excretion for each livestock species/category T that is deposited on
pasture, range and paddock12 (see Chapter 10, Section 10.5)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
The term FCR refers to the amount of N in crop residues (above and below ground), including N-fixing crops,
returned to soils annually13. It also includes the N from N-fixing and non-N-fixing forages mineralised during
forage or pasture renewal14. It is estimated from crop yield statistics and default factors for above/below-ground
residue:yield ratios and residue N contents. In addition, the method accounts for the effect of residue burning or
other removal of residues (direct emissions of N2O from residue burning are addressed under Chapter 2 Section
2.4. Because different crop types vary in residue:yield ratios, renewal time and N contents, separate calculations
should be performed for major crop types and then N values from all crop types are summed up. At a minimum,
it is recommended that crops be segregated into: 1) non-N-fixing grain crops (e.g. maize, rice, wheat, barley), 2)
N-fixing grains and pulses (e.g. soya bean, dry beans, chickpea, lentils), 3) root and tuber crops (e.g. potato,
sweet potato, cassava), 4) N-fixing forage crops (alfalfa, clover) and 5) other forages including perennial grasses
and grass/clover pastures. Equation 11.6 provides the equation to estimate N from crop residues and
forage/pasture renewal, for a Tier 1 approach.
20
21
EQUATION 11.6
N FROM CROP RESIDUES AND FORAGE/PASTURE RENEWAL (TIER 1)
Crop Residue N, Including N-Fixing Crops and Forage/ Pasture Renewal,

Returned to Soils, (F C R )
Crop(T ) (Area(T ) Area burnt(T ) CF ) FracRe new(T )

FCR =
T
RAG (T ) N AG (T ) (1 FracRe move(T ) ) + RBG (T ) N BG (T )
22
23
Where:
24
25
forage/pasture renewal, returned to soils annually, kg N yr-1
26
Crop(T)
= harvested annual dry matter yield for crop T, kg DM ha-1
27
Area(T)
= total annual area harvested of crop T, ha yr-1
28
Area burnt (T) = annual area of crop T burnt, ha
29
CF = Combustion factor (dimensionless) (refer to Chapter 2, Table 2.6).
30
31
FracRenew (T) = fraction of total area under crop T that is renewed annually15. For countries where pastures
are renewed on average every X years, FracRenew = 1/X. For annual crops FracRenew = 1.
12
In the livestock section, pasture, range and paddock is referred to as one of the manure management systems denoted as
S.
13
The equation to estimate FCR has been modified from the previous 1996 IPCC Guidance to account for the contribution of
the below-ground nitrogen to the total input of nitrogen from crop residues, which previously was ignored in the estimate
of FCR. As a result, FCR now represents a more accurate estimate of the amount of nitrogen input from crop residue, which
makes it possible to assess the contribution to residue nitrogen arising from the growth of forage legumes such as alfalfa,
where the harvesting of virtually all the above-ground dry matter results in no significant residue except the root system.
14
The inclusion of nitrogen from forage or pasture renewal is a change from previous 1996 IPCC guidance.
15
This term is included in the equation to account for N release and the subsequent increases in N2O emissions (e.g. van der
Weerden et al. 1999; Davies et al. 2001)), from renewal/cultivation of grazed grass or grass/clover pasture and other forage
crops.
11.15
1
2
RAG(T)
= ratio of above-ground residues dry matter (AGDM(T)) to harvested yield for crop T (Crop(T)),
kg DM (kg DM)-1,
= AGDM(T)/Crop(T) (calculating AGDM(T) from the information in Table 11.2)
NAG(T) = N content of above-ground residues for crop T, kg N (kg DM) -1, (Table 11.2)
5
6
7
FracRemove(T) = fraction of above-ground residues of crop T removed annually for purposes such as feed,
bedding and construction. Survey of experts in country is required to obtain data. If data for
FracRemove are not available, assume no removal. kg N (kg crop-N)-1
8
9
10
11
RBG(T) = ratio of below-ground residues to harvested yield for crop T, kg DM (kg DM)-1. If alternative data
are not available, RBG(T) may be calculated by multiplying RBG-BIO in Table 11.2 by the ratio of total
above-ground biomass to crop yield ( = (AGDM + CropT)/CropT), (also calculating AGDM from the
information in Table 11.2).
12
NBG(T) = N content of below-ground residues for crop T, kg N (kg DM)-1, (Table 11.2)
13
T = crop or forage type
14
15
Data on crop yield statistics (yields and area harvested, by crop) may be obtained from national sources. If such
data are not available, FAO publishes data on crop production:
16
(http://apps.fao.org/faostat/collections?version=ext&hasbulk=0&subset=agriculture)
17
18
19
20
Since yield statistics for many crops are reported as field-dry or fresh weight, a correction factor can be applied
to estimate dry matter yields (Crop(T)) where appropriate (Equation 11.7). The proper correction to be used is
dependent on the standards used in yield reporting, which may vary between countries. Alternatively, the default
values for dry matter content given in Table 11.2 may be used.
21
22
23
EQUATION 11.7
DRY-WEIGHT CORRECTION OF REPORTED CROP YIELDS
24
Crop(T ) = Yield Fresh(T ) DRY
25
Where:
26
Crop(T) = harvested dry matter yield for crop T, kg DM ha-1
27
Yield_Fresh(T) = harvested fresh yield for crop T, kg fresh weight ha-1
28
DRY = dry matter fraction of harvested crop T, kg DM (kg fresh weight)-1
29
30
31
32
33
The regression equations in Table 11.2 may also be used to calculate the total above-ground residue dry matter,
and the other data in the table then permit the calculation in turn of the N in the above-ground residues, the
below-ground dry matter, and the total N in the below-ground residues. The total N addition, FCR, is the sum of
the above-and below-ground N contents. With this approach, FCR is given by Equation 11.7A:
34
11.16

1
2
EQUATION 11.7A
ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO ESTIMATE FCR (USING TABLE 2)
AGDM (T ) (Area(T ) Area burnt(T ) CF ) FracRe new(T )

FCR =
T
N AG (T ) (1 FracRe move(T ) ) + RBG BIO (T ) N BG (T )
4
5
6
7
An improvement on this approach for determining FCR (i.e. Tier 2) would be the use of country-specific data
rather than the values provided in Table 11.2, as well as country-specific values for the fraction of above-ground
residue burned.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The term FSOM refers to the amount of N mineralised from loss in soil organic C in mineral soils through landuse change or management practices. As explained in Chapter 2 Section 2.3.3, land-use change and a variety of
management practices can have a significant impact on soil organic C storage. Organic C and N are intimately
linked in soil organic matter. Where soil C is lost through oxidation as a result of land-use or management
change, this loss will be accompanied by a simultaneous mineralisation of N. Where a loss of soil C occurs, this
mineralised N is regarded as an additional source of N available for conversion to N2O (Smith and Conen, 2004);
just as mineral N released from decomposition of crop residues, for example, becomes a source. The same
default emission factor (EF1) is applied to mineralised N from soil organic matter loss as is used for direct
emissions resulting from fertiliser and organic N inputs to agricultural land. This is because the ammonium and
nitrate resulting from soil organic matter mineralisation is of equal value as a substrate for the microorganisms
producing N2O by nitrification and denitrification, no matter whether the mineral N source is soil organic matter
loss from land-use or management change, decomposition of crop residues, synthetic fertilisers or organic
amendments. (Note: the opposite process to mineralisation, whereby inorganic N is sequestered into newly
formed SOM, is not taken account of in the calculation of the mineralisation N source. This is because of the
different dynamics of SOM decomposition and formation, and also because reduced tillage in some
circumstances can increase both SOM and N2O emission.)
26
27
For all situations where soil C losses occur (as calculated in Chapter 2, Equation 2.25) the Tier 1 and 2 methods
for calculating the release of N by mineralisation are shown below:
28
29
30
31
32
33
Ca lcu lat ion st ep s fo r es t imat ing cha nge s in N su pp ly f rom m ine ra lis at ion
Step 1: Calculate the average annual loss of soil C (Cmineral, LU) for the area, over the inventory period, using
Equation 2.25 in Chapter 2. Using the Tier 1 approach the value for CCCMineral-LU will have a single value for
all land-uses and management systems. Using Tier 2 the value for CCCMineral-LU will be disaggregated by
individual land-use and/or management systems.
34
35
36
EQUATION 11.8
N MINERALISED IN MINERAL SOILS AS A RESULT OF LOSS OF SOIL C THROUGH CHANGE IN LAND
USE OR MANAGEMENT (TIERS 1 AND 2)
37
1
FSOM = Cmin eral ,LU 1000
R
LU
Mineralised N Resulting From Loss of Soil Organic C Stocks in Mineral Soils

Through Land-use Change or Management Practices (F S O M ) 16
Step 2: Estimate the N mineralised as a consequence of this loss of soil C (FSOM), using Equation 11.8:
38
Where:
39
16
The inclusion of the term FSOM is a change from the previous 1996 IPCC Guidance, which did not include the N from
mineralisation associated with a loss of soil organic C.
11.17
1
TABLE 11.2
DEFAULT FACTORS FOR ESTIMATION OF N ADDED TO SOILS FROM CROP RESIDUES A
Crop
R2 adj.
N content of
above-ground
residues (NAG)
Ratio of belowground
residues to
above-ground
biomass (RBGBIO)
N content of
below-ground
residues (NBG)
6%
56%
70%
41%
-
0.65
0.28
0.18
0.63
-
0.006
0.008
0.019
0.016
0.027
0.22 ( 16%)
0.19 ( 45%)
0.20 ( 50%)
0.20 ( 50%)
0.40 ( 50%)
0.009
0.008
0.014
0.014
0.022
0.015
0.54 ( 50%)
0.012
50% default
0.015
0.80 ( 50%)l
0.012
0.3
50% default
0.025
0.80 ( 50%)l
0.016p
1.03
1.51
1.61
1.29
0.95
0.98
0.91
1.43
0.88
1.09
3%
3%
3%
5%
19%
8%
5%
18%
13%
50% default
0.61
0.52
0.40
0.75
2.46
0.59
0.89
0.14
1.33
0.88
19%
17%
25%
26%
41%
41%
8%
308%
27%
50% default
0.76
0.68
0.67
0.76
0.47
0.68
0.45
0.50
0.36
-
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.005
0.22 ( 26%)
0.24 ( 32%)
0.23 ( 41%)
0.28 ( 26%)
0.16 ( 35%)
0.22 ( 33%)
0.25 ( 120%)
NA
NA
NA
0.007
0.009
0.009
0.009
NA
0.014
0.008
NA
0.006
0.011
Above-ground residue dry matter AGDM(T) (Mg/ha):

AGDM(T) = Crop(T) * slope(T) + intercept(T)
Dry matter
fraction of
harvested
product (DRY)
Slope
2 s.d. as % of
mean
Intercept
2 s.d. as % of
mean
0.88
0.91
0.22
0.94
0.90
1.09
1.13
0.10
1.07
0.3
2%
19%
69%
19%
50% default
0.88
0.85
1.06
1.54
0
0.90
0.3
50% default
0.90
0.3
0.90
0.87
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.90
0.89
0.88
Major crop types

Grains
Beans & pulsesb
Tubersc
Root crops, otherd
N-fixing forages
Non-N-fixing
forages
Perennial grasses
Grass-clover
mixtures
Individual crops
Maize
Wheat
Winter wheat
Spring wheat
Rice
Barley
Oats
Millet
Sorghum
Ryee
11.18

1
TABLE 11.2
DEFAULT FACTORS FOR ESTIMATION OF N ADDED TO SOILS FROM CROP RESIDUES A
Crop
Soyabeanf
Dry beang
Potatoh
Peanut (w/pod)i
Alfalfaj
Non-legume hayj
Above-ground residue dry matter AGDM(T) (Mg/ha):

AGDM(T) = Crop(T) * slope(T) + intercept(T)
Dry matter
fraction of
harvested
product (DRY)
Slope
2 s.d. as % of
mean
Intercept
2 s.d. as % of
mean
R2 adj.
N content of
above-ground
residues (NAG)
0.91
0.90
0.22
0.94
0.90
0.90
0.93
0.36
0.10
1.07
0.29k
0.18
31%
100%
69%
19%
31%
50% default
1.35
0.68
1.06
1.54
0
0
49%
47%
70%
41%
-
0.16
0.15
0.18
0.63
-
0.008
0.01
0.019
0.016
0.027
0.15
residues to
above-ground
biomass (RBGBIO)
0.19 ( 45%)
NA
0.20 ( 50%)m
NA
0.40 ( 50%)n
0.54 ( 50%)n
N content of
below-ground
residues (NBG)
0.008
0.01
0.014
NA
0.019
0.012
Source: Stephen A. Williams, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University. Email: stevewi@warnercnr.colostate.edu. Taken in large part from a manuscript in preparation and data compiled for
CASMGS (http://www.casmgs.colostate.edu/).
b
c
d
e
The average above-ground residue:grain ratio from all data used was 2.0 and included data for soya bean, dry bean, lentil, cowpea, black gram, and pea.
Modelled after potatoes.

Modelled after peanuts.
No data for rye. Slope and intercept values are those for all grain. Default s.d.
The average above-ground residue:grain ratio from all data used was 1.9.
Ortega 1988 (see Annex 11A.1). The average above-ground residue:grain ratio from this single source was 1.6. default s.d. for root:AGB.
The mean value for above-ground residue:tuber ratio in the sources used was 0.27 with a standard error of 0.04.
The mean value for above-ground residue: pod yield in the sources used was 1.80 with a standard error of 0.10.
Single source. Default s.d. for root:AGB.
This is the average above-ground biomass reported as litter or harvest losses. This does not include reported stubble, which averaged 0.165 X reported yields. Default s.d.
Estimate of root turnover to above-ground production based on the assumption that in natural grass systems below-ground biomass is approximately equal to twice (one to three times) the above-ground biomass and that
root turnover in these systems averages about 40% (30% to 50%) per year. Default s.d.
m
This is an estimate of non-tuber roots based on the root:shoot values found for other crops. If unmarketable tuber yield is returned to the soil then data derived from Vangessel and Renner 1990 (see Annex 11A.1)
(unmarketable yield = 0.08 * marketable yield = 0.29 * above-ground biomass) suggest that the total residues returned might then be on the order of 0.49 * above-ground biomass. Default s.d.
n
This is an estimate of root turnover in perennial systems. Default s.d.
It is assumed here that grass dominates the system by 2 to 1 over legumes.
2
3
11.19
1
2
FSOM = the net annual amount of N mineralised in mineral soils as a result of loss of soil carbon through
change in land use or management, kg N
3
4
5
Cmineral, LU = average annual loss of soil carbon for each land-use type (LU ), tonnes C (Note: for Tier 1,
Cmineral, LU will have a single value for all land-uses and management systems. Using Tier 2 the
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
R = C:N ratio of the soil organic matter. A default value of 15 (uncertainty range from 10 to 30) for the
C:N ratio (R) may be used for situations involving land-use change from forest or grassland to
cropland, in the absence of more specific data for the area. A default value of 10 (range from 8 to
15) may be used for situations involving management changes on cropland remaining cropland. C:N
ratio can change over time, land use, or management practice17. If countries can document changes
in C:N ratio, then different values can be used over the time series, land use, or management
practice.
13
LU = Land-use and/or management system type
value for Cmineral, LU will be disaggregated by individual land-use and/or management systems.
14
15
Step 3: For Tier 1, the value for FSOM is calculated in a single step. For Tier 2, FSOM is calculated by summing
across all land-uses and/or management system types (LU).
16
17
18
19
Countries that are not able to estimate gross changes of mineral soil C will create a bias in the N2O estimate, and
it is good practice to acknowledge this limitation in the reporting documentation. It is also good practice to use
specific data for the C:N ratios for the disaggregated land areas, if these are available, in conjunction with the
data for carbon changes.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Area of Drained/Managed Organic Soils (F O S )
The term FOS refers to the total annual area (ha) of drained/managed organic soils (see footnote 3 for definition).
This definition is applicable for both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 methods. For all land uses the areas should be
stratified by climate zone (temperate and tropical). In addition, for temperate forest land the areas should be
further stratified by soil fertility (nutrient rich and nutrient poor). The area of drained/managed organic soils
(FOS) may be collected from official national statistics. Alternatively, total areas of organic soils from each
country are available from FAO (http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/dsmw.htm), and expert advice may be used to
estimate areas that are drained/managed. For forest land, national data will be available at soil survey
organisations and from wetland surveys, e.g. for international conventions. In case no stratification by soil
fertility is possible, countries may rely on expert judgment.
30
11.2.1.4
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Uncertainties in estimates of direct N2O emissions from managed soils are caused by uncertainties related to the
emission factors (see Table 11.1 for uncertainty ranges), natural variability, partitioning fractions, activity data,
lack of coverage of measurements, spatial aggregation, and lack of information on specific on-farm practices.
Additional uncertainty will be introduced in an inventory when emission measurements that are not
representative of all conditions in a country are used. In general, the reliability of activity data will be higher than
that of the emission factors. As an example, further uncertainties may be caused by missing information on
observance of laws and regulations related to handling and application of fertiliser and manure, and changing
management practices in farming. Generally, it is difficult to obtain information on the actual observance of laws
and possible emission reductions achieved as well as information on farming practices. For more detailed
guidance on uncertainty assessment refer to Volume 1, Chapter 3.
41
11.2.2
17
Indirect N2 O Emissions
Information on C:N ratios in forest and cropped soils may be found in the following references: Aitkenhead-Peterson et al,
2005; Garten et al., 2000; John et al., 2005; Lobe et al., 2001;Snowdon et al., 2005, and other references cited by these
authors.
11.20

1
2
3
In addition to the direct emissions of N2O from managed soils that occur through a direct pathway (i.e. directly
from the soils to which N is applied), emissions of N2O also take place through two indirect pathways (as
illustrated above in Section 11.2).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
The first of these pathways is the volatilisation of N as NH3 and oxides of N (NOx), and the deposition of these
gases and their products NH4+ and NO3 onto soils and the surface of lakes and other waters. The sources of N as
NH3 and NOx are not confined to agricultural fertilisers and manures, but also include fossil fuel combustion,
biomass burning, and processes in the chemical industry (see Volume 1 Chapter 7.4). Thus, these processes
cause N2O emissions in an exactly analogous way to those resulting from deposition of agriculturally derived
NH3 and NOx, following the application of synthetic and organic N fertilisers and /or urine and dung deposition
from grazing animals. The second pathway is the leaching and runoff from land of N from synthetic and organic
fertiliser additions, crop residues18, mineralisation of N associated with loss of soil C in mineral and
drained/managed organic soils through land-use change or management practices, and urine and dung deposition
from grazing animals. Some of the inorganic N in or on the soil, mainly in the NO3- form, may bypass biological
retention mechanisms in the soil/vegetation system by transport in overland water flow (runoff) and/or flow
through soil macropores or pipe drains. Where NO3- is present in the soil in excess of biological demand, e.g
under cattle urine patches, the excess leaches through the soil profile. The nitrification and denitrification
processes described at the beginning of this chapter transform some of the NH4+ and NO3- to N2O. This may take
place in the groundwater below the land to which the N was applied, or in riparian zones receiving drain or
runoff water, or in the ditches, streams, rivers and estuaries (and their sediments) into which the land drainage
water eventually flows.
21
22
This methodology described in this Chapter addresses the following N sources of indirect N2O emissions from
managed soils arising from agricultural inputs of N:
23
Synthetic N fertilisers (FSN);
24
25
Organic N applied as fertiliser (e.g. applied animal manure19, compost, sewage sludge, rendering waste
and other organic amendments) (FON);
26
Urine and dung N deposited on pasture, range and paddock by grazing animals (FPRP);
27
28
N in crop residues (above and below ground), including N-fixing crops and forage/pasture renewal
returned to soils (FCR) 20;
29
30
N mineralisation associated with loss of soil organic matter resulting from change of land use or
management on mineral soils (FSOM);
31
32
33
34
35
36
The generic Tier 1 and Tier 2 methods described below can be used to estimate aggregate total indirect N2O
emissions from agricultural N additions to managed soils for an entire country. If a country is estimating its
direct N2O from managed soils by land-use category, the indirect N2O emissions can also be estimated by the
same disaggregation of land-use categories using the equations presented below with activity data, partitioning
fractions, and/or emission factors specific for each land-use category. The methodology for estimating indirect
N2O emissions from combustion related and industrial sources is described in Volume 1, Chapter 7, Section 7.3.
37
11.2.2.1
38
Refer to the decision tree in Figure 11.3 (Indirect N2O Emissions) for guidance on which Tier method to use.
C HOICE
OF METHOD
18
The inclusion of crop residues as an N input into the leaching and runoff component is a change from the previous IPCC
Guidelines.
19
Volatilisation and subsequent deposition of nitrogen from the manure in manure management systems is covered in the
manure management section of this Volume.
20
Nitrogen from these components is only included in the leaching/run-off component of indirect N2O emission.
11.21
1
Figure 11.3
Decision tree for indirect N 2 O emissions from managed soils
2
START
3
4
5
For each
agricultural N source, for both
volatilization and leaching/runoff,
ask: Do you have country-specific
activity data?
(Note 1)
6
7
8
Is this a
key category (Note 2) and is
this N source significant
(Note 3)?
NO
9
Obtain countryspecific data
YES
YES
NO
For each N source, do

you have rigorously documented
country-specific emission factors (EF4 or EF5)
and as appropriate rigorously documented
country-specific partitioning fractions (FracGASF,
Frac,GASM, FracLEACH)
values?
Do you
have rigorously documented countryspecific EF values (EF4 or EF5) and as
appropriate rigorously documented countryspecific partitioning fractions (FracGASF,
Frac,GASM, FracLEACH)
values?
YES
YES
NO
NO

equation, country-specific activity
data and country-specific
emissions factors and partitioning
fractions, or Tier 3 method
Estimate emissions with Tier 2

equation, using a mix of countryspecific and other available data
and country-specific emission and
partitioning factors
Box 4: Tier 2 or 3
Box 2: Tier 2
Estimate emissions using Tier 1 or
Tier 2 equations, country-specific
activity data and a mix of countyspecific or default emission factors
and partitioning fractions
Estimate emissions using the Tier

1 equation with default emission
and partitioning factors and
available activity data
Box 3: Tier 1 or 2
Box 1: Tier 1
Note 1: N sources include: synthetic N fertilizer, organic N additions, urine and dung depositions, crop residue, N mineralization/
immobilization associated with loss/gain of soil C on mineral soils as a result of land use change or management practices (crop residue
and N mineralization/immobilization is only accounted for in the indirect N2O emissions from leaching/runoff). Sewage sludge or other
organic N additions can be included if sufficient information is available.
Note 2: See Volume 1 Chapter 4, "Methodological Choice and Identification of Key Categories" (noting Section 4.1.2 on limited
resources), for discussion of key categories and use of decision trees.
Note 3: As a rule of thumb, a sub-source category would be significant if it accounts for 25-30% of emissions from the source category.
11.22

Tier 1
2
3
4
Vo latilisation, N 2 O ( A T D )
The N2O emissions from atmospheric deposition of N volatilised from managed soil are estimated using
Equation 11.9:
5
6
EQUATION 11.9
N2O FROM ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION OF N VOLATILISED FROM MANAGED SOILS (TIER 1)
N 2O( ATD ) - N = [(FSN FracGASF ) + ((FON FPRP ) FracGASM )] EF4
7
8
Where:
9
10
N2O(ATD)-N = annual amount of N2O-N produced from atmospheric deposition of N volatilised

managed soils, kg N2O-N yr-1
from
11
12
13
FracGASF = fraction of synthetic fertiliser N that volatilises as NH3 and NOx, kg N volatilised (kg of N
applied)-1 (Table 11.3)
14
15
FON = annual amount of managed animal manure, compost, sewage sludge and other organic N additions
applied to soils, kg N yr-1
16
17
kg N yr-1
18
19
20
FracGASM = fraction of applied organic N fertiliser materials (FON) and of urine and dung N deposited
by grazing animals (FPRP) that volatilises as NH3 and NOx, kg N volatilised (kg of N applied or
deposited)-1 (Table 11.3)
21
22
EF4 = emission factor for N2O emissions from atmospheric deposition of N on soils and water surfaces,
[kg N- N2O (kg NH3-N + NOx-N volatilised)-1] (Table 11.3)
23
24
Conversion of N2O(ATD)-N emissions to N2O emissions for reporting purposes is performed by using the
following equation:
25
N2O(ATD) = N2O(ATD)-N 44/28
26
27
Leaching/Runoff, N2O(L)
28
29
The N2O emissions from leaching and runoff in regions where leaching and runoff occurs are estimated using
Equation 11.10:
30
31
32
33
EQUATION 11.10
N2O FROM N LEACHING/RUNOFF FROM MANAGED SOILS IN REGIONS WHERE
LEACHING/RUNOFF OCCURS (TIER 1)
N 2O( L ) - N = (FSN + FON + FPRP + FCR + FSOM ) FracLEACH ( H ) EF5
34
35
Where:
36
37
N2O(L)-N = annual amount of N2O-N produced from leaching and runoff of N additions to managed
soils in regions where leaching/runoff occurs, kg N2O-N yr-1
38
39
FSN = annual amount of synthetic fertiliser N applied to soils in regions where leaching/runoff occurs, kg
N yr-1
40
41
applied to soils in regions where leaching/runoff occurs, kg N yr-1
42
43
FPRP = annual amount of urine and dung N deposited by grazing animals in regions where leaching/runoff
occurs, kg N yr-1 (from Equation 11.5)
44
45
FCR = amount of N in crop residues (above and below ground), including N-fixing crops, and from
forage/pasture renewal, returned to soils annually in regions where leaching/runoff occurs, kg N yr-1
11.23
1
2
3
FSOM = Annual amount of N mineralised in mineral soils associated with loss of soil C from soil organic
matter as a result of changes to land use or management in regions where leaching/runoff occurs, kg
N yr-1 (from Equation 11.8)
4
5
FracLEACH-(H) = fraction of all N added to/mineralised in managed soils in regions where leaching/runoff
occurs that is lost through leaching and runoff, kg N (kg of N additions)-1 (Table 11.3)
6
7
EF5 = emission factor for N2O emissions from N leaching and runoff, kg N2O-N (kg N leached and
runoff)-1 (Table 11.3)
8
9
Note: If a country is able to estimate the quantity of N mineralised from organic soils, then include this as an
additional input to Equation 11.10.
10
11
12
Conversion of N2O(L)-N emissions to N2O emissions for reporting purposes is performed by using the following
equation:
13
N2O(L) = N2O(L)-N 44/28
14
15
16
17
18
If more detailed emission, volatilisation or leaching factors are available to a country than are presented in Table
11.3, further disaggregation of the terms in the equations can also be undertaken. For example, if specific
volatilisation factors are available for the application of synthetic fertilisers (FSN) under different conditions i,
Equation 11.9 would be expanded to become21:
19
20
EQUATION 11.11
21
N 2O( ATD ) - N = FSNi FracGASFi + [(FON FPRP ) FracGASM ] EF4

i
Tier 2
22
Where:
23
24

25
FSNi = annual amount of synthetic fertiliser N applied to soils under different conditions i, kg N yr-1
26
27
FracGASF i = fraction of synthetic fertiliser N that volatilises as NH3 and NOx under different conditions i,
kg N volatilised (kg of N applied)-1
28
29
30
31
kg N yr-1
32
33
34
35
36
21
from
It is important to note that Equation 11.11 is just one of many possible modifications to Equation 11.9, and is also meant to
illustrate how Equation 11.10 could be modified, when using the Tier 2 method. The eventual form of Equation 11.11 will
depend upon the availability of land use and/or condition-specific partitioning fractions and/or emission factors and the
ability to which a country can disaggregate its activity data
11.24

1
2
Note: If a country is able to estimate the quantity of N mineralised from drainage/management of organic soils
then include this as one of the N inputs into the Tier 2 modification of Equation 11.10.
3
4
Conversion of N2O(ATD)-N emissions to N2O(ATD) emissions for reporting purposes is performed by using the
following equation:
N2O(ATD) = N2O(ATD)-N 44/28
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Tier 3 methods are modelling or measurement approaches. Models are useful as they can relate the variables
responsible for the emissions to the size of those emissions. These relationships may then be used to predict
emissions from whole countries or regions for which experimental measurements are impracticable. For more
information refer to Chapter 2 Section 2.5, where guidance is given that provides a sound scientific basis for the
development of a Tier 3 Model-Based Accounting System.
13
11.2.2.2
Tier 3
14
C HOICE
OF EMISSION , VOLATILISATION AND LEACHING

FACTORS
15
16
17
18
The method for estimating indirect N2O emissions includes two emission factors: one associated with volatilised
and re-deposited N (EF4), and the second associated with N lost through leaching/runoff (EF5). The method also
requires values for the fractions of N that are lost through volatilisation (FracGASF and FracGASM) or
leaching/runoff (FracLEACH-(H)). The default values of all these factors are presented in Table 11.3.
19
20
21
22
Note that in the Tier 1 method for humid regions or in dryland regions where irrigation (other than drip
irrigation) is used the default FracLEACH-(H) is 0.30. For dryland regions, where precipitation is lower than
evapotranspiration throughout most of the year and leaching is unlikely to occur, the default FracLEACH is zero.
The method of calculating whether FracLEACH_H = 0.30 should be applied is given in Table 11.3.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Country-specific values for EF4 should be used with great caution because of the special complexity of
transboundary atmospheric transport. Although inventory compilers may have specific measurements of N
deposition and associated N2O flux, in many cases the deposited N may not have originated in their country.
Similarly, some of the N that volatilises in their country may be transported to and deposited in another country,
where different conditions that affect the fraction emitted as N2O may prevail. For these reasons the value of
EF4 is very difficult to determine, and the method presented in Volume 1 Chapter 7 Section 7.4.1 attributes all
indirect N2O emissions resulting from inputs to managed soils to the country of origin of the atmospheric NOx
and NH3, rather than the country to which the atmospheric N may have been transported.
31
11.2.2.3
32
33
In order to estimate indirect N2O emissions from the various N additions to managed soils, the parameters FSN,
FON, FPRP, FCR, FSOM need to be estimated.
34
35
36
Applied Synthetic Fertiliser (F S N )
37
38
39
40
Applied Organic N Fertilisers (F O N )
C HOICE
OF ACTIVITY DATA
The term FSN refers to the annual amount of synthetic fertiliser N applied to soils. Refer to the activity data
section on Direct N2O Emissions from Managed Soils (Section 11.2.1.3) and obtain the value for FSN.
The term FON refers to the amount of organic N fertiliser materials intentionally applied to soils. Refer to the
activity data section on Direct N2O Emissions from Managed Soils (Section 11.2.1.3) and obtain the value for
FON.
41
42
43
44
Urine and Dung from Grazing Animals (F P R P )
45
46
47
48
49
50
Crop Residue N, including N from N-Fixing Crops and Forage/Pasture Renewal,

Returned to Soils (F C R )
The term FPRP refers to the amount of N deposited on soil by animals grazing on pasture, range and paddock.
Refer to the activity data section on Direct N2O Emissions from Managed Soils (Section 11.2.1.3) and obtain the
value for FPRP.
The term FCR refers to the amount of N in crop residues (above and below ground), including N-fixing crops,
returned to soils annually. It also includes the N from N-fixing and non-N-fixing forages mineralised during
forage/pasture renewal. Refer to the activity data section on Direct N2O Emissions from Managed Soils (Section
11.2.1.3) and obtain the value for FCR.
11.25
1
2
3
4
5
Mineralised N Resulting From Loss of Soil Organic C Stocks in Mineral Soils

(F S O M )
The term FSOM refers to the amount of N mineralised from the loss of soil organic C in mineral soils through
land-use change or management practices. Refer to the activity data section on Direct N2O Emissions from
Managed Soils (Section 11.2.1.3) and obtain the value for FSOM.
6
TABLE 11.3
DEFAULT EMISSION, VOLATILISATION AND LEACHING FACTORS FOR INDIRECT SOIL N2O EMISSIONS
Default
Value
Factor
EF4 [N volatilisation and re-deposition], kg N2O-N (kg NH3-N + NOXN
volatilised)-1 22
Uncertainty
Range
0.010
0.002-0.05
0.0075
0.00050.025
FracGASF [Volatilisation from synthetic fertiliser], (kg NH3-N + NOx-N) (kg N

applied) 1
0.10
0.03-0.3
FracGASM [Volatilisation from all organic N fertilisers applied , and dung and
urine deposited by grazing animals], (kg NH3-N + NOx-N) (kg N applied or
deposited) 1
0.20
0.05-0.5
FracLEACH-(H) [N losses by leaching/runoff for regions where (rain in rainy

season) - (PE in same period) > soil water holding capacity, OR where
irrigation (except drip irrigation) is employed], kg N (kg N additions or
deposition by grazing animals)-1
0.30
0.1 0.8
EF5 [leaching/runoff], kg N2O-N (kg N leaching/runoff) -1
23
Note: The term FracLEACH previously used has been modified so that it now only applies to regions where soil waterholding capacity is exceeded, as a result of rainfall and/or irrigation (excluding drip irrigation), and leaching/runoff occurs,
and redesignated as FracLEACH-(H). In the definition of FracLEACH-(H) above, PE is potential evaporation, and the rainy
season(s) can be taken as the period(s) when rainfall > 0.5 * pan evaporation. (Explanations of potential and pan
evaporation are available in standard meteorological and agricultural texts). For other regions the default FracLEACH is taken
as zero.
22
The uncertainty range has been widened, in view of results showing that emissions from some environments, particularly
deciduous forests receiving high rates of N deposition from the atmosphere, are substantially higher than those previously
reported (e.g. Butterbach-Bahl et al., 1997; Brumme et al., 1999; Denier van der Gon and Bleeker, 2005)., while there is
also clear evidence that EFs can be very low (<< 0.01) in low-deposition environments (e.g. Corre et al., 1999). The mean
value of 0.01 has been retained, because it coincides with the revised EF for direct emission from managed land (see Table
11.1 above), and it is recognised that in many countries a substantial fraction of the indirect emissions will in fact originate
from managed land.
23
The overall value for the emission factor for leached N (EF5) has been changed from 0.025 to 0.0075 kg N2O-N/kg N
leached/ in runoff water. This emission factor incorporates three components: EF5g, EF5r and EF5e, which are the emission
factors for groundwater and surface drainage, rivers and estuaries, respectively. Recent results indicate that the previously
used emission factor for groundwater and surface drainage (0.015) was too high and should be reduced to 0.0025 kg N2ON/kg mineral N (mainly nitrate) leached (Hiscock et al., 2002, 2003; Reay et al, 2004, 2005; Sawamoto et al. 2005). The
emission factor for rivers has also been reduced from 0.0075 kg N2O-N/kg N to the same value, 0.0025 kg N2O-N/kg N in
the water. This is in recognition that while still lower mean values (of the order of 0.0003 to 0.0005) have been reported by,
e.g., Dong et al. (2004) and Clough et al. (in press) for relatively short river systems, there remains the possibility that
higher values than those obtained by these authors apply to longer river systems. The value for estuaries remains at 0.0025
kg N2O-N/kg N.
11.26

11.2.2.4
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Uncertainties in estimates of indirect N2O emissions from managed soils are caused by uncertainties related to
natural variability and to the emission, volatilisation and leaching factors (see Table 11.3 for uncertainty ranges),
activity data, and lack of measurements. Additional uncertainty will be introduced in an inventory when values
for these factors that are not representative of all conditions in a country are used. In general, the reliability of
activity data will be higher than that of the emission, volatilisation and leaching factors. As with direct
emissions, further uncertainties may be caused by missing information on observance of laws and regulations
related to handling and application of fertiliser and manure, and changing management practices in farming.
Generally it is difficult to obtain information on the actual observance of laws and possible emission reductions
achieved as well as information on farming practices. Uncertainties in emission factors are nevertheless likely to
dominate and uncertainty ranges are indicated in the tabulations above. For more detailed guidance on
uncertainty assessment refer to Volume 1, Chapter 3.
13
11.2.3
Completeness, Time Series, QA/QC
14
11.2.3.1
C OMPLETENESS
15
16
17
18
19
Complete coverage of the direct and indirect N2O emissions from managed land requires estimation of emissions
for all of the anthropogenic inputs and activities (FSN, FON, FCR, FPRP, FSOM and FOS), if they occur. Experience
has shown that none of these sub-categories are likely to be missed in inventories, although countries may have
difficulty obtaining accurate statistics for all sub-categories, particularly the amounts of crop residues (by crop
type) that are typically returned to soils, and the area of drained/managed organic soils.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Currently, the IPCC method does not explicitly address activities such as plastic sheeting or greenhouse
hydroponic systems that may influence N2O emissions. These additional activities can be considered if
appropriate, and if national activity data for these activities are collected. Some of these activities can be readily
included in national inventories based on available information. For the additional commercial and noncommercial organic fertilisers, the default emission factor used for applied N may be used. Further research will
be required to develop the flux data that are needed to develop emission factors for use of plastic sheeting and
hydroponic systems in horticultural areas.
27
11.2.3.2
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Ideally, the same method is used throughout the entire time series. However, it is likely that the detail and
disaggregation of emissions estimates from this source category will improve over time. In cases where some
historical data are missing, it may be necessary to derive the data using other references or data sets. For
example, annual data of areas for drained/managed organic soils may need to be derived by interpolation from a
longer time series based upon long-term trends (e.g. from decadal statistics over a 20- or 30-year period).
Estimates of the amounts of crop residue incorporated annually may also need to be derived based on expert
judgment.
35
36
37
38
Interannual changes in FracGASF, FracGASM, FracLEACH, EF4, and EF5 are not expected unless mitigation measures
are undertaken. These factors should be changed only with the proper justification and documentation. If updated
defaults for any of these variables become available through future research, inventory agencies may recalculate
their historical emissions.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
It is important that the methods used reflect the results of action taken to reduce emissions and the methods and
results are thoroughly documented. If policy measures are implemented such that activity data are affected
directly (e.g. increased efficiency of fertiliser use resulting in a decrease in fertiliser consumption), the effect of
the policy measures on emissions will be transparent, assuming the activity data are carefully documented. In
cases where policy measures have an indirect effect on activity data or emission factors (e.g. a change in animal
population feed practices to improve animal productivity that results in a change in N excretion per head),
inventory input data should reflect these effects. The inventory text should thoroughly explain the effect of the
policies on the input data.
D EVELOPING
C ONSISTENT T IME S ERIES
11.27
1
11.2.3.3
I NVENTORY
(QA/QC)
QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Tier 1 checks of the emission estimates should be undertaken by the persons preparing the inventory along with
expert review by people outside the inventory preparation process. Additional Tier 2 quality control checks and
quality assurance procedures may also be applicable, particularly if higher tier methods are used to determine
direct and indirect N2O emissions from this source category. Supplement the general QA/QC related to data
processing, handling, and reporting, with source-specific category procedures discussed below. The persons who
collect data are responsible for reviewing the data collection methods, checking the data to ensure that they are
collected and aggregated or disaggregated correctly, and cross-checking the data with previous years to ensure
that the data are reasonable. The basis for the estimates, whether statistical surveys or desk estimates, must be
reviewed and described as part of the QC effort. Documentation is a crucial component of the review process
because it enables reviewers to identify mistakes and suggest improvements.
13
14
15
Review of emission factors
16
17
18
19
If using country-specific factors, the inventory compiler should compare them to the IPCC default emission
factors. Also, if accessible, relate to country-specific emission factors used by other countries with comparable
circumstances. Differences between country-specific factors and default or other country factors should be
explained and documented.
20
21
22
23
Review of any direct measurements
24
25
The QA/QC protocol in effect at the sites should also be reviewed and the resulting estimates compared between
sites and with default-based estimates.
26
27
28
Activity data check
29
30
The inventory compiler should ensure that N excretion data are consistent with those used for the manure
management systems source category.
31
National crop production statistics should be compared to FAO crop production statistics.
32
33
The inventory compiler should ensure that the QA/QC has been completed for livestock characterisation,
because data are shared with the livestock section.
34
35
Country-specific values for various parameters should be compared to IPCC defaults and any significant
differences explained.
36
37
38
39
External review
40
11.2.3.4
41
DIRECT AND INDIRECT N 2 O EMISSIONS
42
43
44
45
46
Document and archive all information required to produce the national emissions inventory estimates. Direct and
indirect N2O emissions from managed soils are reported in aggregate or disaggregated by land-use category or
other subcategory (e.g., ricelands) under the IPCC category AFOLU. Reporting should be done at the same
level of disaggregation as was done when calculating the emissions. In addition to completing the reporting
formats, the following additional information is necessary to document the estimate:
47
48
49
50
Activity data: Sources of all activity data used in the calculations (i.e. complete citations for the statistical
databases from which data were collected), and in cases when activity data were not available directly from
databases, the information and assumptions that were used to derive the activity data. This documentation should
include the frequency of data collection and estimation, and estimates of accuracy and precision.
The inventory compiler should review the default emission factors and document the rationale for selecting
specific values.
If using factors based on direct measurements, the inventory compiler should review the measurements to ensure
that they are representative of the actual range of environmental and soil management conditions, and interannual climatic variability, and were developed according to recognised standards (IAEA, 1992).
The inventory compiler should compare country-specific data on synthetic fertiliser consumption with fertiliser
usage data from the IFA and synthetic fertiliser consumption estimates from the FAO.
The inventory compiler should conduct expert (peer) review when first adopting or revising the method. Given
the complexity and uniqueness of the parameters used in calculating country-specific factors for these categories,
specialists in the field should be involved in such reviews.
11.28
R EPORTING
AND
D OCUMENTATION

1
2
3
4
5
6
Emission factors: The sources of the emission factors that were used (specific IPCC default values or
otherwise). In inventories in which country- or region-specific emission factors were used, or in which new
methods (other than the default IPCC methods) were used, the scientific basis of these emission factors and
methods should be completely described and documented. This includes defining the input parameters and
describing the process by which these emission factors and methods are derived, as well as describing sources
and magnitudes of uncertainties.
7
8
9
10
Emission results: Significant fluctuations in emissions between years should be explained. A distinction should
be made between changes in activity levels and changes in emission, volatilisation and leaching factors from
year to year, and the reasons for these changes documented. If different factors are used for different years, the
reasons for this should be explained and documented.
11
12
11.3 CO 2 EMISSIONS FROM LIMING
13
14
15
16
Liming is used to reduce soil acidity and improve plant growth in managed systems, particularly agricultural
lands and managed forests. Adding carbonates to soils in the form of lime (e.g., calcic limestone (CaCO3), or
dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2) leads to CO2 emissions as the carbonate limes dissolve and release bicarbonate (2HCO3), which evolves into CO2 and water (H2O).
17
18
19
and resources than the previous one. It is good practice for countries to use higher tiers if CO2 emissions from
liming are a key source category.
20
11.3.1
21
A decision tree is provided in Figure 11.4 to assist inventory compilers with selection of the appropriate tier.
22
Tier 1: CO2 Emissions from additions of carbonate limes to soils can be estimated with Equation 11.12:
23
24
Choice of Method
EQUATION 11.12
ANNUAL CARBON EMISSIONS FROM LIME APPLICATION (CO2)
CO2 - C Emission = (M Limestone EFLimestone ) + (M Dolomite EFDolomite )
25
26
Where:
27
CO2-C Emission = annual C emissions from lime application, tonnes C yr-1
28
M = annual amount of calcic limestone (CaCO3) or dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2), tonnes yr-1
29
EF = emission factor, tonne of C per tonne of limestone or dolomite
30
31
32
Procedural Steps for Calculations
33
34
35
36
37
38
Step 1: Estimate the total amount (M) of carbonate containing lime applied annually to soils in the country,
differentiating between limestone and dolomite (Note: M should include all lime applied to soils even the
proportion applied in mixture with fertilizers). Note that while carbonate limes are the dominant liming material
used in managed systems, oxides (e.g. CaO) and hydroxides of lime are used to a limited extent for soil liming.
These materials do not contain inorganic carbon and are not included in calculations for estimating CO2
emissions from application to soils (CO2 is produced in their manufacture but not following soil application).
39
40
41
42
43
Step 2: Apply an overall emission factor (EF) of 0.12 for limestone and 0.13 for dolomite. These are equivalent
to carbonate carbon contents of the materials (12% for CaCO3, 13% for CaMg(CO3)2 )). The uncertainty is -50%
based on approximations suggesting emissions may be less than half of the maximum value, which is the current
factor value (West and McBride, 2005) (Note: uncertainties can not exceed the emission factors because these
value represent the absolute maximum emissions associated with liming).
44
45
Step 3: Multiply the total amounts of limestone and dolomite by their respective emission factors, and sum the
two values to obtain the total CO2-C emission.
46
Multiply by 44/12 to convert CO2-C emissions into CO2.
The steps for estimating CO2-C emissions from liming are:
11.29
1
2
Tier 2: Tier 2 inventories also use Equation 11.12 and procedural steps, which were provided in the Tier 1
approach, but incorporate country-specific data to derive emission factors (EF).
3
4
5
6
7
Overall, the CO2 emissions from liming are expected to be less than using the Tier 1 approach, which assumes
that all C in applied lime is emitted as CO2 in the year of application. However, emissions are likely to be less
than assumed using the Tier 1 approach because the amount of CO2 emitted after liming will depend on sitespecific influences and transport of dissolved inorganic C through rivers and lakes to the ocean. Tier 2 emission
factors could be used to better approximate the emissions.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Tier 3: Tier 3 methods use more sophisticated models or measurement procedures, and the procedural steps will
depend on the country-specific estimation system. Such an analysis would likely necessitate modelling carbon
fluxes associated with primary and secondary carbonate mineral formation and dissolution in soils, as well as the
leaching and transport of dissolved inorganic C. Note that increases in soil inorganic C or dissolved inorganic C
attributed to liming does not constitute a net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. Rather, carbonate-C from
liming that is not returned to the atmosphere is considered a net reduction in the emissions associated with this
practice. See the Tier 3 section for soil inorganic C in Chapter 2 for additional discussion (Section 2.3.3.1 on
Change in Soil C Stocks).
16
11.3.2
17
Tier 1: Default emission factors (EF) are 0.12 for limestone and 0.13 for dolomite.
18
19
20
21
Tier 2: Derivation of emission factors using country-specific data could entail differentiation of sources with
variable compositions of lime; different carbonate liming materials (limestone as well as other sources such as
marl and shell deposits) can vary somewhat in their C content and overall purity. Each material would have a
unique emission factor based on the C content.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Country-specific emission factors could also account for the proportion of carbonate-C from liming that is
emitted to the atmosphere as CO2 (e.g., West and McBride, 2005). Dissolved inorganic C in soils can form
secondary minerals and precipitate with the Ca or Mg that was added during liming. Furthermore, dissolved
inorganic C (bicarbonate) can be transported with Ca and Mg through the soil to deep groundwater, lakes and
eventually to the ocean (Robertson and Grace, 2004). In either case, the net emission of CO2 to the atmosphere
is less than the original amount of C added as lime. Country-specific emission factors can be derived if there are
sufficient data and understanding of inorganic carbon transformations, in addition to knowledge about transport
of aqueous Ca, Mg, and inorganic C. It is good practice to document the source of information and method used
for deriving country-specific values in the reporting process.
31
32
Tier 3: Tier 3 approaches are based on estimating variable emissions from year to year, which depends on a
variety of site specific characteristics and environmental drivers. No emission factors are directly estimated.
33
11.3.3
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Tier 1: Optimally, national usage statistics for carbonate lime would be available to determine the amount
applied annually to soils (M). These data provide the most direct inference on application. Alternatively, annual
sales of carbonate lime may be used to infer the amount that is applied to soils, under the assumption that all
lime sold to farmers, ranchers, foresters, etc. is applied during that year. It is also possible to approximate
carbonate lime application based on lime availability on an annual basis. Availability is computed based on the
new supply for that year (annual domestic mining and import records) minus exports and usage in industrial
processes. In the last approach, it is assumed that all available lime is applied in the year of interest.
41
42
43
44
45
Usage statistics may be gathered as part of the national census or enterprise records, while banks and the lime
industry should have information on sales and domestic production. Import/export records are typically
maintained by customs or similar organizations in the government. It is good practice to average data records
over three years (current year and two most recent) if emissions are not computed on an annual basis for
reporting purposes.
46
47
48
Tier 2: In addition to the activity data that are described for Tier 1, Tier 2 may incorporate information on the
purity of carbonate limes as well as site-level and hydrological characteristics to estimate the proportion of
carbonate-C in lime applications that is emitted to the atmosphere.
49
50
51
Tier 3: For Tier 3 model-based and/or direct measurement-based inventories, it is likely that more detailed
activity data are needed, relative to Tier 1 or 2 methods, but the exact requirements will be dependent on the
model or measurement design.
52
11.30

1
2
3
Figure 11.4 Decision tree for identification of appropriate tier to estimate CO 2 emissions from
liming.
4
5
START
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Box 3: Tier 3
Are detailed
data on lime application available
and information to estimate carbonate mineral
formation/dissolution, leaching and transport of
inorganic C (for application of models and/or
measurement-based
approaches)?
YES
Use the detailed activity

data for Tier 3 model-based
and/or direct measurementbased method
13
14
NO
15
16
17
18
Box 2: Tier 2
Are
country-specific data and
emission factor
available?
YES
Use country-specific data

and emission factor for the
Tier 2 method
19
20
21
NO
22
23
24
25
Are CO2
emissions from liming a key
category (Note 1)?
Are data
to derive emission
factor available?
NO
26
27
NO
Gather data to
allow derivation of
emission factor
YES
28
YES
29
30
31
32
33

3 or Tier 2 method
Use data to derive emission
factor for Tier 1 method
34
Box 1: Tier 1
35
36
37
38
39
11.31
1
11.3.4
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Two sources of uncertainty exist for CO2 emissions from liming: 1) uncertainties in the amount of carbonate
lime applied to soils; and 2) uncertainties in the net amount of carbonate-C from liming applications that is
emitted as CO2. Activity data uncertainties depend on the accuracy of application statistics, sales, import/export
records, mining records, and/or usage data. Usage data have the least uncertainty because sales, import/export
and mining records have additional uncertainties due to no direct inference about application. Inventory
compilers may use a conservative approach and assume that all lime available for application or purchased is
applied to soils. This approach may over- or under-estimate emissions in individual years if the total amount of
lime available or purchased is not applied in a particular year. Over the long term, this bias should be negligible,
however, assuming there is no long-term stockpiling of lime. Alternatively, inventory compilers can address
uncertainties in both the amount of lime available for application and the amount applied in a particular
inventory year.
13
14
15
16
17
18
Uncertainties in the net amount of C added to soils from liming that is emitted as CO2 are dependent on the Tier.
Using the Tier 1 method, it is assumed all C in the lime is emitted as CO2 to the atmosphere. This is a
conservative approach, and the default emission factors are considered certain given this assumption. In
practice, however, some of the C in lime is likely to be retained in the soil as inorganic C and not emitted as
CO2, at least in the year of application. Consequently, default emission factors can lead to systematic biases in
the emission estimates.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It is good practice, therefore, to develop country-specific emission factors or advanced estimation approaches
with Tier 2 or 3 methods, particularly if liming is a key source. While the higher tier approaches are likely to
limit bias, there may be additional uncertainties associated with these approaches that will need to be addressed.
Those uncertainties can stem from insufficient data on site characteristics, hydrology and other environmental
variables, which influences the transport and conversion of inorganic C into CO2. There may also be
uncertainties due to insufficient knowledge about the processes and/or ability of country-specific emission
factors or advanced estimation systems to represent the fate of C added to soils in carbonate limes.
26
11.3.5
27
11.3.5.1
C OMPLETENESS
28
29
30
31
32
33
Tier 1: Tier 1 inventories are complete if emissions are computed based on a full accounting of all limestone and
dolomite applied to soils. Carbonate lime usage statistics provide the most direct inference on applications to
soils. However, sales records or mining data combined with import/export and industrial processing records
provide sufficient information to approximate the amount of lime applied to soils. If current data are not
sufficient due to incomplete records, it is good practice to gather additional data for future inventory reporting,
particularly if liming C emissions are a key source category.
34
35
36
37
Tier 2: Completeness in Tier 2 inventories is dependent on the adequacy of the activity data (see Tier 1), but will
also depend on additional country-specific data that were used to refine emission factors. This may include the
availability of data about the purity of lime and/or site-level and hydrological data to better specify emission
factors relating the amount of CO2 released per amount of C added to soils in carbonate lime.
38
39
40
41
42
Tier 3: Beyond the considerations for Tier 1 and 2, completeness of Tier 3 inventories is also dependent on the
data needs and representativeness of the measurement design and/or modelling framework. Inventory compilers
should review their approach and determine if the advanced estimation system are adequate to address the net
release of CO2 from carbonate limes applied to soils. If gaps or limitations are identified, it is good practice to
gather additional data so that the fate of liming carbonates is fully addressed by the Tier 3 method.
43
11.3.5.2
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Tier 1: The same activity data and emissions factors should be applied across the entire time series for
consistency. At the Tier 1 level, default emission factors are used so consistency is not an issue for this
component. However, the basis for the activity data may change if new data are gathered, such as a statistical
survey compiling information on applications to soils versus older activity data relying strictly on mining and
import/export records. While it is good practice for the same data protocols and procedures to be used across the
entire time series, in some cases this may not be possible, and inventory compilers should determine the
influence of changing data sources on the trends. Guidance on recalculation for these circumstances is presented
in Volume 1, Chapter 5.
11.32
T IME S ERIES C ONSISTENCY

1
2
3
4
5
Tier 2: Consistency in activity data records across the time series is important for Tier 2 inventories (see Tier 1).
In addition, new factors that are developed based on country-specific data should also be applied across the
entire time series. In rare cases when this is not possible, inventory compilers should determine the influence of
changing emission factors on the trends; additional guidance on recalculation for these circumstances can be
found in Volume 1, Chapter 5.
6
7
8
Tier 3: Similar to Tier 2, it is good practice to apply the country-specific estimation system throughout the entire
time series; inventory agencies should use the same measurement protocols (sampling strategy, method, etc.)
and/or model-based system throughout the inventory time period.
11.3.5.3
Q UALITY A SSURANCE /Q UALITY C ONTROL
10
11
12
13
Tier 1: It is good practice to implement Quality Assurance/Quality Controls with internal and independent
reviews of inventory data and results, ensuring: 1) activity data have been processed appropriately to estimate
application to soils, 2) activity data have been properly transcribed into the worksheets or inventory computation
software, and 3) emission factors have been assigned appropriately.
14
15
16
17
18
Internal reviews should be conducted by the inventory compiler(s), and may involve visual inspection as well as
built-in program functions to check data entry and results. Independent reviews are conducted by other agencies,
experts or groups who are not directly involved with the compilation. These reviews need to consider the
validity of the inventory approach, thoroughness of inventory documentation, methods explanation and overall
transparency.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Tier 2: In addition to the Quality Assurance/Quality Control measures under Tier 1, the inventory compiler
should review the country-specific emission factors for Tier 2 inventories. If using factors based on direct
measurements, the inventory compiler should review the measurements to ensure that they are representative of
the actual range of environmental conditions. If accessible, it is good practice to compare the country-specific
factors with Tier 2 emission factors used by other countries with comparable circumstances, in addition to the
IPCC defaults. Given the complexity of inorganic C transformation, specialists in the field should be involved in
the review process to provide an independent critique of the emission factors.
26
27
28
29
Assurance/Quality Control protocol that is specific to the countrys advanced estimation system, archive the
30
11.3.5.4
31
32
33
Tier 1: For Tier 1, inventory compilers should document trends and uncertainties in carbon lime applications to
soils and relate those patterns to the CO2 emission trends. Significant fluctuations in annual emissions across the
time series should be explained.
34
35
36
37
It is good practice to archive actual databases, such as mining records or usage statistics from surveys, and
procedures used to process the data (e.g., statistical programs). The worksheets or inventory software, which was
used to estimate emissions, should be archived along with input/output files that were generated to produce the
results.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Tier 2: In addition to the considerations for Tier 1, inventory compilers should document the underlying basis
for country-specific emission factors, as well as archive metadata and data sources used to estimate countryspecific values. Reporting documentation should include the new factors (i.e., means and uncertainties), and it is
good practice to include a discussion in the inventory report about differences between these values and default
factors or country-specific factors from regions with similar circumstances to those of the reporting country.
47
48
49
When discussing trends in emissions and removals from year to year, a distinction should be made between
changes in activity levels and changes in methods, including emission factors, and the reasons for these changes
need to be documented.
50
51
52
Tier 3: Tier 3 inventories need similar documentation about activity data and emission/removal trends as lower
of country-specific estimation systems. With measurement-based inventories, it is good practice to document the
R EPORTING
AND
D OCUMENTATION
11.33
1
2
3
4
sampling design, laboratory procedures and data analysis techniques. Measurement data should be archived,
along with results from data analyses. For Tier 3 approaches using modelling, it is good practice to document
the model version and provide a model description, as well as permanently archive copies of all model input
files, source code and executable programs.
5
6
11.4 CO 2 EMISSIONS FROM UREA FERTILIZATION
7
8
9
10
11
Adding urea to soils during fertilisation leads to a loss of CO2 that was fixed in the industrial production process.
Urea (CO(NH2)2) is converted into ammonium (NH4+), hydroxyl ion (OH-), and bicarbonate (HCO3-), in the
presence of water and urease enzymes. Similar to the soil reaction following addition of lime, bicarbonate that is
formed evolves into CO2 and water. This source category is included because the CO2 removal from the
atmosphere during urea manufacturing is estimated in the Industrial Processes and Product Use Sector.
12
13
14
and resources than the previous. It is good practice for countries to use higher tiers if CO2 emissions from urea
are a key source category.
15
11.4.1
16
A decision tree is provided in Figure 11.5 to assist inventory compilers with selection of the appropriate tier.
17
Tier 1: CO2 emissions from urea fertilisation can be estimated with Equation 11.13:
Choice of Method
18
19
EQUATION 11.13
ANNUAL CARBON EMISSIONS FROM UREA APPLICATION (CO2)
20
CO2 - C Emission = M EF
21
Where:
22
CO2-C Emission = annual C emissions from urea application, tonnes C yr-1
23
M = annual amount of urea fertilisation, tonnes urea yr-1
24
EF = emission factor, tonne of C per tonne of urea.
25
26
27
P ro ce du ra l S t e ps f o r C a l cu la t ion s
The steps for estimating CO2-C emissions from urea applications are:
28
Step 1: Estimate the total amount of urea applied annually to a soil in the country (M).
29
30
31
32
Step 2: Apply an overall emission factor (EF) of 0.20 for urea, which is equivalent to the carbon content of urea
on an atomic weight basis (20% for CO(NH2)2). A default -50% uncertainty may be applied (Note: uncertainties
can not exceed the default emission factor because this value represents the absolute maximum emissions
associated with urea fertilization).
33
34
Step 3: Estimate the total CO2-C emission based on the product of the amount of urea applied and the emission
factor.
35
36
37
38
Multiply by 44/12 to convert CO2-C emissions into CO2. Urea is often applied in combination with other
nitrogenous fertilizers, particularly in solutions, and it will be necessary to estimate the proportion of urea in the
fertilizer solution for M. If the proportion is not known, it is considered good practice to assume that the entire
solution is urea, rather than potentially under-estimating emissions for this sub-category.
39
40
Tier 2: Tier 2 inventories also use Equation 11.13 and procedural steps, which were provided in the Tier 1
approach, but incorporate country-specific information to estimate emission factors.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Tier 3: CO2 emissions from urea applications could be estimated with more detailed models or measurements
that incorporate the possibility of bicarbonate leaching to deep groundwater, and/or lakes and oceans, and thus
not contributing to CO2 emissions, at least not immediately. Note that increases in soil inorganic C from urea
fertilization do not represent a net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. The removal is estimated in the
industrial sector, and the computations for soils only provide estimates of the amount of emissions associated
with this practice. See the Tier 3 section for soil inorganic C in Chapter 2 for additional discussion (Section
2.3.3 on Change in Soil C Stocks).
11.34

11.4.2
Tier 1: The default emission factor (EF) is 0.20 for carbon emissions from urea applications.
3
4
5
6
Tier 2: Similar to carbonate limes, all C in urea may not be emitted in the year of application. If sufficient data
and understanding of inorganic C transformation are available, country-specific specific emission factors could
be derived. It is good practice to document the source of information and method used for deriving countryspecific values as part of the reporting process.
7
8
Tier 3: Tier 3 approaches are based on estimating variable emissions from year to year, which depends on a
variety of site specific characteristics and environmental drivers. No emission factors are directly estimated.
11.4.3
10
11
12
13
14
15
Tier 1: Domestic production records and import/export data on urea can be used to obtain an approximate
estimate of the amount of urea applied to soils on an annual basis (M). It can be assumed that all urea fertiliser
produced or imported annually minus annual exports is applied to soils. However, supplemental data on sales
and/or usage of urea can be used to refine the calculation, instead of assuming all available urea in a particular
year is immediately added to soils. Regardless of the approach, the annual application estimates for urea
fertilizers should be consistent between CO2 emission from urea and N2O emissions from soils.
16
17
18
19
20
Usage statistics may be gathered as part of the national census or through enterprise records, while banks and the
fertilizer industry should have information on sales and domestic production. Import/export records are typically
maintained by customs or similar organizations in the government. It is good practice to average data records
over three years (current year and two most recent) if emissions are not computed on an annual basis for
reporting purposes.
21
22
23
Tier 2: In addition to the activity data described for Tier 1, Tier 2 may incorporate additional information on
site-level and hydrological characteristics that were used to estimate the proportion of C in urea that is emitted to
the atmosphere.
24
25
26
Tier 3: For application of dynamic models and/or a direct measurement-based inventory in Tier 3, it is likely that
more detailed activity data are needed, relative to Tier 1 or 2 methods, but the exact requirements will be
dependent on the model or measurement design.
27
11.4.4
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Two sources of uncertainty exist for CO2 emissions from urea: 1) uncertainties in the amount of urea applied to
soils, and 2) uncertainties in the net amount of urea-C that is emitted as CO2. Activity data uncertainties will
depend on the accuracy of production, sales, import/export, and/or usage data. Usage and sales data are likely to
have the least uncertainty; import/export and production data have additional uncertainties due to inferences
about application. Inventory compilers may use a conservative approach and assume that all urea available for
application or purchased is applied to soils. This approach may create over- or underestimates in individual
years if the total amount of urea available or purchased is not applied in a particular year. Over the longer-term
this bias should be negligible, however, assuming there is no long-term stockpiling of urea fertiliser.
Alternatively, inventory compilers can address uncertainties in both the amount of urea available for application
and the amount applied in a particular inventory year.
38
39
40
41
42
43
Uncertainties in the net amount of C added to soils from urea fertilization that is emitted as CO2 are dependent
on the Tier. Using the Tier 1 method, it is assumed all C in the urea is lost as CO2 from the atmosphere. This is
a conservative approach, and the default emission factors are considered certain (given this assumption). In
practice, however, some of the C in urea may be retained in the soil as inorganic C and not emitted as CO2, at
least in the year of application. Consequently, default emission factors can lead to systematic biases in the
emission estimates.
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
It is good practice, therefore, to develop country-specific emission factors or advanced estimation approaches
with Tier 2 or 3 methods, respectively, particularly if urea-C is a key source. While the higher tier approaches
are likely to limit bias, there are additional uncertainties that will need to be addressed. Those uncertainties can
stem from insufficient data on site characteristics, hydrology, and other environmental variables which
influences the transport and conversion of inorganic C into CO2. There may also be uncertainties due to
insufficient knowledge about the processes and/or the ability of country-specific emission factors or estimation
systems to represent the fate of urea-C.
51
11.35
1
2
3
Figure 11.5 Decision tree for identification of appropriate tier to estimate CO 2 emissions from
urea fertilisation
4
5
START
6
7
8
Box 3: Tier 3
Are detailed
data on urea application available and
information to estimate leaching and transport
of inorganic C (for application of models and/or
measurement-based
approaches)?
9
10
11
12
Use the detailed activity

data for Tier 3 model-based
and/or direct measurementbased method
YES
13
NO
14
Box 2: Tier 2
15
16
Are
country-specific data and
emission factor
available?
17
18
Use country-specific data

and emission factor for the
Tier 2 method
YES
19
20
NO
21
22
Are CO2
emissions from urea
fertilization a key category
(Note 1)?
23
24
NO
Are data
to derive emission
factor available?
NO
25
Gather data to
allow derivation of
emission factor
26
YES
27
YES
28
29

3 or Tier 2 method
30
31
Use data to derive emission

factor for Tier 1 method
32
33
Box 1: Tier 1
34
35
36
37
38
11.36

11.4.5
11.4.5.1
C OMPLETENESS
3
4
5
6
7
Tier 1: Tier 1 inventories are complete if emissions are computed based on a full accounting of all urea that is
applied to soils. Urea usage statistics or sales provide the most direct inference on applications to soils, but
production and import/export records are sufficient for making an approximate estimate of the amount of urea
applied to soils. If current data are not sufficient due to incomplete records, it is good practice to gather
additional data for future inventory reporting, particularly if urea-C emissions are a key source category.
8
9
10
11
Tier 2: Completeness in Tier 2 inventories is also dependent on the adequacy of the activity data (see Tier 1),
but will also depend on additional country-specific data that was used to refine emission factors. This may
include the availability of data about site-level and hydrological data that are used to better specify emission
factors relating the amount of CO2 released per amount of urea-C added to soils.
12
13
14
15
16
Tier 3: Beyond the considerations for Tier 1 and 2, completeness of Tier 3 inventories is also dependent on the
data needs and representativeness of the measurement design and/or modelling framework. Inventory compilers
should review their approach and determine if the advanced estimation system is adequate to address the net
release of CO2 from urea applied to soils. If gaps or limitations are identified, it is good practice to gather
additional data so that the fate of urea-C is fully addressed by the Tier 3 method.
17
11.4.5.2
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Tier 1: The same activity data and emissions factors should be applied across the entire time series for
consistency. At the Tier 1 level, default emission factors are used so consistency is not an issue for this
component. However, the basis for the activity data may change if new data are gathered, such as a statistical
survey compiling information on urea applications to soils versus older activity relying strictly on domestic
production and import/export data. While it is good practice for the same data protocols and procedures to be
used across the entire time series, in some cases this may not be possible, and inventory compilers should
determine the influence of changing data sources on the trends. Guidance on recalculation for these
circumstances is presented in Volume 1 of Chapter 5.
26
27
28
29
30
Tier 2: Consistency in activity data records across the time series is important for Tier 2 inventories (see Tier 1).
In addition, new factors that are developed based on country-specific data should be applied across the entire
time series. In rare cases when this is not possible, inventory compilers should determine the influence of
changing emission factors on the trends; additional guidance on recalculation for these circumstances can be
found in Volume 1, Chapter 5.
31
32
33
Tier 3: Similar to Tier 2, it is good practice to apply the country-specific estimation system throughout the entire
time series; inventory agencies should use the same measurement protocols (sampling strategy, method, etc.)
and/or model-based system throughout the inventory time period.
34
11.4.5.3
35
36
37
38
Tier 1: It is good practice to implement Quality Assurance/Quality Controls with internal and independent
reviews of inventory data and results, ensuring 1) activity data have been processed appropriately to estimate
application to soils, 2) activity data have been properly transcribed into the worksheets or inventory computation
software, and 3) emission factors have been assigned appropriately.
39
40
41
42
43
Internal reviews should be conducted by the inventory compiler(s), and may involve visual inspection as well as
built-in program functions to check data entry and results. Independent reviews are conducted by other agencies,
experts or groups who are not directly involved with the compilation. These reviews need to consider the
validity of the inventory approach, thoroughness of inventory documentation, methods explanation and overall
transparency.
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Tier 2: In addition to the Quality Assurance/Quality Control measures under Tier 1, the inventory compiler
should review the country-specific emission factors for Tier 2 inventories. If using factors based on direct
measurements, the inventory compiler should review the measurements to ensure that they are representative of
the actual range of environmental conditions. If accessible, it is good practice to compare the country-specific
factors with Tier 2 emission factors used by other countries with comparable circumstances, in addition to the
IPCC defaults. Given the complexity of inorganic C transformations, specialists in the field should be involved
in the review process, to provide an independent critique of the emission factors.
T IME S ERIES C ONSISTENCY
Q UALITY A SSURANCE /Q UALITY C ONTROL
11.37
1
2
3
4
Assurance/Quality Control protocol that is specific to the countrys advanced estimation system, archive the
11.4.5.4
6
7
8
Tier 1: For Tier 1, inventory compilers should document trends and uncertainties in urea applications to soils
and relate those patterns to the CO2 emission trends. Significant fluctuations in annual emissions across the time
series should be explained.
9
10
11
12
It is good practice to archive databases, such as domestic production, import/export records or usage statistics
from surveys, and procedures used to process the data (e.g., statistical programs). The worksheets or inventory
software, which was used to estimate emissions, should be archived along with the input/output files that were
generated to produce the results.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Tier 2: In addition to the considerations for Tier 1, inventory compilers should document the underlying basis
for country-specific emission factors, as well as archive metadata and data sources used to estimate countryspecific values. Reporting documentation should include the new factors (i.e., means and uncertainties), and it is
good practice to include a discussion in the inventory report about differences between country-specific factors
and default values or country-specific factors from regions with similar circumstances to those of the reporting
country.
23
24
25
When discussing trends in emissions and removals from year to year, a distinction should be made between
changes in activity levels and changes in methods, including emission factors, and the reasons for these changes
need to be documented.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Tier 3: Tier 3 inventories need similar documentation about activity data and emission/removal trends as lower
for country-specific estimation systems. With measurement-based inventories, it is good practice to document
the sampling design, laboratory procedures and data analysis techniques. Measurement data should be archived,
along with results from data analyses. For Tier 3 approaches using modelling, it is good practice to document
the model version and provide a model description, as well as to permanently archive copies of all model input
files, source code and executable programs.
R EPORTING
AND
D OCUMENTATION
33
11.38

References
2
3
4
Aitkenhead-Peterson, J.A., Alexander, J.E. and Clair, T.A. 2005. Disssolved organic carbon and dissolved
organic nitrogen export from forested watersheds in Nova Scotia: Identifying controlling factors. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles, 19, GB4016, doi:10.10.1029/2004GB002438.
5
6
Akiyama, H., Yagi, K. and Yan, X. 2005. Direct N2O emission from rice paddy fields: Summary of available
data. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles, 19(1), art. no. GB1005.
7
8
Alm, J., Saarnio, S., Nykanen, H., Silvola J., and Martikainen, P. J. 1999. Winter CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes on
some natural and drained boreal peatlands. Biogeochem. 44, 163-186.
9
10
Bouwman, A.F. 1996. Direct emissions of nitrous oxide from agricultural soils. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 52,
107-121.
11
12
Bouwman, A.F., Boumans, L.J.M. and Batjes, N.H. 2002a. Emissions of N2O and NO from fertilised fields:
Summary of available measurement data. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles, 16(4), art. no. 1058.
13
14
Bouwman, A.F., Boumans, L.J.M. and Batjes, N.H. 2002b. Modeling global annual N2O and NO emissions from
fertilised fields. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles, 16(4), art. no. 1080.
15
16
Brumme, R., Borken, W., Finke, S., 1999. Hierarchical control on nitrous oxide emission in forest ecosystems.
Global Biochem. Cycles 13, 11371148.
17
18
19
Butterbach-Bahl, K., Gasche, R., Breuer, L., Papen, H., 1997. Fluxes of NO and N2O from temperate forest
soils: impact of forest type, N deposition and of liming on the NO and N2O emissions. Nutr. Cycl.
Agroecosyst. 48, 7990.
20
21
Clough, T., Bertram, J.E., Sherlock, R.R., Leonard, R.L. and Nowicki, B.L. Comparison of measured and EF5r-derived N2O fluxes from a spring-fed river. Glob. Change Biol. 12 (in press).
22
23
Corre, M.D., Pennock, D.J., Kessel, C. van., Elliott, D.K., 1999. Estimation of annual nitrous oxide emissions
from a transitional grassland-forest region in Saskatchewan, Canada. Biogeochem. 44, 2949.
24
25
Davies, M.G., Smith, K.A. and Vinten, A.J.A. 2001. The mineralisation and fate of N following ploughing of
grass and grass-clover swards. Biol. Fertil. Soils, 33, 423-434.
26
27
de Klein C.A.M. 2004. Review of the N2O emission factor for excreta deposited by grazing animals (EF3PRP).
Paper prepared as part of the 2006 Revised Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Inventories of IPCC.
28
29
Denier van der Gon, H and Bleeker A. 2005. Indirect N2O emission due to atmospheric N deposition for the
Netherlands. Atmos. Environ. 39, 5827-5838.
30
31
Dong, L.F., Nedwell, D.B., Colbeck, I. and Finch, J. 2004. Nitrous oxide emission from some English and Welsh
rivers and estuaries. Water Air Soil Pollution: Focus 4, 127-134.
32
33
Ducharne, A. and Laval, K. 2000. Influence of the realistic description of soil water-holding capacity on the
global water cycle in a JCM. J. Climate, 13, 4393-4413.
34
35
FAO. 1998. World Reference Base for Soil Resources. World Soil Resources Reports 84. FAO, Rome. 88pp.
(ISBN 92-5-104141-5).
36
37
Garten, C.T., Cooper, L.W., Post, W.M. and Hanson, P.J. 2000. Climate controls on forest soil C isotope ratios
in the southern Appalachian mountains. Ecology, 81, 1108-1119.
38
39
40
41
Hiscock, K.M., Bateman, A.S., Fukada, T. and Dennis, P.F. 2002. The concentration and distribution of
groundwater N2O in the Chalk aquifer of eastern England. In: Van Ham, J., Baede, A.P.M., Guicherit, R. and
Williams-Jacobse, J.G.F.M. (eds.), Proc. 3rd Internat. Symp. Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases, Maastricht, The
Netherlands, 185-190.
42
43
Hiscock, K.M., Bateman, A.S., Muhlherr, I.H., Fukada, T. and Dennis, P.F. 2003. Indirect emissions of nitrous
oxide
from regional aquifers in the United Kingdom. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37, 3507-3512.
44
45
IPCC. 2000. Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (GPG-LULUCF). IPCC,
Kaganawa, Japan.
46
47
John, B., Yamashita, T., Ludwig, B and Flessa, H. 2005. Storage of organic carbon in aggregate and density
fractions of silty soils under different types of land use. Geoderma, 128, 63-79.
48
Klemedtsson, L., Kasimir Klemedtsson, A., Escala, M. and Kulmala, A. 1999. Inventory of N2O emission from
11.39
1
2
3
farmed European peatlands. In: Freibauer, A. and Kaltschmitt, M. (eds.), Approaches to Greenhouse Gas
Inventories of Biogenic Sources in Agriculture, Proc. Workshop at Lkeberg, Sweden, 9-10 July 1998, pp.
79-91.
4
5
6
7
Klemedtsson, L., Weslien, P., Arnold, K., Agren, G., Nilsson, M. and Hanell, B. 2002. Greenhouse gas
emissionsfrom drained forests in Sweden. In: Olsson M. (ed.) Land-use strategies for reckoning net
greenhouse gas emissions. Mistra Programme: Progress report 1999 2002. Swedish Univ. Agric. Sciences,
Uppsala: pp. 44-67.
8
9
Lobe, I., Amelung, W. and Du Preez, C.C. 2001. Losses of carbon and nitrogen with prolonged arable cropping
from sandy soils of the South African Highveld. European Journal of Soil Science, 52, 93-101.
10
11
12
Laine, J., Silvola, J., Tolonen, K., Alm, J., Nykanen, H., Vasander, H., Sallantaus, T., Savolainen, I., Sinisalo, J.,
and Martikainen, P. J. 1996. Effect of water-level drawdown on global climatic warming northern
peatlands. Ambio 25, 179-184.
13
14
Martikainen, P. J., Nykanen, H., Alm, J., and Silvola, J. 1995. Change in fluxes of carbon dioxide, methane and
nitrous oxide due to forest drainage of mire sites of different trophy. Plant Soil 169, 571-577.
15
16
Minkkinen, K., Korhonen, K., Savolainen, I. and Laine J. 2002. Carbon balance and radiative forcing of Finnish
peatlands 1900-2100: the impact of forestry drainage. Glob. Change Biol. 8, 785-799.
17
18
Novoa, R. and Tejeda, H.R. Evaluation of the N2O emissions from N in plant residues as affected by
environmental and management factors. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. (in press).
19
20
Reay, D.S., Smith, K.A. and Edwards, A.C. 2004. Nitrous oxide in agricultural drainage waters following field
fertilisation. Water Air Soil Pollution: Focus, 4, 437-451.
21
22
Reay, D., Smith, K.A., Edwards, A.C., Hiscock, K.M., Dong, L.F. and Nedwell, D. 2005. Indirect nitrous oxide
emissions: revised emission factors. Environ. Sciences, 2, 153-158.
23
24
25
Regina, K., Nyknen, H., Silvola, J. and Martikainen, P. J. 1996. Nitrous oxide production in boreal peatlands of
different hydrology and nutrient status. In: Northern peatlands in global climatic change. Proc. Internat.
Workshop, Academy of Finland, Hyytil: pp. 158-166.
26
27
Robertson, G.P. and Grace, P.R. 2004. Greenhouse gas fluxes in tropical and temperate agriculture: the need for
a full-cost accounting of global warming potentials. Environ. Develop. Sustain. 6, 51-63.
28
29
Rochette, P and Janzen, H.H. 2005. Towards a revised coefficient for estimating N2O emissions from legumes.
Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst., 73, 171-179.
30
31
32
Snowdon, P., Ryan, P. and Raison, J. 2005. Review of C:N ratios in vegetation, litter and soil under Australian
native forests and plantations. National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report No. 45, Australian
Greenhouse Office, Canberra.
33
34
35
Sawamoto, T., Nakajima, Y., Kasuya, M., Tsuruta, H. and Yagi, K. 2005. Evaluation of emission factors for
indirect N2O emission due to nitrogen leaching in agro-ecosystems. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32(3),
doi:10.1029/2004GL021625.
36
37
Smith, K.A.and Conen, F. 2004. Impacts of land management on fluxes of trace greenhouse gases. Soil Use
Manage., 20, 255-263.
38
39
40
Stehfest, E. and Bouwman, A.F. N2O and NO emission from agricultural fields and soils under natural
vegetation: summarising available measurement data and modelling of global annual emissions. Nutr. Cycl.
Agroecosyst., in press.
41
42
43
Trommer, J.T., Loper, J.E. and Hammett, K.M. 1996. Evaluation and modification of five techniques for
estimating stormwater runoff for watersheds in west central Florida. US Geol. Survey Water Resources
Investigations Report 96-4158, 37pp.
44
45
46
van der Weerden, T.J., Sherlock, R.R., Williams, P.H. and Cameron, K.C. 1999. Nitrous oxide emissions and
methane oxidation by soil following cultivation of two different leguminous pastures. Biol. Fertil. Soils, 30,
52-60.
47
48
Vanderlinden, K. Girldez, J.V. and Van Meirvenne, M. 2005. Soil water-holding capacity assessment in terms
of the average annual water balance in Southern Spain. Vadose Zone J., 4, 317-328.
49
50
West, T. O., and A. C. McBride. 2005. The contribution of agricultural lime to carbon dioxide emission in the
United States: dissolution, transport, and net emissions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 108, 145-154.
11.40

Annex 11A.1 References for Crop Residue Data in Table 11.2
2
3
4
5
I. Dry matter fraction of harvested product

Lander C.H., Moffitt D., and Alt K. (1998). Nutrients available from livestock manure relative to crop growth
requirements. Resource Assessment and Strategic Planning Working paper 98-1. USDA Natural Resource
Conservation Service. http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/pubs/nlweb.html
6
7
II. Above-ground residue dry matter
8
9
10
Ames J.W., and Simon R.H. (1924). Soil potassium as affected by fertilizer treatment and cropping. Bulletin
379. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster, Ohio.
11
12
Anonymous (1924). Forty-third annual report for 1923-24. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. 382.
Wooster, OH.
13
14
Anonymous (1926). Forty-fourth annual report for 1924-25. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. 392.
Wooster, OH.
15
16
17
Bustillo, J. J., and R. N. Gallaher. (1989). Dry matter Partitioning in No-tillage Tropical Corn in Florida. p.4042. In I. D. Teare, E. Brown, and C.A. Trimble (ed.) 1989 Southern Conservation Tillage Conference. SB 891. Tallahassee, FL. 12-13 July, 1989. Univ. of Fla., North Fla. Res. and Educ. Ctr., Quincy, FL 32351.
18
Buyanovsky, G.A. and Wagner G.H. (1986). Post-harvest residue input to cropland. Plant and Soil 93:57-65.
19
20
Donald C.M. and Hamblin J. (1976). The biological yield and harvest index of cereals as agronomic and plant
breeding criteria. Adv. Agron., 28: 361-405.
21
22
Fisher K.S., and Palmer A.F.E. (1983). Maize. In: Symposium on Potential Productivity of Field Crops Under
Different Environments. International Rice Research Institute, Manilla, Phillipines.
23
24
Graybill J.S., Cox W.J., and Otis D.J. (1991). Yield and quality of forage maize as influenced by hybrid, planting
date, and plant density. Agronomy Journal, 83: 559-564.
25
26
Hutcheson T.B., Hodgson E.R., and Wolfe T.K. (1917). Corn culture. Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station
Bull. 214. Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, VA.
27
28
Jones J.N. Jr., Moody J.E., and Lillard J.H. (1969). Effects of tillage, no tillage, and mulch on soil water and
plant growth. Agron. J. 61:719-721.
29
30
Jones J.N. Jr., Moody J.E., Shear G.M., Moschler W.W., and Lillard J.H. (1968). The no-tillage system for corn
(Zea mays L.). Agron. J. 60:17-20.
31
32
Noll C.F., Gardner F.D., and Irvin C.J (1930). A field test of different sources of phosphorous. School of
Agriculture and Experiment Station Bull. 252. Pennsylvania State College
33
34
Noll C.F., Gardner F.D., and Irvin C.J. (1931). Fiftieth anniversary of the General Fertilizer Tests 1881-1931.
School of Agriculture and Experiment Station Bull. 264. Pennsylvania State College.
35
36
Ockerby S.E., and Fukai S. (2001). The management of rice grown on raised beds with continuous furrow
irrigation. Field Crops Res. 69:215-226.
37
38
39
40
Peters, S. E., M. M. Wander, L. S. Saparito, G. H. Harris, and D. B. Friedman. (1997). Management impacts on
SOM and related soil properties in a long-term farming systems trial in Pennsylvania: 1981-1991. In: Soil
Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott, and C.V. Cole (eds.).
CRC Press, Inc.
41
42
43
Peterson G.A., and Westfall D.G. (1997). Management of dryland agroecosystems in the Central Great Plains of
Colorado. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott, and
C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc.
44
45
Peterson, G. A., D. G. Westfall, and W. Wood. 1989. Crop and soil management in dryland agroecosystems.
Technical Bulletin TB89-3. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University.
46
47
Peterson, G. A., D. G. Westfall, L. Sherrod, D. Poss, K. Larson, and D. L. Thompson. 1997. Sustainable dryland
agroecosystem management. Technical Bulletin TB97-3. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University.
1. Maize
11.41
1
2
Peterson, G. A., D. G. Westfall, L. Sherrod, E. McGee, and R. Kolberg. 1992. Crop and soil management in
dryland agroecosystems. Technical Bulletin TB92-2. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University.
3
4
5
6
Peterson, G. A., D. G. Westfall, L. Sherrod, R. Kolberg, and B. Rouppet. 1994. Sustainable dryland
7
8
9
10
Peterson, G. A., D. G. Westfall, L. Sherrod, R. Kolberg, and D. Poss. 1996. Sustainable dryland agroecosystem
management. Technical Bulletin TB96-1. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University.
11
12
13
14
Peterson, G. A., D. G. Westfall, W. Wood, and S. Ross. 1988. Crop and soil management in dryland
agroecosystems. Technical Bulletin LTB88-6. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University.
15
16
Peterson, G. A., E. McGee, D. G. Westfall, C. W. Wood, and L. Sherrod. 1990. Crop and soil management in
17
18
19
Pierce, F. J., and M. C. Fortin. (1997). Long-term tillage and periodic plowing of a no-tilled soil in Michigan:
Impacts, yield, and soil organic matter. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K.
Paustian, E.T. Elliott, and C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc.
20
Russell W.A. (1991). Genetic improvement of maize yields. Advances in Agronomy 46:245-298.
21
22
Sewell M.C., and Call L.E. (1925). Tillage investigations relating to wheat production. Tech. Bull. 18.
Agricultural Experiment Station. Kansas State Agricultural College.
23
24
Shear G.M., and Moschler W.W. (1969). Continuous corn by the no-tillage and conventional tillage methods: A
six-year comparison. Agron. J. 61:524-526.
25
26
27
Tapper D.C. (1983). Changes in physiological traits associated with grain yield improvement in single-cross
maize hybrids from 1930 to 1970. Ph.D. Dissertation. Agronomy Department, Iowa State University, Ames,
IA.
28
Thorne C.E. (1924). The maintenance of soil fertility. Bulletin 381. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station.
29
30
31
Throckmorton R.I., and Duley F.L. (1935). Twenty years of soil fertility investigations. Kansas. Agricultural
Experiment Station Tech. Bull. 40. Kansas State College of Agriculture and Applied Science. Manhattan,
KS.
32
33
34
Vanotti, M. B., L. G. Bundy, and A. E. Peterson. (1997). Nitrogen fertilizer and legume-cereal rotation effects on
soil productivity and organic matter dynamics in Wisconsin. In Soil Organic Matter in Temperate
Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott, and C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc.
35
36
Wianco A.T., and Jones S.C. (1918). The value of manure on Indiana soils. Purdue University Agricultural
Experiment Station. Bull. No. 222. Lafayette, IN.
37
38
Wianco A.T., Conner S.D., and Jones S.C. (1919). The value of legumes on Indiana soils. Purdue University
Agricultural Experiment Station. Bull. No. 226. Lafayette, IN.
39
40
41
42
43
2. Winter wheat
44
45
Barraclough P.B. and Leigh R.A. 1984. The growth and activity of winter wheat roots in the field: the effect of
sowing date and soil type on root growth of high yielding crops. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 103:59-74.
46
47
48
Black, A. L., and D. L. Tanaka. (1997). A conservation tillage-cropping systems study in the Northern Great
Plains of the United States. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K. Paustian,
E.T. Elliott, and C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc.
49
50
Bolinder, M.A., Angers D.A., and Dubuc J.P. (1997). Estimating shoot to root ratios and annual carbon inputs in
soils for cereal crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 63:61-67.
Austin R.B., Bingham J., Blackwell R.D., Evans L.T., Ford M.A., Morgan C.L., and Taylor M. (1980). Genetic
improvements in winter wheat yields since 1900 and associated physiological changes. J. Agric. Sci., Camb.
94:675-689.
11.42

1
2
3
Bruce, R. R., and G. W. Langdale. (1997). Soil carbon level dependence upon crop culture variables in a
thermic-udic region. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K. Paustian, E.T.
Elliott, and C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc.
4
5
Bruckner P.L. and Morey D.D. (1988). Nitrogen effects on soft red winter wheat yield, agronomic
characteristics, and quality. Crop Sci. 28:152-157.
7
8
Cox T.S., Shroyer J.P., Liu Ben-Hui, Sears R.G., and Martin T.J. (1988). Genetic improvements in agronomic
traits of hard red winter wheat cultivars from 1919 to 1987. Crop Science 28:756-760.
9
10
11
12
Eck H.V. (1986). Profile modification and irrigation effects on yield and water use of wheat. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J. 50:724-729.
13
14
Entz M.H., and Fowler D.B. (1991). Agronomic performance of winter versus spring wheat. Agron. J. 83:527532.
15
16
Gent M.P.N., and Kiyomoto R.K. (1989). Assimilation and distribution of photosynthate in winter wheat
cultivars differing in harvest index. Crop Sci. 29:120-125.
17
18
19
Halvorson, A. D., M. F. Vigil, G. A. Peterson, and E. T. Elliott. (1997). Long-term tillage and crop residue
management study at Akron, Colorado. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K.
Paustian, E.T. Elliott, and C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc.
20
21
Ishaq M., Ibrahim M., and Lal R. 2001. Tillage effect on nutrient uptake by wheat and cotton as influenced by
fertilizer rate. Soil and Tillage Res. 62:41-53.
22
23
24
Jensen M.E., and Sletten W.H. (1965). Evapotranspiration and soil moisture-fertilizer interrelations with
irrigated winter wheat in the Southern High Plains. USDA Agricultural Research Service. Conservation
Research Report No. 4.
25
26
27
Jones, O. R., B. A. Stewart, and P. W. Unger. (1997). Management of dry-farmed Southern Great Plains soils for
sustained productivity. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K. Paustian, E.T.
28
29
Lafever H.N. (1976). Ohio performance trials of soft red winter wheats including 1976 results. Agronomy Dept.
Series 203. Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center. Wooster, OH.
30
31
32
Lyon, D. J., C. A. Monz, R. E. Brown, and A. K. Metherell. (1997). Soil organic matter changes over two
decades of winter wheat fallow cropping in western Nebraska. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate
33
34
Miller C.M. (1939). A physiological study of the winter wheat plant at different stages of its development. Tech.
Bull. 47. Agricultural Experiment Station. Kansas State College of Agriculture and Applied Science.
35
36
Musick J.T., and Dusek D.A. (1980). Planting date and water deficit effects on development and yield of
irrigated winter wheat. Agron. J. 72: 45-52.
37
38
Pennsylvania State College School of Agriculture and Experiment Station Bull. 264.
39
40
Noll, C.F., Gardner F.D., and Irvin C.J (1930). A field test of different sources of phosphorous. Pennsylvania
State College School of Agriculture and Experiment Station Bull. 252.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
11.43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Rao S.C., Coleman S.W., and Volesky J.D. (2000). Yield and quality of wheat, triticale, and elytricum forage in
the Southern Plains. Crop Sci. 40:1308-1312.
15
16
Rasmussen P.E., and Parton W.J. (1994). Long-term effects of residue management in wheat-fallow: I. Inputs,
yield, and soil organic matter. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58:523-530.
17
18
19
Rasmussen, P. E., R. W. Smiley, and S. L. Albrecht. 1996. Long-term residue management experiment:
Pendleton, Oregon, USA. IN: Evaluation of Soil Organic Matter Models Using Existing Long-term Datasets.
D. S. Powlson, P. Smith, and J. U. Smith (eds.). Springer-Verlag, Germany.
20
21
22
Sharma R.C., and Smith E.L. (1986). Selection for high and low harvest index in three winter wheat populations.
Crop Sci. 26:1147-1150.
23
24
25
Siddique K.H.M., Belford R.K., Perry M.W., and Tennant D. (1989). Growth, development and light
interception of old and modern wheat cultivars in a Mediterranean-type environment. Aust. J. Agric. Res.
40:473-487.
26
Singh I.D., and Stoskopf N.C. (1971). Harvest index in cereals. Agron. J. 63:224-226.
27
28
Skidmore E.L., and Siddoway F.H. (1978). Crop residue requirements to control wind erosion. Chapter 2 in Crop
Residue Management Systems. Am. Soc. Agron. Spec. Pub. No. 31.
29
30
Ten Eyck, A. M., and V. M. Shoesmith. 1907. Small grain crops. Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 144.
Kansas State Agricultural College. Manhattan, KS.
31
Thorne C.E. (1924). The maintenance of soil fertility. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. 381.
32
33
34
Throckmorton R.I., and Duley F.L. (1935). Twenty years of soil fertility investigations. Kansas. Agricultural
Experiment Station Tech. Bull. 40. Kansas State College of Agriculture and Applied Science. Manhattan,
KS.
35
36
Unger, P. W. (1977). Tillage effects on winter wheat production where the irrigated and dryland crops are
alternated. Agronomy Journal, 69: 944 950.
37
38
Weir A.H. and Barraclough P.B. (1986). The effect of drought on the root growth of winter wheat and on its
uptake from deep loam. Soil Use And Management 2:91-96.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
3. Spring wheat
47
48
49
Black, A. L., and D. L. Tanaka. (1997). A conservation tillage-cropping systems study in the Northern Great
Plains of the United States. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K. Paustian,
E.T. Elliott, and C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc.
Bauer A. and Zubriski J.C. (1978). Hard red spring wheat straw yields in relation to grain yields. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 42:777-781.
11.44

1
2
Campbell C.A., and Zentner R.P. (1993). Soil organic matter as influenced by crop rotations and fertilization.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57:1034-1040.
3
4
5
Campbell C.A., Davidson H.R., Warder F.G. (1977). Effects of fertilizer N and soil moisture on yield, yield
components, protein content and N accumulation in the above-ground parts of spring wheat. Can. J. Soil Sci.
57:311-327.
6
7
Cassman K.G., Bryant D.C., Fulton A.E., and Jackson L.F. (1992). Crop ecology, production and management.
Crop Sci. 32:1251-1258.
8
9
Hucl P., and Baker R.J. (1987). A study of ancestral and modern Canadian spring wheats. Can. J. Plant Sci.
67:87-97.
10
11
12
Juma, N. G., R. C. Izaurralde, J. A. Robertson, and W. B. McGill. (1997). Crop yield and soil organic matter
trends over 60 years in a typic cryoboralf at Breton, Alberta. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate
13
14
Loffler C.M., Rauch T.L., and Busch R.H. (1985). Grain and plant protein relationships in hard red spring wheat.
Crop Sci. 25:521-524.
15
16
Perry M.W., and DAntuono M.F. (1989). Yield improvement and associated characteristics of some Australian
spring wheat cultivars introduced between 1860 and 1982. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 40:457-472.
17
18
Skidmore E.L., and Siddoway F.H. (1978). Crop residue requirements to control wind erosion. In: Crop Residue
Management Systems. Am. Soc. Agron. Spec. Pub. No. 31.
19
20
van Delden A. (2001). Yield and growth components of potato and wheat under organic nitrogen management.
Agron. J. 93:1370-1385.
21
22
23
24
25
4. Rice
26
27
28
Cho, Y. S., Z. R. Choe, and S. E. Ockerby. (2001). Managing tillage, sowing rate and nitrogen top-dressing level
to sustain rice yield in a low-input, direct-sown, rice-vetch cropping system. Australian Journal of
Experimental Agriculture, 41:61-69.
29
30
31
32
George T., Magbanua R., Roder W., Van Keer K., Trebuil G., and Reoma V. (2001). Upland rice response to
phosphorous fertilization in Asia. Agron. J. 93:1362-1370.
33
34
Kinery J.R., McCauley G., Xie Y., and Arnold J.G. (2001). Rice parameters describing crop performance of four
U. S. cultivars. Agron. J. 93:1354-1361.
35
36
Ockerby, S. E., and S. Fukai. 2001. The management of rice grown on raised beds with continuous furrow
irrigation. Field Crops Research. 69:215-226.
37
38
39
San-oh, Y., Y. Mano, T. Ookawa, and T. Hirasawa (2004). Comparison of dry matter production and associated
characteristics between direct-sown and transplanted rice plants in a submerged paddy field and relationships
to planting patterns. Field Crops Res. 87:43-58.
40
41
Turner F.T., and McCauley G.N. (1983). Rice. In: Crop Water Relations. I.D.Teare and M.M. Peet (eds.). John
Wiley and Sons, New York, pp 308-350.
42
43
Yang, J., J. Zhang, Z. Wang, Q. Zhu, and W. Wang. (2001). Remobilization of carbon reserves in response to
water deficit during grain filling of rice. Field Crops Res. 71:47-55.
Bainton, S.J., V. E. Plumb, B. O. Juliano, C. M. Perez, D. B. Roxas, G. S. Kush, J. C. de Jesus, and K. A.

Gomez. (1991). Variation in the nutritional value of rice straw. Animal Feed Science and Technology 34,
261-277.
44
45
46
47
5. Barley
48
Boukerrou L, and Rasmussen D.D. (1990). Breeding for high biomass yield in spring barley. Crop Sci. 30:31-35.
Alston A.M. (1980). Response of wheat to deep placement of nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizers on a soil high
in phosphorous in the surface layer. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 31:13-24.
11.45
1
2
3
Chery J., Lefevre B., Robin P. and Salsac L. (1981). Barley breeding for high protein content. Relationship with
nitrate reductase and proteolytic activities. In: Barley Genetics IV. Proceedings of the Fourth International
Barley Genetics Symposium. Edinburgh Univ. Press.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Kirby E.J.M. (1967). The effect of plant density upon the growth and yield of barley. J. Agric. Sci., Camb.
68:317-324.
11
12
13
Lekes J. 1981. Results, main directions in using world collections and genetic resources of spring barley in
European breeding. In: Barley Genetics IV. Proceedings of the Fourth International Barley Genetics
Symposium. Edinburgh Univ. Press.
14
15
Mahli S.S., Grant C.A., Johnston A.M., and Gill K.S. 2001. Nitrogen fertilization management for no-till cereal
production in the Canadian Great Plains: a review. Soil and Tillage Res. 60:101-122.
16
17
Riggs T.J., Hanson P.R., Start N.D., Miles D.M., Morgan C.L., Ford M.A. (1981). Comparison of spring barley
varieties grown in England and Wales between 1880 and 1980. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 97:599-610.
18
19
Siddique K.H.M., Belford R.K., and Tennant D. (1990). Root:shoot ratios of old and modern, tall and semidwarf wheats in a mediterranean environment. Plant and Soil 121:89-98.
20
21
22
Siddique K.H.M., Belford R.K., Perry M.W., and Tennant D. (1989). Growth, development and light
interception of old and modern wheat cultivars in a Mediterranean-type environment. Aust. J. Agric. Res.
40:473-487.
23
24
Skidmore E.L., and Siddoway F.H. (1978). Crop residue requirements to control wind erosion. In: Crop Residue
Management Systems. Am. Soc. Agron. Spec. Pub. No. 31.
25
26
27
28
Watson D.J., Thorne G.N., and French S.A.W. (1958). Physiological causes of differences in grain yield between
varieties of barley. Annals of Botany 87:321-352.
29
30
Wych R.D., and Rasmussen D.C. (1983). Genetic improvement in malting barley cultivars since 1920. Crop Sci.
23:1037-1040.
31
32
33
34
6. Oats
35
36
Anonymous (1926). Forty-fourth annual report for 1924-25. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. 392.
Wooster, OH.
37
38
39
Brinkman M.A. and Rho Y.D. (1984). Response of three oat cultivars to N fertilizer. Crop Science 24:973-977.
40
41
breeding criteria. Adv. Agron. 28:361-405.
42
43
Georgeson C.C., F. C. Burtis, and D. H. Otis. 1893. Experiments with oats. Experiment Station Bull. No. 42.
Kansas State Agricultural College.
44
45
46
47
48
49
Georgeson, C .C., H. M. Cottrell, and W. Shelton. 1890. Experiments with oats. Experiment Station Bull. No.
13. Kansas State Agricultural College.
Anonymous (1923). Forty-second annual report for 1922-23. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. 373.
Wooster, OH.
11.46

1
2
3
Lawes, D.A. (1977). Yield improvement in spring oats. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 89:751-757.
5
6
Meyers K.B., Simmons S.R., and Stuthman D.D. (1985). Agronomic comparison of dwarf and conventional
height oat genotypes. Crop Sci. 25:964-966.
7
8
Noll C.F., Gardner F.D., and Irvin C.J (1930). A field test of different sources of phosphorous. Pennsylvania
State College School of Agriculture and Experiment Station Bull. 252.
9
10
Pennsylvania State College School of Agriculture and Experiment Station Bull. 264.
11
12
Rattunde H.F., and Frey K.J. (1986). Nitrogen harvest index in oats: Its repeatability and association with
adaptation. Crop Sci. 26:606-610.
13
14
Agricultural Experiment Station. Kansas State Agricultural College.
15
16
17
Thorne C.E. (1924). The maintenance of soil fertility. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. 381.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
7. Millet
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
8. Sorghum
45
46
Arnon, I., and A. Blum. 1962. Factors responsible for yield superiority of hybrid sorghum. Israel J. Agric. Res.
12: 95-105.
47
48
Arnon, I., and A. Blum. 1964. Response of hybrid and self-pollinated sorghum varieties to moisture regime and
intra-row competition. Israel J. Agric. Res. 14: 45-53.
Anonymous (1930). A report of the Tribune Branch Agricultural Experiment Station. Agricultural Experiment
Station Bull. 250. Kansas State Agricultural College, Manhattan, KS.
11.47
1
2
Bond J.J., Army T.J., and Lehman O.R. (1964). Row spacing, plant populations and moisture supply as factors
in dryland grain sorghum production. Agron. J. 56:3-6.
3
4
5
6
7
Craufurd P.Q., and Peacock J.M. (1993). Effect of heat and drought stress on sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). II.
Grain yield. Expl. Agric. 29:77-86.
8
9
10
11
Eastin J.D. (1983). Sorghum. . In Symposium on Potential Productivity of Field Crops Under Different
Environments. International Rice Research Institute, Manilla, Phillipines.
12
13
Eck H.V., and Musick J.T. (1979). Plant water stress effects on irrigated grain sorghum. I. Effects on yield. Crop
Sci. 19:589-592.
14
15
16
Jones, O. R., B. A. Stewart, and P. W. Unger. (1997). Management of dry-farmed Southern Great Plains soils for
sustained productivity. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K. Paustian, E.T.
17
18
Laryea K.B. and Unger P.W. 1995. Grassland converted to cropland: Soil conditions and sorghum yield. Soil &
Tillage res. 33:29-45.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Prihar S.S., and Stewart B.A. (1991). Sorghum harvest index in relation to plant size, environment, and cultivar.
Agron. J. 83:603-608.
42
43
Shinano T., Osaki M., Yamada S., and Tadano T. (1994). Comparison of root growth and nitrogen absorbing
ability between Gramineae and Leguminosae during the vegetative stage. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 40:485-495.
44
45
Steiner J.L. (1986). Dryland grain sorghum water use, light interception, and growth responses to plant
geometry. Agron. J. 78:720-726.
46
47
Unger P.W., and Jones O.R. (1981). Effect of soil water content and a growing season straw mulch on grain
sorghum. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45:129-134.
48
49
Unger P.W., and Wiese A.F. (1979). Managing irrigated winter wheat residues for water storage and subsequent
dryland grain sorghum production. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 43:582-588.
11.48

1
2
von Trebra R.L., and Wagner F.A. (1932). Tillage practices for south-western Kansas. Agricultural Experiment
Station Bull. 262. Kansas State College of Agriculture and Applied Science. Manhattan, KS.
3
4
5
9. Rye
No data on rye available at this time.
6
7
8
9
Anderson L.R., and Vasilas B.L. (1985). Effects of planting date on two soybean cultivars: Seasonal dry matter
accumulation and seed yield. Crop Sci. 25:999-1004.
10
11
12
13
14
Buzzell R.I. and Buttery B.R. (1977). Soybean harvest index in hill-plots. Crop Sci. 17:968-970.
15
16
Frederick, J. R., J. T. Woolley, J. D. Hesketh, and D. B. Peters. 1991. Seed yield and agronomic traits of old and
modern soybean cultivars under irrigation and soil water-deficit. Field Crops research, 27: 71-82.
17
18
Hanway J.J., and Weber C.R. (1971). Dry matter accumulation in eight soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill)
varieties. Agron. J. 63:227-230.
19
20
Hodgson, A. S., J. F. Holland, and P. Rayner. (1989). Effects of field slope and duration of furrow irrigation on
growth and yield of six grain-legumes on a waterlogging-prone vertisol. Field Crops research, 22: 165-180.
21
22
Kumudini S., Hume D.J., and Chu G. (2001). Genetic improvement in short season soybeans: I. Dry matter
accumulation, partitioning, and leaf area duration. Crop Sci. 41:391-398.
23
24
25
Laing D.R., Kretchmer P.J., Zuluaga S., and Jones P.G. (1983). Field Bean. In Symposium on Potential
Productivity of Field Crops Under Different Environments. International Rice Research Institute, Manilla,
Phillipines.
26
27
Liu, X., J. Jin, S. J. Herbert, Q. Zhang, and G. Wang. 2005. Yield components, dry matter, LAI and LAD of
soybeans in Northeast China. Field Crops Research, 93: 85-93.
28
29
30
Peters, S. E., W. M. Edwards, and E. L. McCoy. (1997). Continuous application of no-tillage to Ohio soils:
Changes in crop yields and organic matter-related soil properties. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate
31
32
Sammons, D. J., D. B. Peters, and T. Hymowitz. 1981. Screening soybeans for tolerance to moisture stress: A
field procedure. Field Crops Research, 3: 321-335.
33
34
35
Sinclair, T. R., R. C. Muchow, M. M. Ludlow, G. J. Leach, R. J. Lawn, and M. A. Foale. (1987). Field and
model analysis of the effect of water deficits on carbon and nitrogen accumulation by soybean, cowpea, and
black gram. Field Crops Research, 17: 121-140.
36
37
Sivakumar M.V.K., Taylor H.M., and Shaw R.H. (1977). Top and root relations of field-grown soybeans. Agron.
J. 69:470-473.
38
Thatcher L.E. (1925). The soybean in Ohio. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station. Bull. 384.
39
40
Walker A.K., and Fioritto R.J. (1984). Effect of cultivar and planting pattern on yield and apparent harvest index
in soybean. Crop Sci. 24:154-155.
10. Soyabean
41
42
43
44
45
11. Dry bean

Ortega, P. F. 1988. Morphological characterization of six dry bean genotypes grown under non-irrigated
conditions in Colorado. M.S. Thesis. Department of Agronomy, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
Colorado.
46
47
48
49
12. Potato
Heard, J. 2004. Nutrient accumulation and partitioning by potatoes in Manitoba. Proc. of 47th Annual Manitoba
Society of Soil Science Meeting. Online at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/msss/2004/mss600.pdf.
11.49
1
2
van Delden A. (2001). Yield and growth components of potato and wheat under organic nitrogen management.
Agron. J. 93:1370-1385.
3
4
Zvomuya, F., C. J. Rosen, M. P. Russelle, and S. C. Gupta. 2003. Nitrate leaching and nitrogen recovery
following application of polyolefin-coated urea to potato. Journal of Environmental Quality, 32: 480-489.
5
6
7
8
Bell, M. J., R. C. Muchow, and G. L. Wilson. 1987. The effect of plant population on peanuts (Arachis
hypogaea) in a monsoonal tropical environment. Field Crops Research, 17: 91-107.
9
10
Ghosh, P. K. 2004. Growth, yield, competition and economics of groundnut/cereal fodder intercropping systems
in the semi-arid tropics of India. Field Crops Research, 88: 227-237.
11
12
13
14
ICRISAT. 2004. Increasing the effectiveness of research on agricultural resource management in the semi-arid
tropics of southern India by combining cropping systems modeling with farming systems research: A
rewarding experience for Tamil Nadu farmers. International Crops research Institute for the Semi-Arid
Tropics. Online at: http://www.icrisat.org/gt3/researchbriefs/myers_madhi.html.
15
16
17
Singh, P., K. J. Boote, A. Y. Rao, M. R. Iruthayaraj, A. M. Sheikh, S. S. Hundal, R. S. Narang, and P. Singh.
1994. Evaluation of the groundnut model PNUTGRO for crop response to water availability, sowing dates,
and seasons. Field Crops research, 39: 147-162.
18
19
20
Witzenberger, A., J. H. Williams, and F. Lenz. 1985. Yield, components of yield and quality responses of
groundnut (Arachis Hypogaea L.) as influenced by photoperiod and a growth regulator. Field Crops research,
12: 347-361.
13. Peanut
21
22
23
24
25
14. Alfalfa
26
27
Walley, F. L., G. O. Tomm, A. Matus, A. E. Slinkard, and C. van Kessel. 1996. Allocation and cycling of
nitrogen in an alfalfa-bromegrass sward. Agronomy Journal, 88: 834-843.
Paustian K., Andren O., Clarholm M., Hansson A.C., Johansson G., Lagerlof J., Lindberg T., Pettersson R., and
Sohlenius B. (1990). Carbon and nitrogen budgets of four agro-ecosystems with annual and perennial crops,
with and without fertilization. J. Appl. Ecol. 27:60-84.
28
29
30
31
32
15. Non-legume hay

33
34
III. N content of above-ground residues
35
36
37
1. Maize
38
39
Eghball B. and Maranville J.W. (1993). Root development and nitrogen influx of corn genotypes grown under
combined drought and nitrogen stresses. Agron. J. 85:147-152.
40
41
42
Heard, J. 2004. Nutrient accumulation and partitioning by grain corn in Manitoba. Proc. of 47th Annual
Manitoba
Society
of
Soil
Science
Meeting.
Online
at:
http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/msss/2004/mss601.pdf.
43
44
45
Janzen, H. H., K. A. Beauchemin, Y. Bruinsma, C. A. Campbell, R. L. Desjardins, B. H. Ellert, and E. G. Smith.

(2003). The fate of nitrogen in agroecosystems: An illustration using Canadian estimates. Nutrient Cycling in
Agroecosystems, 67: 85-102.
46
47
48
Mgheni D. M., E. E. Ndemanisho, T. Hvelplund, and M. R. Weisbjerg. 2001. Evaluation of the feeding value of
two tropical cereal straws, maize stover, rice straw and their botanical fractions by nylon and mobile bag
technique. African Journal of Science and Technology, 2:65-71.
49
50
NRCS. 2006. Plant nutrient content database. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U. S. Dept. of
Agriculture. Online at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ECS/nutrient/tbb1.html.
Burgess M.S., Mehuys G.R., and Madramootoo C.A. 2002. Nitrogen dynamics of decomposing corn residue
components under three tillage systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:1350-1358.
11.50

1
2
3
Reisinger, K., C. Haslinger, M. Herger, H. Hofbauer. 1996. BIOBIB- a Database for Biofuels, THERMIEConference:
Renewable
Energy
Databases,
Harwell,
United
Kingdom.
Online
at:
http://www.vt.tuwien.ac.at/biobib/oxford.html.
4
5
Subedi, K. D., and B. L. Ma. 2005. Nitrogen uptake and partitioning in stay-green and leafy-maize hybrids. Crop
Sci. 45:740-747.
6
7
8
9
Austin R.B., Ford M.A., and Morgan C.L. (1989). Genetic improvement in the yield of winter wheat: a further
evaluation. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. (112:295-301.
10
11
12
Campbell C.A., Davidson H.R., Warder F.G. (1977). Effects of fertilizer N and soil moisture on yield, yield
components, protein content and N accumulation in the above-ground parts of spring wheat. Can. J. Soil Sci.
57:311-327.
13
14
Campbell C.A., and Zentner R.P. (1993). Soil organic matter as influenced by crop rotations and fertilization.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57:1034-1040.
15
16
Cassman K.G., Bryant D.C., Fulton A.E., and Jackson L.F. (1992). Crop ecology, production and management.
Crop Sci. 32:1251-1258.
17
18
19
20
21
Renewable
Energy
Databases,
Harwell,
United
Kingdom.
Online
at:
2. Wheat
22
23
24
25
26
3. Rice
27
28
29
30
Ockerby, S. E., and S. Fukai. 2001. The management of rice grown on raised beds with continuous furrow
irrigation. Field Crops Research. 69:215-226.
31
32
33
Renewable
Energy
Databases,
Harwell,
United
Kingdom.
Online
at:
Mgheni D. M., E. E. Ndemanisho, T. Hvelplund, and M. R. Weisbjerg. 2001. Evaluation of the feeding value of
two tropical cereal straws, maize stover, rice straw and their botanical fractions by nylon and mobile bag
technique. African Journal of Science and Technology, 2:65-71.
34
35
36
37
4. Barley
38
39
40

41
42
43
44
45
Renewable
Energy
Databases,
Harwell,
United
Kingdom.
Online
at:
Bulman P. and Smith D.L. (1993). Accumulation and redistribution of dry matter and nitrogen by spring barley.
Agron. J. 85:1114-1121.
46
47
48
49
50
5. Oats
11.51
1
2
3
4
5
Renewable
Energy
Databases,
Harwell,
United
Kingdom.
Online
at:
6
7
Wych R.D., and Stuthman D.D. (1983). Genetic improvement in Minnesota-adapted oat cultivars released since
1923. Crop Sci. 23:879-881.
8
9
10
11
6. Millet
12
13
14
15
7. Sorghum
16
17
18
19
20
8. Rye
21
22

23
24
25
26
9. Soyabean
27
28
29
30
31
10. Dry bean

32
33
34
35
11. Potato
36
37
38

39
40
Thatcher L. E., and Willard C. J. (1962). Crop rotation and soil productivity. Ohio Agricultural Experiment
Station Res. Bull. 907. Ohio State University.
41
42
Heard, J. 2004. Nutrient accumulation and partitioning by potatoes in Manitoba. Proc. of 47th Annual Manitoba
Society of Soil Science Meeting. Online at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/msss/2004/mss600.pdf.
43
44
45
46
12. Peanut
47
48
49
50
13. Alfalfa
11.52

1
2
3
Schmidt, W. H., D. K. Myers, and R. W. Van Keuren. 2001.Values of legumes for plowdown nitrogen.
Extension Fact Sheet AGF-111-01. Ohio State University Extension. Online at: http://ohioline.osu.edu/agffact/0111.html.
4
5
6
7
8
9
14. Non-legume hay

10
11
IV. Ratio of below-ground residues to above-ground biomass
12
13
1. Maize
14
15
Bolinder, M.A., Angers D.A., Giroux M., and Laverdiere M.R. 1999. Estimating C inputs retained as soil
organic matter from corn (Zea Mays L.). Plant and Soil 215:85-91.
16
17
18
Eghball B. and Maranville J.W. (1993). Root development and nitrogen influx of corn genotypes grown under
combined drought and nitrogen stresses. Agron. J. 85:147-152.
19
20
Follett R.F., Allmaras R.R., and Reichman G.A. 1974. Distribution of corn roots in sandy soil with a declining
water table. Agron. J. 66:288-292.
21
22
23
Huggins, D. R., and D. J. Fuchs (1997). Long-term N management effects on corn yield and soil C of an aquic
haplustoll in Minnesota. In Soil Organic Matter In Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul, K. Paustian, E.T.
Elliott, and V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc.
24
25
Liang B.C., Wang X.L., and Ma B.L. 2002. Maize root-induced change to soil organic pool. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J. 66:845-847.
26
27
Qian J.H., Doran J.W., and Walters D.T. (1997). Maize plant contributions to root zone available carbon and
microbial transformations of nitrogen. Soil Biol. Biochem. 29:1451-1462.
28
Shank D.B. (1943). Top-root ratios of inbred and hybred maize. J. Am. Soc. Agron., pp. 976-986.
29
30
Tran, T. S., and M. Giroux (1998). Fate of 15N-labelled fertilizer applied to corn grown on different soil types.
Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 78: 597-605.
31
32
Triplett G.B. Jr., and Mannering J.V. (1978). Crop residue management in crop rotation and multiple cropping
systems. Chapter 11 in Crop Residue Management Systems. Am. Soc. Agron. Spec. Pub. No. 31.
33
34
35
Yiridoe E.K., Voroney R.P., and Weersink A. (1997). Impact of alternative farm management practices on
nitrogen pollution of groundwater: Evaluation and application of CENTURY Model. J. Environ. Qual.
26:1255-1263.
Bray J.R. (1963). Root production and the estimation of net productivity. Can. J. Bot. 41:65-72.
36
37
38
39
2. Wheat
40
41
Barraclough P.B. and Leigh R.A. 1984. The growth and activity of winter wheat roots in the field: the effect of
sowing date and soil type on root growth of high yielding crops. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 103:59-74.
42
43
44
45
46
47
Campbell, C. A., and R. de Jong (2001). Root-to-straw ratios influence of moisture and rate of N fertilizer.
Can. J. Soil Sci., 81: 39-43.
Barraclough P.B. 1984. The growth and activity of winter wheat roots in the field: root growth of high yielding
crops in relation to shoot growth. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 103:439-442.
11.53
1
2
3
Campbell C.A., and Zentner R.P. (1997). Crop production and soil orgaqnic matter in long-term crop rotations in
the semi-arid Northern Great Plains of Canada. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A.
Paul. K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott, and C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc.
4
5
Gregory P.J., McGowan M., Biscoe P.V., and Hunter B. (1978). Water relations of winter wheat. 1.Growth of
the root system. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 91:91-102.
6
7
Pederson G.A., Brink G.E., and Fairbrother T.E. 2002. Nutrient uptake in plant parts of sixteen forages fertilized
with poultry litter: Nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, copper, and zinc. Agron. J. 94:895-904.
8
9
10
11
Slobodian N., Van Rees K., and Pennock D. 2002. Cultivation-induced effects on below-ground biomass and
organic carbon. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:924-930.
12
13
Triplett G.B. Jr., and Mannering J.V. (1978). Crop residue management in crop rotation and multiple cropping
systems. Chapter 11 in Crop Residue Management Systems. Am. Soc. Agron. Spec. Pub. No. 31.
14
15
Weir A.H. and Barraclough P.B. (1986). The effect of drought on the root growth of winter wheat and on its
uptake from deep loam. Soil Use And Management 2:91-96.
16
17
18
3. Rice
19
20
Khokhar, M. F. K., and H. N. Pandey (1976). Biomass, productivity and growth analysis of two varieties of
paddy. Trop. Ecol. 17:125-131.
21
22
23
24
Turner F.T., and McCauley G.N. (1983). Rice. In: Crop Water Relations. I.D.Teare and M.M. Peet (eds.). John
Wiley and Sons, New York, pp 308-350.
Cassman, K. G. (personal communication 2002) Agron. Dept, U. NE.
25
26
27
28
4. Barley
29
30
31
Gregory P.J. and Atwell B.J. (1991). The fate of carbon in pulse-labeled crops of barley and wheat. Plant and
Soil 136:205-213.
32
33
Gregory P.J., Palta J.A., and Batts G.R. (1997). Root systems and root:mass ratio carbon allocation under
current and projected atmospheric conditions in arable crops.
34
35
36
37
Hansson A., Andren O., Bostrom U., Clarholm M., Lagerlof J., Lindberg T., Paustian K., Pettersson R., and
Sohlenius B. (1989). Chapter 4. Structure of the agroecosystem. In: Andren O., Lindberg T., Paustian K.,
and Rosswall T. (eds.). Ecology of arable land organisms, carbon and nitrogen cycling. Ecol. Bull.
(Copenhagen) 40:41-83.
38
39
40
Heen A. (1981). Root growth, transpiration and leaf-firing during water stress in barley: Breeding implications
for drought resistance. In: Barley Genetics IV. Proceedings of the Fourth International Barley Genetics
Symposium. Edinburgh Univ. Press.
41
Shank D.B. (1943). Top-root ratios of inbred and hybred maize. J. Am. Soc. Agron., pp. 976-986.
42
43
44
45
Watson D.J., Thorne G.N., and French S.A.W. (1958). Physiological causes of differences in grain yield between
varieties of barley. Annals of Botany 87:321-352.
46
47
Xu, J.G. and Juma N.G. (1992). Above- and below-ground net primary production of four barley (Hordeum
vulgare L.) cultivars in western Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 72:1131-1140.
48
49
5. Oats
11.54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6. Millet
No data on millet available at this time.
8
9
10
7. Sorghum
No data on sorghum available at this time.
11
12
13
8. Rye
No data on rye available at this time.
14
15
16
17
9. Soyabean
18
19
20
Heatherly, L. G. (1980). Effect of upper-profile soil water potential on soybean root and shoot relationships.
Field Crops Research, 3:165-171.
21
22
Mayaki W.C., Teare I.D., and Stone L.R. (1976). Top and root growth of irrigated and nonirrigated soybeans.
Crop Sci. 16:92-94.
23
24
25
26
27
Taylor, H. M., W. K. Mason, A. T. P. Bennie, and H. R. House. (1982). Responses of soybeans to two row
spacings and two soil water levels. I. An analysis of biomass accumulation, canopy development, solar
radiation interception and components of seed yield. Field Crops Research, 5: 1-14.
Allmaras R.R., Nelson W.W., and Voorhees W.B. (1975). Soybean and corn rooting in Southwestern Minnesota:
II. Root distributions and related water flow. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 39:771-777.
28
29
30
10. Dry bean

No data on dry beans available at this time.
31
32
33
34
11. Potato
Vangessel, M.J., and Renner K.A. (1990). Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and barnyardgrass
(Echinochloa crus-galli) interference in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Science 38:338-343.
35
36
37
12. Peanut
No data on peanuts available at this time.
38
39
40
41
42
13. Alfalfa
43
44
45
46
47
14. Non-legume hay

48
11.55
1
V. N content of below-ground residues
2
3
4
Sanchez J.E., Paul E.A., Willson T.C., Smeenk J., and Harwood R.R. 2002. Corn root effects on the nitrogensupplying capacity of a conditioned soil. Agron. J. 94:391-396.
5
6
Subedi, K. D., and B. L. Ma. 2005. Nitrogen uptake and partitioning in stay-green and leafy-maize hybrids. Crop
Sci. 45:740-747.
7
8
Tran, T. S., and M. Giroux (1998). Fate of 15N-labelled fertilizer applied to corn grown on different soil types.
1. Maize
9
10
11
12
2. Wheat
13
14
Pederson G.A., Brink G.E., and Fairbrother T.E. (2002). Nutrient uptake in plant parts of sixteen forages
fertilized with poultry litter: Nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, copper, and zinc. Agron. J. 94:895-904.
Campbell C.A., Cameron D.R., Nicholaichuk W., and Davidson H.R. (1977). Effects of fertilizer N and soil
moisture on growth, N content, and moisture use by spring wheat. Can. J. Soil Sci. 57:289-310.
15
16
17
3. Rice
No data on rice available at this time.
18
19
20
21
4. Barley
22
23
Haugen-Kozyra, K., N. G. Juma, and M. Nyborg. (1993). Nitrogen partitioning and cycling in barley-soil
systems under conventional and zero tillage in central Alberta. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 73: 183-196.
Dev, G., and D. A. Rennie. 1979. Isotope studies on the comparative efficiency of nitrogenous sources. Aust. J.
Soil Res. 17: 155-162.
24
25
26
27
5. Oats
28
29
30
6. Millet
No data on millet available at this time.
31
32
33
34
35
7. Sorghum
Cueto-Wong, J. A., S. J. Guldan, W. C. Lindemann, and M. D. Remmenga. 2001. Nitrogen recovery from 15Nlabeled green manures: I. Recovery by forage sorghum and soil one season after green manure incorporation.
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 17:27-42.
36
37
38
39
8. Rye
40
41
42
9. Soyabean
Thatcher L.E. (1925). The soybean in Ohio. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station. Bull. 384.
43
44
45
46
47
10. Dry bean

48
11.56

1
2
3
4
Lander C.H., Moffitt D., and Alt K. (1998). Nutrients available from livestock manure relative to crop growth
requirements. Resource Assessment and Strategic Planning Working paper 98-1. USDA Natural Resource
Conservation Service. http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/pubs/nlweb.html
5
6
11. Potato
7
8
9
12. Peanut
No data on peanuts available at this time.
10
11
12
13
13. Alfalfa
14
15
Bowren, K. E., D. A. Cooke, and R. K. Downey. (1969). Yield of dry matter and nitrogen from tops and roots of
sweetclover, alfalfa, and red clover at five stages of growth. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 49: 61-69.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Baron, V., D. Y. Young, and C. Ullmann. 2001. Can pasture slow down global warming? Western Forage/Beef
Group, 5: 3-6. Online at: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/newslett.nsf/all/wfbg38.
23
24
25
26
27
14. Non-legume hay
28
29
Christian, J. M., and S. D. Wilson. (1999). Long-term ecosystem impacts of an introduced grass in the Northern
Great Plains. Ecology, 80: 2397-2407.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Campbell, C. A., V. O. Biederbeck, R. P. Zentner, and G. P. Lafond. (1991). Effect of crop rotations and cultural
practices on soil organic matter, microbial biomass and respiration in a thin Black Chernozemic soil.
37
11.57
Chapter 12: Harvested Wood Products

2
3
CHAPTER 12
HARVESTED WOOD PRODUCTS
12.1
1
Authors
Kim Pingoud (Finland) and Kenneth E. Skog (USA)
Daniel L. Martino (Uruguay), Mario Tonosaki (Japan), Zhang Xiaoquan (China)
4
5
Justin Ford-Robertson (New Zealand)
12.2

Contents
12.1 Harvested Wood Products (HWP) .................................................................................................................. 5
12.2 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 5
12.3 Methological Issues......................................................................................................................................... 8
12.3.1 Choice of Method..................................................................................................................................... 8
12.3.2 Tier 1...................................................................................................................................................... 10
12.3.3 Tier 2 Using country data....................................................................................................................... 14
12.3.4 Tier 3: Country-Specific Methods.......................................................................................................... 15
12.3.5 Estimating Carbon release to the atmosphere from the HWP variables................................................. 16
10
12.3.6 Estimating Carbon released to the atmosphere in the form of CO2 ........................................................ 16
11
12.4 Choice of Emission Factors .......................................................................................................................... 17
12
12.5 Choice of Activity Data ................................................................................................................................ 17
13
12.6 Uncertainty Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 20
14
12.7 Quality Assurance/ Quality Control.............................................................................................................. 22
15
12. 8 Completeness ............................................................................................................................................... 22
16
12.9 Reporting and Documentation ...................................................................................................................... 23
17
12.10 Reporting Tables and Worksheets............................................................................................................... 23
18
ANNEX 12A.1 Some Approaches.................................................................................................................... 27
19
20
Equations
21
22
Equation 12.1 Estimation of carbon stock and its annual change in HWP pools of the
reporting country................................................................................................................10
23
Equation 12.2 Estimation of HWP products produced annaully from domestic Consumption ..................11
24
Equation 12.3 Estimation of HWP products produced annually from domestic harvest ............................12
25
26
Equation 12.4 Estimation of Annual Change in Carbon in HWP in DOMESTIC SWDS

where HWP came from domestic harvest ..........................................................................13
27
Equation 12.5 Estimation of carbon release using HWP variables.............................................................16
28
29
Equation 12.6 Equation to estimate production, imports or export variables in Table 12.5
for years before 1961 .........................................................................................................17
30
Equation 12A.1 Emissions from AFOLU by the stock-change approach ..................................................28
31
Equation 12A.2 Stock-change approach: HWP Conribution......................................................................28
32
Equation 12A.3 Emissions from AFOLU as by the Atmospheric flow approach ......................................29
33
Equation 12A.4 Atmospheric flow approach: HWP Contribution .............................................................30
34
Equation 12A.5 Emissions from AFOLU by the Production approach ......................................................31
12.3
1
Equation 12A.6 Production approach: HWP Contribution.........................................................................31
Figures
Figure 12.1. Decision tree for reporting an HWP Contribution of zero or selecting a Tier. .......................9
Figure 12A.1. System boundary of the stock-change approach..................................................................27
Figure 12A.2. System boundary of the Atmospheric flow approach..........................................................29
Figure 12A.3. System boundary of the Production approach. ....................................................................30
8
9
Tables/Worksheets
10
11
12
Table 12.1 HWP Variables Used to Estimate Annual HWP Contribution to AFOLU CO2
Emissions/ Removals ...........................................................................................................8
13
14
Table 12.2 Default half-lives for products in use carbon pools and associated
fraction retained each year .................................................................................................17
15
16
Table 12.3 Estimated annual rates of increase for industrial roundwood production
(harvest) by world region for the period 1900 to 1961 .....................................................18
17
Table 12.4 Default factors to convert from product units to carbon ...........................................................18
18
Table 12.5 UN FAO Activity data needed for Tier 1 variables, and default conversion factors ................19
19
20
Table 12.6 Uncertainty associated with Activity data and paramenters

(emission factors) for the Tier 1 method to estimate the five annual HWP variables........21
21
Table 12.7 Sectoral Background Data for Afolu ........................................................................................26
22
Table A12.1 Summary of How to compute HWP Contribution using varialbes in Table 12.7 ..................32
23
12.4

12.1 HARVESTED WOOD PRODUCTS (HWP)
2
3
4
5
Currently there are several different approaches for reporting the storage of Carbon in wood products and its
subsequent release as CO2 (see e.g. Brown et al., 1998; and Ford-Robertson, 2003, Annex 12A.1). This chapter
does not prefer any of these and does not attempt to prejudge whether these, or any other approach, should be
used to account for this storage and emission1.
6
7
8
9
10
This guidance concentrates on some of the variables needed for particular approaches and shows how they can
be estimated from default data or more detailed country specific data. Although some of these variables are
stock-changes, this guidance should not be interpreted as implying that stock-change approaches are better or
worse than any other approach, the variables discussed here are simply tools needed to estimate the quantities
required by differing individual reporting approaches.
11
12
13
14
The guidance here generally assumes that the amount of woody material in use declines following a first order
decay: again this is not the only assumption possible. Different possibilities include linear decay and more
detailed approaches based on studies of the real use of these materials. Again no preference on this choice is
implied.
15
This text:
16
Clarifies the option of reporting zero
17
Provides default Tier 1 methods and guidance on higher tiers
18
Provides guidance on reporting whatever accounting approach is used.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The alternative approaches to estimate and report the contribution of HWP to annual AFOLU CO2 emissions/
removals (which will be referred to as the HWP Contribution) that have been proposed differ in how they
allocate the HWP Contribution between wood producing and consuming countries, and what processes
(atmospheric fluxes or stock changes) they focus on. They therefore give different results for the overall annual
emissions or removals of CO2 in AFOLU that a given country would report in a given year (see Annex 12A.1).
The differences are partly based on different interpretations of some key terms such as emissions/removals or
source/sink in the AFOLU reporting framework (Cowie et al., 2006). Estimation, reporting and accounting of the
HWP Contribution is under consideration by the UNFCCC.
27
28
29
The approaches that have been identified are mutually exclusive in the sense that a global or regional estimate of
annual HWP Contribution would only be correct if all the different countries provided estimates using the same
approach.
30
12.2 INTRODUCTION
31
32
33
Much of the wood that is harvested from forest land, cropland and other types of land remains in products for
differing lengths of time. This chapter provides guidance on how to estimate and report the contribution of these
harvested wood products (HWP) to annual AFOLU CO2 emissions/ removals.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
HWP includes all wood material (including bark) that leaves harvest sites. Slash and other material left at harvest
sites should be regarded as dead organic matter in the associated land use category in Chapters 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of
the Guidelines and not as HWP. HWP constitutes a carbon reservoir2. The time carbon is held in products will
vary depending on the product and its uses. For example fuelwood and mill residue may be burned in the year of
harvest, many types of paper are likely to have a use life in uses less than 5 years which may include recycling of
paper, and sawnwood or panels used in buildings may be held for decades to over 100 years. Discarded HWP
can be deposited in solid waste disposal sites (SWDS) where they may persist for long periods of time. Due to
this storage in products in use and in SWDS, the oxidation of harvested wood products in a given year could be
1
SBSTA 21 noted the intent of the IPCC to develop for the purpose of compiling GHG inventories under the UNFCCC,
methods that are neutral in relation to potential accounting approaches for harvested wood products
(FCCC/SBSTA/2004/13, pp 7-8, para 30.) The idea to develop an approach neutral set of HWP variables was suggested by
participants at a HWP workshop requested by SBSTA that was held in Lillehammer, Norway. participants noted the
need to develop a set of methods that is neutral to the approaches, which could, for example, include methodological
guidance on a minimum set of quantities required to estimate emissions and removals under any approach. (UNFCCC,
2004).
Article 1 of the UNFCCC defines reservoirs as follows: "Reservoir" means a component or components of the climate
system where a greenhouse gas or a precursor of a greenhouse gas is stored.
12.5
1
2
3
less, or potentially more, than the total amount of wood harvested in that year. Worldwide - according to a study
by Winjum et al. (1998) and a report by the UNFCCC secretariat (2003) - the amount of carbon held in harvested
wood products is likely to be increasing.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
The 1996 Guidelines (IPCC, 1997) did not provide methods for estimating carbon held in HWP, and
recommended, for the purpose of basic calculations, a default assumption expressed as that all carbon
biomass harvested is oxidised in the removal [harvest] year3. This was based on the perception that HWP stocks
are not changing. That is, the annual carbon inflow and outflow for the HWP reservoir were assumed to be equal
and the oxidation from pre-existing wood products stocks could be replaced (and hence omitted) by an implied
oxidation directly after harvesting. More precisely therefore the IPCC default assumption was that inputs to the
HWP reservoir equals outputs. Since the only significant output is oxidation, this means that the amount of
oxidation equals the harvest, where the oxidation includes oxidation of some of the wood harvested in the
current year and oxidation of some of the HWP placed in use in prior years.
13
14
15
Given that inputs do not in general equal outputs and that carbon can remain stored in HWP for extended periods
of time, this storage time needs to be taken into account when providing guidelines for estimating the
contribution of HWP to AFOLU CO2 emissions/ removals.
16
17
This chapter also provides guidance on when a country may report a HWP Contribution as zero without
necessarily making detailed estimates. This guidance differs from that provided in earlier IPCC guidance.4
18
19
Our estimates of HWP Contribution are designed to be consistent with those for other sectors of these guidelines,
specifically:
20
1.
All CO2 released from HWP is included in the AFOLU sector;
21
22
23
2.
CO2 released from wood burnt for energy in the Energy Sector is not included in the Energy sector
totals (although CO2 emissions from biofuels are reported as a memo item for QA/QC purposes). CH4
and other gases from HWP used for energy is included in the Energy sector;
24
25
3.
CO2 released from HWP in SWDS is not included in the Waste Sector totals although CH4 emissions
from HWP are included.
26
27
28
29
Methods in this chapter estimate release of carbon: this carbon may also be counted as methane emissions in the
Waste chapter. This potential double counting of carbon release to the atmosphere can be corrected by
subtracting the carbon emitted in the methane emissions from HWP in landfill from the carbon emissions
estimated in this chapter (see guidance on how to make an optional correction in section 12.3.6).
30
31
32
33
34
In order to make estimates of the HWP Contribution for the various approaches, there is a generic set of annual
variables that that can be used to make the estimates. Using estimates of these annual variables, the HWP
Contribution can be estimated for any of the currently proposed approaches (see Annex 12.A1). While not all of
the data are required for every approach, the complete set would allow any of the proposed approaches to be
adopted. These HWP Variables are:
35
36
1.
Annual change in carbon stock in HWP in the reporting country, including HWP stocks from both
domestic harvest and imports (Gg of carbon per year)
37
38
2.
Annual change in carbon stock in HWP made from wood harvested in the reporting country including
annual change in carbon stock in HWP exported to other countries (Gg of carbon per year)
39
3.
Annual imports of all types of wood and paper material to the reporting country (Gg of carbon per year)
40
41
4.
Annual exports of all types of wood and paper material from the reporting country (Gg of carbon per
year)
42
5.
Annual harvest for wood products in the reporting country5 (Gg of carbon per year).
43
44
This chapter provides methods to estimate these HWP variables which can then be used, according to the
requirements of different approaches, to estimate the HWP Contribution to AFOLU CO2 emissions / removals.
3
The 1996 IPCC guidelines (Vol. III, p.5.17, Box 5)
The 1996 IPCC recommended that storage of carbon in forest products be included in a national inventory only in the case
where a country can document that existing stocks of long term forest products are in fact increasing.
Annual harvest for products includes all wood and bark removed for products including fuel from all land categories not
just forest land. It does not include timber cut down and left at harvest sites. In some countries other tree parts such as
branches and needles and roots or stumps are collected and used for bioenergy. All these tree parts should be included. See
Section 12.2.2 text on estimating harvest which indicates how it is linked to estimates of Lremovals and Lfuelwood in Chapters 2
and 4.
12.6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This chapter provides tiered methods that countries may use annually to estimate the HWP variables for any year
from 1990 to the current year. To do this, data from years before 1990 are needed as explained below. For Tier 1,
default values are suggested for all activity data and parameters required. Excel worksheets are provided to
implement the calculations and produce the Sectoral Background Table 12.7. This table indicates how these
variables may be used to estimate the HWP Contribution under the alternate approaches. Table 12.7 shows the
HWP variables estimated in Gg C yr-1 and uses these values to compute HWP Contribution and converts the
contribution amount to Gg CO2 yr-1 by multiplying by 44/12. A negative HWP Contribution value decreases
overall emissions from AFOLU and a positive value increases overall emissions from AFOLU.
9
10
If countries provide all the HWP variables from Table 12.7 in AFOLU Background Reporting Table 3.10 then it
will be possible to calculate each countrys HWP Contribution for any of the different approaches.
11
12
13
14
Annex 12A.1 to this chapter provides examples of some approaches and how the HWP variables are used to
estimate HWP Contribution. This chapter does not provide guidance on the selection of an individual approach
for a country to use. Section 12.9 indicates options for reporting the HWP Contribution in country inventory
reports. The options for reporting include reporting zero as the HWP Contribution.
15
16
17
In addition to indicating how to combine the HWP variables to estimate the HWP Contribution to AFOLU CO2
emissions and removals, information is provided in Section 12.3.5 on how to compute annual carbon release to
the atmosphere from the five HWP variables.
18
19
20
21
Carbon release estimates from HWP are presented in order to indicate clearly the role annual carbon release from
HWP plays in the overall AFOLU system of carbon removals and release. Showing annual carbon release
explicitly demonstrates how it compares with annual harvest. Carbon release variables used in Section 12.3.5 are
as follows:
22
23
24
25
CHWP DC = Annual release of carbon to the atmosphere from HWP contained in the reporting country.
This includes carbon release from all wood harvested and retained in the country and from wood
imports into the country but excluding exports, Gg yr-1. This amount of carbon release corresponds to
(E + EW) in Annex figures 12A.1 and 12A.2.
26
27
28
29
CHWP DH = Annual release of carbon to the atmosphere from HWP that came from wood harvested in
the reporting country. This includes carbon release from all wood harvested in the country including
wood that is exported but excluding imports, Gg yr-1. This carbon release amount corresponds to (EDOM
+ EEX DOM) in Annex figure 12A.3.
30
31
Definition of variables
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Tier 1 and Tier 2 methods provide annual estimates for a set of five variables that can be used to estimate the
HWP Contribution for different approaches. Two of the variables have two parts corresponding to annual
additions to a) HWP in products in use and b) HWP in solid waste disposal sites (SWDS). Table 12.1
introduces the variables. While variables 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B are stock-changes this does not imply that any
reported HWP contribution, or any other data, should be a stock-change: these are simply items that can be used
to calculate the desired results under different accounting approaches. Inventory compilers should also note that
modified or new accounting approaches may change the HWP variables that are needed and how they are
estimated. For example, there could be changes in what is included in HWP or changes in how decay of stocks
are allocated among reporting countries. For the approaches identified Equation 12.5 shows the relationship
between these HWP variables and two estimates of release of carbon to the atmosphere from HWP. The
relationship among the variables may be seen in flow diagrams in the Annex Figures 12A.1, 12A.2 and 12A.3.
43
12.7
TABLE 12.1
HWP VARIABLES USED TO ESTIMATE ANNUAL HWP CONTRIBUTION TO AFOLU CO2 EMISSIONS/ REMOVALS
Variable Names
Variable Definition
1. Annual change in carbon stock in a) HWP in use and b)
in HWP in solid waste disposal sites in the reporting
country, this is wood carbon that came from domestic
consumption of products ,
CHWP
DC
HWP in products in
use
HWP in SWDS
Variable 1A
Variable 1B
CHWP IU DC
CHWP SWDS DC
Variable 2A
Variable 2B
CHWP IU DH
CHWP SWDS DH
= CHWP IU DC + CHWP SWDS DC
2. Annual change in carbon stock in a) HWP in use and b)

in HWP in solid waste disposal sites where the wood in the
products came from domestic harvest -- trees harvested in
the reporting country, this includes exported HWP to other
countries, CHWP DH = CHWP IU DH + CHWP SWDS DH
3. Carbon in annual imports of HWP to the reporting
country including all wood-based material - roundwood,
solidwood products, paper, pulp and recovered paper
PIM
4. Carbon in annual exports of HWP from the reporting

country including all wood-based material:- roundwood,
solidwood products, paper, pulp and recovered paper
PEX
5. Carbon in annual harvest of roundwood for products

wood removed from harvest sites in the reporting country,
including fuelwood
12.3 METHOLOGICAL ISSUES
This section provides:
1.
guidance on when it is consistent with good practice to report a HWP Contribution value of zero;6
5
6
7
2.
guidance on when it is consistent with good practice to assume that the annual change in HWP carbon
in SWDS is zero (i.e., assume annual carbon release from SWDS is the same as HWP additions to
SWDS); and
8
9
3.
three tiers of methods to estimate the five HWP variables which may be used to compute HWP
Contribution. Figure 12.1 presents a decision tree as a guide in making these choices.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
The HWP Contribution can be reported as zero if the inventory compiler judges that the annual change in carbon
in HWP stocks is insignificant. Either the stocks in the country (Variable 1A + Variable 1B), or the annual
change in carbon in HWP stocks originating from wood harvested in the country (including exported HWP)
(variable 2A + variable 2B) may be considered. The term insignificant in this context means that the annual
change in carbon in HWP stocks, using one of the measures of carbon change above, is of a comparable size to a
key category. Countries are encouraged to use the Tier 1 methods to estimate HWP variables to aid in judging if
the annual change is insignificant. Parties that wish to report HWP contribution to AFOLU where the focus is on
carbon fluxes to and from the atmosphere may want to report HWP even where there is no significant stock
change.
19
20
21
22
23
24
If an inventory compiler judges that the annual change in carbon in total HWP stocks is significant, they may
still separately judge if the annual change of HWP carbon in SWDS is significant. If it is not significantly
increasing or decreasing it may be assumed to be zero (Variables 1B and 2B are zero). It is suggested that an
estimate be made if annual change in carbon in TOTAL HWP stocks is likely to be of a comparable size to other
key categories. Countries are encouraged to use the Tier 1 methods to estimate HWP variables to aid in judging
if the annual change in SWDS is insignificant.
6
This guidance replaces the guidance in the 1996 IPCC Guidelines on when to report HWP contribution of zero.
12.8

1
2
3
4
5
6
If the annual change in HWP carbon stocks are judged to be significant, or a country chooses to make estimates,
then one of three tiers may be selected to make estimates of the five HWP variables to make an estimate of HWP
Contribution. Tier 1 uses forest products data from FAO (the default activity data) which are freely and easily
available to most countries. The Tier 1 method specifies that changes in carbon held in SWDS (Variables 1B) is
to be calculated using the Waste Sector Tier 1 methods, default data, and worksheets. A Tier 1 method is
provided to estimated Variable 2B from Variable 1B.
7
8
9
The decision tree in Figure 12.1 indicates how to choose a Tier to estimate HWP Variables on the basis of data
availability. Default data are provided for Tier 1. Tiers 2 and 3 aim to improve the accuracy of the estimates by
using more accurate country-specific data and methods.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Until the Parties to the UNFCCC decide on the approach to be used, it will not be possible to identify
definitively whether or not HWP is a key category, since the magnitude of the HWP Contribution depends on the
approach chosen. Thus, whether or not the sector is a key category cannot be used to guide the choice of tier. In
order to facilitate current reporting and allow for future decisions, there are two options. First they could elect to
use a particular approach and determine if this is a key category in the normal way, according to guidance
provided in Volume 1 Chapter 4. Alternatively, they could use their judgment to determine if the source is likely
to have a significant (equal or greater than other key categories) impact on the national greenhouse gas emission
estimates. If the source is judged to be significant, then a Tier 2 or 3 method should be used.
18
Figure 12.1. Decision tree for reporting an HWP Contribution of zero or selecting a Tier.
START
Is the
annual change in HWP
stocks insignificant ?
See Section 12.2.1.
Report HWP Contribution is zero.

Yes
(See guidance in Section 12.10 about preparing Sectoral

Background Table 12.7)
No
Is the
annual change in HWP
stocks in SWDS
insignificant? See section
12.2.1
Yes
In Background report Table 12.7, set variables 1B and 2B to

zero. Prepare estimates of variables 1A, 2A 3, 4, 5 using
Tiered methods below
No
Box 3: Tier 3
Are
country-specific
methods or detailed
historical country -specific
data on wood products
stocks and flows
available ?
Yes
Use country -specific data and a Tier 3 method to estimate

HWP variables to estimate HWP Contribution to be
reported . Tier 3 methods may be used to estimate variables
1A, 2A, 2B, 3, 4, & 5, and use WASTE SECTOR Tier 1 or
higher Tier to estimate carbon change in SWDS variable
1B. (Vol 5, Ch 3).
No
Box 2: Tier 2
Are
country - specific
activity data or discard
rates from use (half
lives) available ?
Yes
Use Tier 1 equations and country data to estimate variables

1A, 2A, 2B,3, 4, & 5, and use WASTE SECTOR Tier 1 with
country data to estimate variables 1B. (Vol 5 Ch 3)
Box 1: Tier 1
No
Use Tier 1 equations and default data to estimate variables

1A, 2A, 2B, 3, 4, & 5, and use WASTE SECTOR Tier 1 with
default data to estimate variables 1B. (Vol 5 Ch 3)
19
12.9
12.3.2 Tier 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
HWP Variables 1A, 2A, 1B and 2B are estimates of annual changes in stock of HWP carbon which are each
estimated using a flux-data method with lifetime-analysis. The decay of HWP is assumed to be of first-order7.
This means the annual loss from the stock of products is estimated as a constant fraction of the amount of the
stock. Estimates of change of carbon held in products in use (Variables 1A and 2A in Table 12.1), are made by
tracking inputs to and outputs from the products in use carbon pool. The carbon inflow to the pool is estimated
from historical production or consumption rates of HWP. Waste Sector Tier 1 methods are used to estimate
change in HWP carbon stock in SWDS (Variable 1B) (see Volume 5 Chapter 3). A Tier 1 method is provided to
estimated Variable 2B from Variable 1B.
10
11
In the case of the products in use pool, the outflow from the pool is calculated based on estimated half-life and
associated decay rates of HWP from use assuming first-order decay rates.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
The intent is to provide valid estimates of the total release of carbon from HWP for any UNFCCC reporting
year. This requires knowledge of change to the total existing HWP pool. In the absence of surveys or census data
of HWP in use, it is recommended that inputs to and outputs from HWP stocks since 1900 are used in order to
make valid estimates for recent years. Excluding current year carbon release or stock change associated with
HWP placed in use in years prior to the reporting period, would overestimate current year net additions to HWP
carbon stocks (underestimate current year carbon release), and would therefore not be consistent with the Good
Practice Guidance objective to neither over- nor under-estimate as far as can be judged.8
19
20
21
22
Data beginning in 1900 are used to estimate additions to HWP in use while the discard from use of this HWP is
estimated assuming a first order decay. This procedure is needed to produce an estimate of the existing HWP
stock accumulated from historical wood use, and hence the current year carbon release from the total stock as it
goes out of use (also termed inherited emissions).
23
24
25
HWP Variables 3, 4 and 5 (i.e. PIM, PEX, and H, respectively) are estimates of carbon in annual product imports
and exports, as well as carbon in annual harvest for products and fuelwood. They are estimated by adding
together aggregating various forest products variables from the FAO database.
26
G ENERAL M ETHOD
27
TO ESTIMATE VARIABLES 1 A AND

CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK IN PRODUCTS IN USE
28
Estimation of changes in carbon stock in products in use may be obtained by using Equation 12.19:
29
30
31
2 A -- A NNUAL
EQUATION 12.1
ESTIMATION OF CARBON STOCK AND ITS ANNUAL CHANGE IN HWP POOLS OF THE REPORTING
COUNTRY
Starting with i = 1900 and continuing to present year, compute
32
33
( A)
1 e k
C (i + 1) = e k C (i ) +
Inflow(i )
34
( B)
C (i ) = C (i + 1) C (i)
35
36
Note: For an explanation of technique used in Equations 12.1A to estimate first-order decay see
Pingoud and Wagner (2006).
37
with C (1900) = 0.0
Where:
38
39
C(i) =
year,
the carbon stock of the HWP pool in the beginning of year i, Gg C
7 Other decay profiles have been suggested (Ford-Robertson, 2003) and these could be used in place of the FOD assumption.
In this case the estimation procedure would differ from equation 12.1 and the decay of each years Inflow would be tracked
individually up to the current year. The remaining discussion about default data would still apply.
8 The year 1900 was chosen based on the judgement that contributions to the current year HWP Contribution due to products
entering the product pool prior to 1900 would be insignificant, therefore to exclude years prior to 1900 would not violate
good practice neither over nor under estimate as far as can be judged.
12.10

1
1
2
3
= decay constant of first-order decay given in units, yr ( k = ln(2) / HL, where HL is half-life of
the HWP pool in years. A half-life is the number of years it takes to lose one-half of the material
currently in the pool.)
Inflow(i) = the inflow to the HWP pool during year i, Gg C yr-1
C(i) = carbon stock change of the HWP pool during year i, Gg C yr-1
6
7
ESTIMATING VARIABLE 1A ANNUAL CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK IN

PRODUCTS IN USE IN THE REPORTING COUNTRY
8
9
Equation 12.1 is used to estimate carbon change in each of two pools in the Tier 1 spreadsheets (discussed
below). The two pools are:
10
1.
solidwood products in use; and
11
2.
paper products in use.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Where products in use are held in the reporting country, more than one pool is used because it is believed there is
a significant difference in half-life of products in use between the two pools. Annual change in these two carbon
pools, when added together, gives Variable 1A. The carbon Inflow variable to these pools is from annual
consumption in the reporting country of semi-finished wood products, including sawnwood, wood panels and
other solidwood products or paper and paperboard. Consumption equals domestic production plus imports minus
exports as shown in Equation 12.2. The rate at which solidwood or paper is lost from the pools in a given year is
specified by a constant loss rate (k) and for convenience is also specified by half-life in years. A half-life is the
number of years it takes to lose one-half of the material currently in the pool. Production, imports and exports of
solidwood or paper are converted from cubic meters or air dry Gg to tonnes of carbon (see Table 12.4).
21
22
23
EQUATION 12.2
ESTIMATION OF HWP PRODUCTS PRODUCED ANNAULLY FROM DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION
24
Inflow DC = P + SFPIM SFPEX
25
Where:
26
27
InflowDC = Carbon in annual consumption of solidwood or paper products that came from wood
harvested in the reporting country (that is, from domestic harvest), Gg C yr-1
28
P = Carbon in annual production of solidwood or paper products in the reporting country, Gg C yr-1
29
30
31
SFPIM and SFPEX = Imports and exports of semi-finished wood and paper products. For solidwood this
includes sawnwood, panels, and other industrial roundwood. For paper products this includes paper
and paperboard, Gg C yr-1
32
33
34
35
In order to make estimates of change in these pools for the reporting year the method uses data on Inflow
(product consumption = production + imports exports) back to 1961 from the FAO database9 . For the period
prior to 1961 back to 1900, it is assumed that change in consumption prior to 1961 was the same as change in
industrial roundwood consumption for the region the country is in. Data and parameters used are as follows:
36
FAO variables used to estimate product consumption are shown in Table 12.5.
37
38
39
Default factors to convert solidwood and paper from volume units to carbon units is shown in Table 12.4
Countries are encouraged to estimate factors using wood densities in Tables 4.13 and 4.14 in Chapter 4
(Forest land).
40
Regional rates of change in industrial roundwood consumption prior to 1961 are show in Table 12.3.
41
Half lives for products in use are shown in Table 12. 2
42
43
44
The rest of harvested wood material transported from the harvest site any material except the semi-finished
products noted above is assumed to be oxidized in the year of harvest, and it is thus not transferred to the HWP
pools.
See http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/collections?version=ext&hasbulk=0&subset=forestry , OR http://faostat.fao.org/
12.11
1
2
3
ESTIMATING VARIABLE 2A ANNUAL CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK IN

PRODUCTS IN USE WHERE WOOD CAME FROM HARVEST IN THE
REPORTING COUNTRY (INCLUDES EXPORTS)
4
5
6
7
8
9
General Equation 12.1 is used again to estimate carbon change in each of two pools (as for Variable 1A) in the
Tier 1 spreadsheets to estimate the annual change of carbon in solidwood and paper products in use separately
where wood to make the products came from wood harvested in the reporting country (domestic harvest). This
includes products exported and held in use in other countries. Annual change in carbon stock in solidwood
products in use and paper products in use reservoirs when added together give Variable 2A. The Inflow variable
to these pools is the production of all products from wood harvested in the reporting country.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
This annual carbon inflow variable is estimated using Equation 12.3. If the ratio in parenthesis is <1 then the
country is a net importer of industrial roundwood (IRW), wood chips and wood residues that are used to make
products and less than the full amount of HWP produced (P) would have used domestically harvested IRW. If
the ratio in parenthesis is >1, then this means there is a net export of IRW, chips, and residues by the country.
The HWP production inflow calculated by the equation needs to be greater than HWP production (P) in this case
because exported wood is used to make products in other countries. The implicit assumption being used is that
the importers of the exported IRW, chips and residues will use them to produce solidwood or paper products in
the same proportion as in the reporting country.
18
19
EQUATION 12.3
ESTIMATION OF HWP PRODUCTS PRODUCED ANNUALLY FROM DOMESTIC HARVEST
20
IRWH
InflowDH = P
IRW
IRW
IRW
WCH
WCH
WR
WR
+
+
+
H
IM
EX
IM
EX
IM
EX
21
Where:
22
23
InflowDH = Carbon in annual production of solidwood or paper products that came from wood harvested
in the reporting country (that is, from domestic harvest), Gg C yr-1
24
25
26
P = Carbon in annual production of solidwood or paper products in the reporting country, Gg C yr-1. Note
that paper product production includes wood fibre and excludes non wood fibre. An equation to
estimate the wood fibre in paper products production is shown in Note 1 of Table 12.5.
27
28
29
IRWH = Industrial roundwood harvest in the reporting country. This is the harvest of wood to make
solidwood and paper products including IRW for export. [The FAO variable is called Industrial RW
Production], Gg C yr-1
30
IRWIM , IRWEX = Industrial roundwood imports and exports, respectively, Gg C yr-1
31
WCHIM, WCHEX = Wood chip imports and exports, respectively, Gg C yr-1
32
WRIM, WREX = Wood residues from wood products mills imports and exports, respectively Gg C yr-1
33
34
35
36
37
Just as for Variable 1A, estimates of annual change in the two product-in-use pools require data on total product
production, and industrial roundwood production, imports and exports from the current year back to 1900. As for
Variable 1A FAO data are used back to 1961 and data back to 1900 is estimated by assuming the annual rate of
change from 1900 to 1961 is the same as the annual rate of change in industrial roundwood production between
1900 and 1961.
38
39
The half-life values for product-in-use pools are assumed to be the same as for variable 1A and the carbon
conversion factors are assumed to be the same. Data and parameters used are as follows:
40
41
FAO variables used to estimate total product production and industrial roundwood production, imports and
exports are shown in Table 12.5.
42
43
Default factors to convert solidwood and paper from volume units to carbon units are shown in Table 12.4.
Countries are encouraged to estimate factors using wood densities in Tables 4.13 and 4.14.
44
Regional rates of change in industrial roundwood consumption prior to 1961 are shown in Table 12.3.
45
Half lives for products in use are shown in Table 12. 2
12.12

1
2
3
4
ESTIMATING VARIABLES 1B AND 2B - ANNUAL CHANGE IN CARBON

STOCK IN SWDS IN THE REPORTING COUNTRY AND - ANNUAL CHANGE
IN CARBON STOCK IN SWDS WHERE WOOD CAME FROM HARVEST IN
THE REPORTING COUNTRY
5
6
7
Tier 1 methods are provided to estimate accumulation of HWP carbon in SWDS because a number of studies
have indicated very long storage times for HWP carbon in SWDS in some cases (NCASI 2004, Gardner et al.
2002, Micales and Skog 1997).
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Variable 1B, CHWP SWDS DC, i.e., the carbon stock change of HWP from domestic consumption discarded to
SWDS of the reporting country is estimated directly by the Waste sector Tier 1 methods and spreadsheets
(Volume 5, Chapter 3, Sec 3.2.1.1 Spreadsheet model and Sec 3.4). The Waste Sector guidelines explain how to
use Waste Sector default data and parameters to estimate the amount of solidwood and paper carbon that
accumulates in SWDS in the reporting country. A key point about the Waste Sector Tier 1 estimate is that it
estimates carbon change in SWDS by identifying the portion of carbon discarded to SWDS in the current year
which is judged to have originated as HWP. It is assumed that HWP carbon equates to the garden, wood and
paper waste categories. The spreadsheet gives the amount of long-term stored carbon from HWP in the
HWP sheet. The individual waste type sheets give the amount of decomposable, degradable organic carbon
stored. Together these give the change in the amount of stored HWP carbon No carbon release to the atmosphere
is reported from this long-life pool in the SWDS sector.
19
20
21
22
23
To estimate Variable 2B, CHWP SWDSDH, it is necessary to estimate the portion of Variable 1B that is from
domestic harvest. The Tier 1 estimate of Variable 2B is limited to estimating the carbon change in domestic
SWDS only. It is judged that potential Tier 1 methods to estimate carbon change in SWDS in other countries
could lead to substantial over or underestimates so it is best to not include an estimate of carbon change in
SWDS in other countries.
24
25
26
27
28
The portion of Variable 1B that is from domestic harvest is approximated by multiplying by the fraction of wood
carbon consumed in the country in the current year that came from domestic harvest (Equation 12.4). This ratio
will be a reasonable approximation of the fraction of HWP carbon discarded to SWDS that came from domestic
harvest if imported wood material has been a relatively stable fraction of all wood consumed over a period of
years.
29
30
31
32
33
EQUATION 12.4
ESTIMATION OF ANNUAL CHANGE IN CARBON IN HWP IN DOMESTIC SWDS WHERE HWP
CAME FROM DOMESTIC HARVEST

Imported wood material
C HWP SWDS DH = C HWP SWDS DC 1
Produced
wood
material + Imported wood material

34
IRW IM + WCH IM + WR IM + SawnW IM + WPan IM +
Imported wood material =
P & PB IM + WPulp & Re cPap IM
35
36
Produced wood material = IRW H
37
38
Where:
39
40
CHWP SWDSDH = Variable 2B = Annual change in carbon in HWP in DOMESTIC SWDS where HWP
came from domesitic wood harvest, Gg C yr-1
41
42
CHWP SWDS DC = Variable 1B = Annual change in carbon in HWP in SWDS in the reporting country, Gg C
yr-1
43
44
IRWH and IRWIM = Industrial roundwood harvest in the reporting country and industrial roundwood
imports, respectively, Gg C yr-1
45
WCHIM = Wood chip imports, Gg C yr-1
46
WRIM =Wood residues from wood products mills imports, Gg C yr-1
47
SawnWIM = Sawn wood imports and, Gg C yr-1
12.13
1
WPanIM = Wood panel imports, Gg C yr-1
P&PBIM = Paper and paperboard imports, Gg C yr-1
WPulp&RecPapIM = Wood pulp and recovered paper imports, Gg C yr-1
4
5
Data to be used for Equation 12.4 are FAO variables shown in Table 12.5.
6
7
8
9
ESTIMATING VARIABLES 3, 4, AND 5 ANNUAL IMPORTS AND EXPORTS

OF HWP TO AND FROM THE REPORTING COUNTRY, AND ANNUAL HWP
HARVEST
10
11
12
13
14
Estimates of annual imports, exports and harvest for Variables PIM, PEX, and H are needed for the most recent
years only (see Annex Equations 12A.3 and 12A.4). No data are needed for years before the reporting period.
Default import, export and harvest data may be obtained from the FAOSTAT database. The specific FAO
variables that are needed are shown in Table 12.5 Factors to convert from cubic meters or air dry Gg of product
are shown in Table 12.4.
15
16
17
18
19
20
H (Variable 5), total annual HWP harvest, is defined here as all wood and bark that leaves harvest sites including
fuelwood. It is intended to include the total of the Lremoval and Lfuelwood values as defined in Volume 4 Chapter 2,
Equations 2.12 and 2.13. Guidelines for estimation of Lremoval and Lfuelwood for forest land is in Volume 4 Chapter
4, Section 4.2.1. Default estimate for this variable is the FAO database value for industrial roundwood times a
bark expansion factor plus the FAO database value for fuelwood. A default bark expansion factor is shown in
Table 12.5, Note 4.
21
SPREADSHEET MODELS: STEP BY STEP GUIDANCE
22
23
24
25
26
The FODWOOD Model: Estimating Variables 1A, 2A, 2B, 3, 4, 5
27
28
29
Here are general instructions on how to use the FODWOOD spreadsheet to estimate the HWP variables and
generate Table 12.7 and AFOLU Sectoral Background Table 3.3. Please see detailed instructions under the
Instructions tab of the FODWOOD spreadsheet.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
1.
42
43
44
45
The FODWOOD model may be used to estimate the HWP variables and produce Table 12.7 which may be used
to fill in AFOLU Sectoral Background Table 3.10. Default parameters are already included to make Tier 1
estimates or may be changed to make Tier 2 estimates. Variable 2B may be estimated if Variable 1B has been
estimated using the Waste Sector Tier 1 spreadsheets.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Download country activity data (wood and paper products production, imports and exports) from the
FAOSTAT web site and place in columns of the CountryX sheet (years 1961 to reporting year).
Transfer estimates of carbon stored in SWDS from the Waste Sector Tier 1 Model spreadsheet to the last
two columns of the CountryX sheet (years 1990 to reporting year as needed).
Rename the CountryX sheet with your country name, type this country name in cell A1 of the newly named
sheet, and in cell C3 of the Parameters and Results sheet.
Check / change default parameters as needed that are shown in yellow in the Parameters and Results
sheet.
See results in a completed Table 12.7 on the sheet named Sect bg Table 12.7. Results from this table may
be transferred to the AFOLU Sectoral Background for Harvested Wood Products in Table 3.10.
See detailed results in tables, graphs, and diagrams in several sheets - Parameters and Results, Diagram
SC, AFA, and Diagram PA, SD.
Waste Sector Tier 1 Model: Estimating Variable 1B

To prepare the estimate of carbon stored in HWP in the reporting country that can be inserted in the FODWOOD
spreadsheet, see Volume 5, Ch 3, Sec 3.2.1.1 Spreadsheet model and Sec 3.4. In Section 3.2.1.1 there is a link
to the spreadsheet model. Details on how to use the model can be found in the Instructions spreadsheet.
46
12.3.3 Tier 2 Using country data
47
48
Tier 2 uses country-specific data to improve estimates of annual carbon change in products in use and in
SWDS. Improved data could include country data on:
49
12.14
annual production, imports and exports by product types and wood species;

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
factors to convert activity data to carbon;

rate at which products are discarded from use (half-life). If information indicates various wood products
have different half-lives (e.g. sawnwood versus panels) then Equation 12.1 can be used to track carbon
change for separate pools and not just solidwood and paper products;
Waste Sector annual activity data and parameters for Waste Sector Tier 1 method including DOCf - the
fraction of wood and paper that decays in SWDS.
12.3.4 Tier 3: Country-Specific Methods
8
9
10
11
12
13
Countries may wish to develop more complex, detailed country-specific methods to estimate variables 1A, 1B, 3,
4, and 5. Typically these will be more complex models and will be focused on a single approach (Flugsrud et al.,
2001). Tier 3 models could also use decay functions other than first order decay e.g. linear decay. It is more
difficult to develop Tier 3 methods for variables 2A and 2B which require data on the lifecycle of exported HWP
for countries where most of its products are exported. Estimates for variables 2A and 2B could be improved by
obtaining decay information for countries where most products are exported.
14
15
M ETHOD A E STIMATE
METHODS )
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Inventories of HWP in use or HWP in waste disposal sites, at two or more points in time, could be used to
estimate the annual change in carbon stock Variables 1A and 1B. The HWP pool of products in use in building
structures is frequently a major part of the total HWP pool. The amount of HWP carbon can be estimated, for
example, by multiplying the average HWP content per square meter of floor space times the total floor space for
relevant building types that use wood taking into account when the buildings were constructed and changes in
wood use per square meter over time. Annual change in carbon stock could be estimated by noting the change
between inventories estimated at different points in time. Examples of such inventories are reported in Gjesdal et
al., 1996 (for Norway) and in Pingoud et al., 1996, 2001 (for Finland), Hashimoto and Moriguchi 2004 (for
Japan). In this case, no procedure for adding up wood use data from historical data is needed to estimate the
existing HWP stock or annual change in stock, which is an advantage compared to the flux methods (Tier 1 and
Tier 2).
27
M ETHOD B T RACK
ANNUAL CHANGE IN INVENTORIES
(S TOCK
28
INPUT AND OUTPUT FLOWS USING DETAILED

COUNTRY DATA AND DECAY PATTERNS
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Use detailed country data beginning with a number of decades in the past and estimate each year, up to the
present time, including (i) additions to pools of HWP in use, (ii) discards from use, (iii) additions to pools of
HWP in SWDS, and (iv) decay from SWDS. Estimates for SWDS may use survey estimates of the amount of
HWP placed in SWDS each year, rather than the amount of HWP going out of use and the portion going to
SWDS. This method is also based on flux data and lifetime analysis just as for Tier 1 and Tier 2 methods, but the
rate at which products are discarded from use may differ from the first order decay assumption used in Tiers 1
and 2.
36
M ETHOD C F LUX
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Instead of the flux-data method with lifetime analysis, a flux-data method using direct estimates of the output of
the HWP pool could also be used in principle. Examples would be information on carbon wood burned for
energy each year or carbon contained in buildings demolished in a year. The advantage of this method is that
long historical input data for the HWP pool are no longer required. On the other hand, the method would have a
serious disadvantage - the outflow and oxidation data of HWP are much more uncertain than the input data and
are likely to be underestimated, as a result a significant part of decay would not be identified and net additions to
carbon held in HWP would be overestimated (see Flugsrud et al. 2001, Pingoud et al. 2003).
44
M ETHOD D C OMBINE M ETHODS A, B
45
46
An example of a combined method that uses the most accurate information available about different products is:
1) to use changes in inventory to estimate carbon changes in buildings and furniture; and 2) to use input and
DATA METHOD WITH DIRECT OUTPUT ESTIMATES
AND
12.15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
output flows to estimate changes of carbon in paper products (see example for Norway, Flugsrud et al., 2001;
and for Japan, Hashimoto and Moriguchi, 2004). Or alternatively, the inherited carbon stock of HWP in some
recent year could be estimated by direct inventory, Method A instead of estimating it from historical
consumption rates as in Method B and Tier 1. Then taking this carbon stock as initial value, carbon stock and
stock changes in subsequent years can be estimated by using decay rates from Method B. HWP inventory data
could also be used to help determine the half-life parameters in the first-order-decay method. Instead of using
default half-lives these parameters could be chosen to obtain the best fit of the first-order-decay method (or other
decay function) with the real inventory data (see e.g. Pingoud et al. 2001).
10
12.3.5 Estimating Carbon release to the atmosphere from the

HWP variables
11
12
Annual carbon release to the atmosphere from HWP may be estimated for two cases using the five HWP
variables as follows
13
14
EQUATION 12.5
ESTIMATION OF CARBON RELEASE USING HWP VARIABLES
For annual carbon release from wood stocks in the reporting country
15
16
C HWP DC = H + PIM PEX C HWP IU DC C HWP SWDS DC
( A)
17
For annual carbon release from wood harvested in the reporting country
18
( B)
C HWP DH = H C HWP IU DH C HWP SWDS DH
19
20
21
22
23
24
The carbon release variables are defined in Section 12.1. These equations may be used to compute CO2 release
to report in Table 12.7 and AFOLU background reporting Table 3.10 as described in Section 12.9. If estimates of
carbon release are available these equations may be solved for the total stock change amounts (C HWP IU DC + C
HWP SWDS DC OR C HWP IU DH - C HWP SWDS DH ) and the resulting equation could be used to calculated these total
stock changes using the carbon release variables..
26
12.3.6 Estimating Carbon released to the atmosphere in the

form of CO 2
27
28
Ccarbon that is released in the form of CO2 may be calculated if the methane emitted from HWP in landfills is
known as follows:
29
30
31
32
33
34
CHWP DC CO2 = CHWP DC - EW CH4. Annual release of carbon to the atmosphere as CO2 from HWP
accounting for carbon emitted as methane emitted from HWP in SWDS. EW CH4 is the carbon in CH4
emitted from the decomposition of HWP in SWDS in the year concerned. It can be estimated using the
methodology in the chapter 3.2 of volume 5. The IPCC Waste Model spreadsheet estimates this
automatically for the Waste Composition option (it is the sum of the carbon in CH4 emitted in the
inventory year from wood, paper and garden waste on the HWP sheet).
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
CHWP DH CO2 = CHWP DH - EEX DOM CH4. Annual release of carbon to the atmosphere as CO2 from HWP
that came from wood harvested in the reporting country, accounting for carbon emitted as methane
emitted from HWP in SWDS. EEX DOM CH4 is the carbon in CH4 emitted from SWDS (as carbon) from
domestic harvest whether in country or exported. It can be estimated using the methodology in the
chapter 3.2 of volume 5. To use the IPCC Waste Model spreadsheet, the waste inputs into the SWDS
would need to be adjusted to account only the HWP from domestic harvest including domestically
harvested HWP exported and put into SWDS in other countries.
25
12.16

12.4 CHOICE OF EMISSION FACTORS
2
3
4
5
Tier 1 and Tier 2 use the assumption that HWP are discarded from use at a constant rate, k, applied to the carbon
present in the pool. This constant rate of discard can be specified by an associated half-life in years for products
in the pool. The half-life is the number of years until half of the amount goes out of use. Default half-life values,
and associated discard rates (k) are provided in Table 12.2 for solidwood products and paper products.
6
TABLE 12.2
DEFAULT HALF-LIVES FOR PRODUCTS IN USE CARBON POOLS AND ASSOCIATED FRACTION
RETAINED EACH YEAR
Solidwood products
Paper products
Half-life (years)
30
Decay rate k (k = ln(2)/ half-life)
0.023
0.347
Source: Based on values used in previous studies summarized in HWP Appendix Table
3a.1.3 of the IPCC report on GPG- LULUCF (2003). Table 3a.1.3 gives values for more
product categories
12.5 CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA
ACTIVITY DATA FOR TIER 1 VARIABLES
10
11
12
13
14
15
FAO datasets needed to estimate production, imports and exports of solidwood and paper products needed to
estimate HWP Variables 1A, 2A, PIM, PEX, and H, for 1961 to the present, including default conversion factors,
are provided in Tables 12.4 and 12.5. In order to include current year carbon release from HWP placed in use
many decades ago, estimates are needed for HWP data prior to 1961. In order to estimate total harvest (variable
H) including bark, multiply the FAO estimate of harvest for products (Table 12.5) by a default bark expansion
factor of 1.13 (Jenkins et al. 2003).
16
17
18
19
In order to estimate the variables in Table 12.5 prior to 1961, they are extrapolated backward to 1900 using
Equation 12.6. Equation 12.6 uses a rate of change variable U to estimate values prior to 1961.10 The rate of
change taken to approximate change in production, imports and exports prior to 1961 is the rate of change in
industrial roundwood production. Default values for U are shown in Table 12.3 for major world regions.
20
21
22
EQUATION 12.6
EQUATION TO ESTIMATE PRODUCTION, IMPORTS OR EXPORT VARIABLES IN TABLE 12.5 FOR
YEARS BEFORE 1961
V =V
e [ U (t 1961) ]
23
1961
24
Where,
25
Vt = Annual production, imports or exports for a solidwood or paper product for year t, Gg C yr-1
26
t = year
27
28
V1961 = Annual production, imports or exports for a solidwood or paper product for the year 1961, Gg C
yr-1
29
30
U = Estimated continuous rate of change in industrial roundwood consumption for the region that
includes the reporting county between 1900 and 1961 (see Table 12.3), yr-1
10 Countries formed after 1961 may not have data in the FAO database back to 1961. A way to extend more recent
production, import and export data back to 1961 is to look at data back to 1961 for the old country that the new
country was a part of (e.g., Czechoslovakia for the Czech Republic and Slovokia) and extend new country variables back
to 1961 using the rate of change in each variable for the old country back to 1961.
12.17
1
2
TABLE 12.3
ESTIMATED ANNUAL RATES OF INCREASE FOR INDUSTRIAL ROUNDWOOD PRODUCTION (HARVEST) BY WORLD
REGION FOR THE PERIOD 1900 TO 1961
Annual Rate of Increase U
World total
0.0148
Europe
0.0151
USSR
0.0160
North America
0.0143
Latin America
0.0220
Africa
0.0287
Asia
0.0217
Oceania
0.0231
Source: See Table 3a.1.2 in HWP Appendix (GPG LULUCF, 2003).
Note: For each region the average rate of change over the period 1900 to 1961 is formed by combining a
documented actual rate of change from 1950 to 1961 and an estimated rate of change from 1900 to 1950. The
estimated rate from 1900 to 1950 is formed by adding together the annual percent change of population
growth from 1900 to 1950 and one half the annual percent change in industrial roundwood harvest per capita
for the period 1950 to 1975.
3
4
TABLE 12.4
DEFAULT FACTORS TO CONVERT FROM PRODUCT UNITS TO CARBON
Roundwood, industrial roundwood,
sawnwood, ,other industrial
roundwood, pulpwood, chips,
particles, wood fuel, wood residues
1. Density (oven dry

Tonnes per m3 of
solidwood product or
oven dry per air dry
ton of pulp or paper
product)
2. Carbon fraction
(tonnes carbon per
oven dry tonne of
wood material)
3. Carbon factor
(Tonnes carbon per m3
of product or per air
dry tonne of product)
(row 1) x (row 2)
Temperate species
Tropical
species
0.45
0.59
Charcoal
0.9
oven-dry Tonnes
m-3
oven-dry
Tonnes m-3
oven-dry
Tonnes (air
dry tonne)-1
0.5
0.5
0.85
A = 0.225 Tonnes
C m-3
A = 0.295
B = 0.765
Tonnes C m-3
Tonnes C
(air dry
tonne)-1
Average
for wood
panels
0.628
oven-dry
Tonnes m-
Paper and
paperboard, Pulp,
recovered fibre
pulp, recovered
paper
0.9
oven-dry Tonnes
(air dry tonne)-1
0.468
0.5
C = 0.294
D = 0.450
Tonnes C
m-3
Tonnes C (air-dry
tonne)-1
Source: Temperate species density: Average from Table 4.14 Volume 4 Chapter 4; Tropical species density: Average from Table 4.13,
Volume 4, Chapter 4.
12.18

TABLE 12.5
UN FAO ACTIVITY DATA NEEDED FOR TIER 1 VARIABLES, AND DEFAULT CONVERSION FACTORS
Carbon factor (Gg
Time period
FAO database variables needed to compute
carbon per m3 for wood
(Inv. Yr =
aggregate variable
products or per Gg for
Aggregate variable
Inventory
paper and pulp)
(m3 for wood
reporting
(see Table 12.4 for
Gg for pulp and paper)
year)
values)
Variable 1A Consumption of solidwood or paper products
Other Industrial Roundwood
1961 - Inv. yr.
A
Production of solidwood
Sawnwood
1961 - Inv. yr.
A
products
Imports and Exports of

Solidwood products
Production of paper and
paperboard from wood[ see
note 1 below]
Imports and exports of paper
and paperboard
Wood panels
1961 -Inv. yr.
Other Industrial Roundwood
1961 - 1989
Sawnwood
1961-Inv. yr.
Wood panels
1961-Inv. yr.
Paper and paperboard production (PPAPER)
1961-Inv. yr.
Other Fibre Pulp production (OFPP), imports

(OFPIM), and exports (OFPIM)
1961-Inv. yr.
Paper and paperboard
1961-Inv. yr.
Variable 2A Production of solidwood and paper products from wood harvested in the reporting country
Production of solidwood
products from domestic
harvest [ see note 2 below]
Production of paper and

paperboard from domestic
harvest [see note 3 below]
Production of solidwood products as for Variable

1A above (PSW)
1961-Inv. yr.
Industrial roundwood harvest (IRWH), imports

(IRWIM), exports (IRWEX)
1961-Inv. yr.
Chips and particles imports (CPIM ), and exports

(CPEX)
1961-Inv. yr.
Production of paper and paperboard products from

as for Variable 1A above (PPAPER)
1961-Inv. yr.
Industrial roundwood harvest (IRWH), imports

(IRWIM), exports (IRWEX) same as above
1961-Inv. yr.
Other Fibre Pulp production (OFPP), imports

(OFPIM), and exports (OFPIM) same as above
1961-Inv. yr.
Exports of wood pulp, recovered paper and

recovered paper pulp (PPEXPORTS )
1961-Inv. yr.
Variables 3 and 4 Imports and exports of all solidwood and paper products and wood fiber
Roundwood (includes fuelwood)
Imports and exports
1961-Inv. yr.
Chips and particles
1961-Inv. yr.
Wood residue
1961-Inv. yr.
Charcoal
1961-Inv. yr
Sawnwood
1961 - Inv. yr.
Wood panels
1961 - Inv. yr.
Wood Pulp
1961-Inv. yr.
Recovered Paper
1961-Inv. yr.
Variable 5 Harvest for products

Harvest for products [see note
1961-Inv. yr.
A
Industrial Roundwood (IRWH), Fuelwood
4 below]
Notes:
1. Production of paper and paperboard from wood = PPAPER - (OFPP + OFPIM - OFPEX )
2. Production of solidwood products from domestic harvest = PSW * IRWH / (IRWH + IRWIM - IRWEX + CPIM + CPEX )
3. Production of paper products from domestic harvest= (PPAPER+PPEXPORTS - (OFPP + OFPIM - OFPEX )) * IRWH / (IRWH + IRWIM - IRWEX
+ CPIM + CPEX )
4.Variable H = IRWH * BF + Fuelwood, BF (bark factor) default value = 1.13 ; Softwoods (1.11), Hardwoods (1.15) (Jenkins et al. 2003)
Source of variables and data: FAOSTAT Forestry database (FAO 2005).
12.19
1
12.6 UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT
Uncertainty in the five HWP variables using Tier 1 methods arises in two ways:
more accurate country data may differ from the default data in Tables 12.2, 12.3, 12.4 and 12.5, and
the estimation method is a simplification of real world processes.
5
6
7
8
The uncertainty associated with using default product production and trade (the activity data) and parameters are
provided in Table 12.6. The uncertainty estimates are based on published studies and expert judgment. If
national data and parameters are used, uncertainties should be evaluated consistent with the guidance in Volume
1, Chapter 3.
9
10
Some FAO activity data such as Other Industrial Roundwood production needed in calculation of Variables
1A and 2A may have high uncertainty.
11
12
13
An estimate of the effect of the uncertainty in the default data on each of the five HWP variables could be
obtained by using the error propagation approach or the Monte Carlo simulation approach as discussed in
Volume 1, Chapter 3.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
There is also uncertainty in the estimates because the calculations simplify a more complex real world process of
additions to and discards from products in use and SWDS. One simplification for Tier 1 and Tier 2 methods is
the tracking of additions and discards only in the form of semi-finished products (solidwood and paper). Ideally
it would be possible to track additions and discards of carbon in end-uses (such as buildings, furniture, books
etc.). The end-use pools (such as buildings, books etc.) are assumed to be included in these semi-finished product
pools. Additional simplifications include the assumptions that there are two stocks of products in use (solidwood
and paper) and that discards are a constant fraction of the contents of the product pools in use over time. If
country information is available to indicate more product stock groups with differing discard patterns, including
variation in discards over time, then a Tier 3 method is recommended allowing for a different discard pattern.
23
24
Given the potential differences between the default data and actual country data estimates for Variables 1A, 1B,
2A and 2B estimates using Tier 1methods could have uncertainties of 50% or more.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
There will be higher uncertainties associated with estimation of Variables 2A and 2B than Variables 1A and 1B
because of the practical difficulties to estimate changes in carbon pools in countries where HWP are exported.
The simplified assumption for variable 2A (carbon stock changes in HWP pools from domestic harvest) is that
the lifecycle of harvested wood in the importing countries is similar to that for domestic use. The simplified
assumption for Variable 2B is that there is no significant storage of exported products in SWDS after their use in
other countries. The uncertainty in variables 2A and 2B will be greater for countries that have higher levels of
exports and/or imports. To reduce the uncertainties concerning variable 2B a conservative estimate is made
which includes only carbon stock changes in domestic SWDS.
33
34
Uncertainties in variables PIM, PEX, and H are associated with the accuracy of this default country data and their
conversion factors into amounts of carbon not with such modeling uncertainties as in case of variables 1 and 2.
35
36
37
Amounts of wood-based materials in international trade of final products (e.g. prefabricated houses, furniture,
books etc.) are not included in FAO statistics and in order to avoid double-counting those could not be used in
the Tier 1 and 2 methods that are focused on semi-finished products (e.g. lumber and paper).
38
For a discussion of the uncertainty associated with the Waste Sector Tier 1 method see Volume 5, Chapter 2.
39
40
41
42
Even though the uncertainty associated with Tier 1 estimates using default data could be high, working through
such estimates can be the first step in identifying ways to improve them. Initial improvements can be made using
Tier 2, including use of country data, and use of validation steps suggested in the next section on quality control
and quality assurance.
12.20

TABLE 12.6
UNCERTAINTY ASSOCIATED WITH ACTIVITY DATA AND PARAMENTERS (EMISSION FACTORS) FOR THE TIER 1 METHOD TO ESTIMATE THE FIVE ANNUAL HWP VARIABLES
Description of Data or Parameter
Roundwood harvest (wood harvested and removed

from sites for products including fuelwood)
Data or Parameter
Values
H in Table 12.5
FAO database
HWP production, imports and exports FAO data
See Table 12.5
FAO database
Product volume to product weight factors
See Table 12.4
See Table 12.4
Oven dry product weight to carbon weight
See Table 12.4
0.5
Growth rate of production, imports and exports prior

to first year of FAO data
U (in Table 12.3)
See Table 12.3
Decay (or discard) rate for solidwood and paper from

the products in use pool
See Table 12.2
12.21
Uncertainty Range possible difference from

default for individual countries
Country-specific for FAO data

Country-specific for FAO data
Production and trade for countries with
systematic census or surveys - 15% since 1961
Production and trade for countries without
systematic census or survey 50% since 1961
~ 25%
~ 10%
Rate of increase in production prior to 1961 15%
for a region, larger for country within a region.
Rate of increase in trade prior to 1961 50% for a
region, larger for country within a region.
For estimating Variable 1A
Uncertainty in half-life ~ 50%
k = ln(2)/ (half-life)
(preliminary further study needed, half-life likely
to vary over time)
For estimating Variable 1B Uncertainty in half-life of products in use would
be greater given the extra uncertainty of discard
rates for exported products on other countries.
1
12.7 QUALITY ASSURANCE/ QUALITY CONTROL
2
3
This section suggests steps to improve estimates of the five HWP variables including checking and revising data
for the Tier 1 method and improvements for Tier 2 estimates.
4
5
6
1.
Check that country data in the FAO database (Table 12.5) agree with best available country sources of
data on production and trade, or use country data in place of FAO data. (this can improve Variables 1
through 5)
7
8
9
10
2.
Check for country sources for densities of wood and paper products to revise the values in Table 12.4.
Review wood density information provided in the IPCC Emission Factor Database (EFDB) and in
relevant Tables 4.13 and 4.14 in Chapter 4 (Forest Land) of these guidelines (this can improve
Variables 1 through 5).
11
12
13
3.
Use the following steps to validate the estimate of Variable 1A - Annual change in carbon stock in
HWP products in use in the reporting country by comparing two estimates of amounts of wood and
paper deposited in SWDS.
14
15
16
a.
Use the Waste Sector Tier 1 method and Excel worksheets (or other Waste Sector methods and
data) to estimate of the amount of solidwood and paper products deposited in SWDS for
several years (e.g. 1961 to the present).
17
18
b.
Prepare a second estimate of the amount of solidwood and paper products deposited in SWDS
in the following way:
19
20
i. Use the HWP Tier 1 Excel worksheets to estimate the amount of solidwood and paper
products in use that are discarded each year for 1961 to the present.
21
22
23
ii. Reduce the amount of paper discards each year by the amount of paper that is
recovered for recycling each year using FAO data on amount of recovered paper
produced.
24
25
iii. Obtain an estimate of the portion of discarded wood and paper (excluding recovered
amounts) that is sent to SWDS. This would likely be the fraction not burned.
26
27
28
iv. Estimate the amount of solidwood and paper deposited in SWDS each year by
multiply the discard amount (after recovery for recycling) by the fraction that goes to
SWDS.
29
30
c.
Compare the yearly deposit estimates from the Waste Sector Tier 1 method and the method
based on HWP Tier 1 discard data.
31
32
33
34
35
d.
To reconcile differences in estimates, it is recommended that changes be made to HWP Tier 1

parameters so that the SWDS deposit estimates based on HWP numbers match the SWDS
deposit from the Waste Sector estimates. HWP parameters to change include: 1) half-life for
solidwood and paper products in use (Table 12.2), or 2) factors to convert HWP product data
to carbon units (Table 12.4).
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
4.
An additional step to help verify Variable 1A - annual change in HWP carbon in products in use would be to use Equation 12.2 to make separate estimates of annual change in solidwood carbon held in
buildings, such as residential buildings and separately for all other uses. A different half-life would be
used for solidwood products in residential buildings. Compare this estimate of carbon change in
residential buildings to a second estimate made in the following way. Compute the total carbon held in
residential buildings at two points in time. For each point in time multiply the number of residential
buildings, times average square meters per building, times cubic meters of solidwood use per square
meter of house, times carbon per unit of solidwood. Take the difference in carbon in residential
buildings between the two points in time and divide by the number of years to estimate carbon change
per year. To reconcile the two estimates of annual change in solidwood carbon, adjust the half-life
assumed for solidwood use in residential buildings.
47
12. 8 COMPLETENESS
48
49
50
Tiers 1 and 2 methods, for estimating Variables 1A and 1B (annual change in HWP carbon in products in use
and in SWDS, respectively, in the reporting country), include carbon additions in the form of all semi-finished
wood and paper products that are consumed. By doing so, they include carbon in any secondary wood products
12.22

1
2
3
made in the country from those semi-finished products. If the country is a notable exporter or importer of
secondary wood products, such as furniture or wooden crafts, then methods may need to be adapted to adjust
HWP consumption to exclude exports of secondary products and/ or include imports of secondary products.
4
5
6
7
8
9
Tier 1 and 2 methods to estimate Variables 2A and 2B (annual change in HWP carbon in products in use from
domestic harvest) are likely to include all semi-finished and secondary product carbon from domestic harvest
(sawnwood, panels and paper) unless some wood is used directly for secondary products (e.g. furniture) and not
included first in a semi-finished product amounts reported in the FAO or country data (e.g. sawnwood ). If some
sawnwood is used directly to make furniture (and not included in FAO country data on sawnwood) then the Tier
1 and 2 methods would underestimate the inflow of carbon to products in use and products in SWDS.
10
11
The methods provided in these guidelines do not include estimates of HWP carbon storage associated with CO2
that is captured after biomass burning and held as part of a solid chemical or as a gas.
12
12.9 REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION
13
14
15
16
17
It is good practice to document and archive all information used to produce national estimates of stock change.
This includes wood and paper production and trade data, and parameters used. Changes in parameters to make
estimates of stock change from one year to the next should be documented. The national inventory report should
contain summaries of methods used and references to source data so that the steps used in making the estimates
can be retraced.
18
12.10 REPORTING TABLES AND WORKSHEETS
19
20
To report the HWP contribution an approach should be selected. It is good practice to report the following in the
AFOLU sectoral background Table 3.10 (see Table 12.7 and Table A12.1):
21
The HWP contribution
22
23
The approach used to estimate the HWP contribution. If the HWP contribution is assumed to be zero
(Section 12.2.1) then the reason for this should be stated instead of the approach chosen,
24
25
The amounts harvested, imported and exported should be given in Table 12.7 even if the HWP
contribution is assumed to be zero.
26
27
CO2 release to the atmosphere from HWP --- (44/12*C

appropriate.
28
Any other HWP variables used to estimate the reported HWP contribution should also be given.
29
30
HWP DC)
and/or (44/12*C
HWP DH)
as
The inventory compiler is encouraged to report additional information that would increase the comparability and
transparency of the report. This could include:
31
Any of the remaining HWP variables defined in Table 12.1 not covered above.
32
33
Other additional items may also be reported for specific approaches if an inventory compiler believes
this would add to the transparency of the inventory.
34
35
36
37
38
39
If the Simple Decay approach is used for reporting, the compiler should indicate in the Documentation box of
Background Table 3.10 (Table 12.7) which of the following options is used: 1) a) CO2 equivalent of carbon in
annual harvest of HWP is retained with (deducted from) the net emission/ removals estimate reported separately
for each land area (e.g. ( -44/12 * H ) for forest land) and b) HWP Contribution entered in Table 3.10 equals the
CO2 release from harvest in the country ( 44/12* CHWP DH), OR 2) HWP contribution in Table 3.10 equals (44/12* (H -C HWP DH )).
12.23
1
References
2
3
4
5
Brown S., B. Lim, and B. Schlamadinger. (1998). Evaluating Approaches for Estimating Net Emissions of
Carbon Dioxide from Forest Harvesting and Wood Products. Report of a meeting sponsored by the IPCC
held in Dakar, Senegal, 5-7 May, 1998. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/mtdocs/pdfiles/dakar.pdf and
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/mtdocs/dakar.htm
6
7
8
Cowie A., Pingoud, K., Schlamadinger, B. (2006). Key terms used in greenhouse gas reporting and accounting
for the land use, land use change and forestry sector. www.joanneum.at/iea-bioenergy-task38/
publications/keydefinitions.pdf
9
10
11
Flugsrud K, Hoem B., Kvingedal E. and Rypdal R. (2001). Estimating net emissions of CO2 from harvested
wood products. SFT report 1831/200. Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, Oslo 47 p. http://www.sft.no/
publikasjoner/luft/1831/ta1831.pdf
12
13
Food and Agriculture Organization. (2005). FAOSTAT Forestry data. Web site http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/
collections?subset=forestry accessed January 3, 2005.
14
15
16
17
Ford-Robertson, J.B. 2003. Implications of Harvested Wood Products Accounting - Analysis of issues raised by
Parties to the UNFCCC and development of a Simple Decay approach. MAF Technical Paper No 2003/5,
30p. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Wellington, New Zealand. http://www.maf.govt.nz/forestry/
publications/index.htm
18
19
20
21
22
Gardner W.D., Ximenes F., Cowie A., Marchant J.F., Mann S., and Dods K. (2002) Decomposition of wood
products in the Lucas Heights landfill facility. Presented at the Third Australian Conference on 'Life Cycle
Assessment Life Cycle Decision-making for Sustainability. Queensland, Australia, 17 19 July, 2002.
State Forests of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
(http://www.greenhouse.crc.org.au/crc/ecarbon/enews/gardner.pdf)
23
24
Gjesdal S.F.T., Flugsrud K., Mykkelbost T.C., and Rypdal K. (1996). A balance of use of wood products in
Norway, Norwegian Pollution Control Authority SFT, Report 96:04, 54 p.
25
26
Haygreen, J.G. and Bower, J.L. (1989). Forest Products and Wood Science An Introduction, 2nd edition. Iowa
State University Press. Ames, Iowa. 500 p.
27
28
29
Hashimoto, S. and Moriguchi, Y. (2004). Data Book: Material and carbon flow of harvested wood in Japan.
CGER-D034-2004. National Institute for Environmenal Studies, Japan. Tsukuba. 40p. http://wwwcger.nies.go.jp/publication/D034/D034.pdf
30
31
32
33
34
35
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2003). Appendix 3a.1 Harvested wood products: Basis for
future methodological development. IN Penman J., Gytarsky M., Hiraishi T., Krug T., Kruger D., Pipatti, R.
Buendia L., Miwa K., Nigara T. Tanabe K., Wagner F. (Eds) Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, LandUse Change and Forestry. IPCC/OECD/IEA/IGES, Hayama, Japan http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/
gpglulucf/gpglulucf.htm
and
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gpglulucf/gpglulucf_files/Chp3
/App_3a1_HWP.pdf
36
37
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (1996). Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories. UK Meteorological Office, Bracknell, UK.
38
39
40
41
42
Jenkins, J.C., Chojnacky, D.C., Heath, L.S. and R.A. Birdsey. 2003. National-scale biomass estimators for
United States tree species. Forest Science. 49(1):12-35. http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/
publications/other_publishers/OCR/ne_2003jenkins01.pdf
Micales J.A and Skog K.E. (1997). The decomposition of forest products in landfills. International
Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 39(2-3): pp. 145-158
43
44
45
46
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). (2004). Critical Review of Forest Products
Decomposition in Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Technical Bulletin No. 0872. Research Triangle Park,
NC: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=97
47
48
Pingoud, K., Perl, A.-L., Pussinen, A. (2001): Carbon dynamics in wood products. Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies for Global Change, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 91-111, 2001.
49
50
Pingoud K., Savolainen I., and Seppala H. (1996). Greenhouse impact of the Finnish forest sector including
forest products and waste management. Ambio 25:pp. 318-326.
51
52
53
Pingoud, K., Perl, A.-L., Soimakallio, S., Pussinen, A., (2003): Greenhouse gas impacts of harvested wood
products. Evaluation and development of methods. VTT Research Notes 2189, 138 p.
http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/2003/T2189.pdf
12.24

1
2
Pingoud, K., and Wagner, F. (2006): Methane emissions from landfills and decay of harvested wood products:
the first order decay revisited. IIASA Interim Report IR-06-004
3
4
UNFCC Secretariat. (2003). Estimation, reporting, and accounting of harvested wood products - Technical
paper. FCCC/TP/2003/7 27 October 2003. Bonn, Germany. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/tp/tp0307.pdf
5
6
7
UNFCCC Secretariat. (2004). Report on the workshop on harvested wood products [held in Lillehammer,
Norway, from 30 August to 1 September 2004.] FCCC/SBSTA/2004/INF.11 25 October 2004. Bonn,
Germany http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2004/sbsta/inf11.pdf
8
9
Winjum J. K., S. Brown and B. Schlamadinger, (1998): Forest Harvests and Wood Products: Sources and Sinks
of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Forest Science 44 (2):272-284.
10
12.25
TABLE 12.7 SECTORAL BACKGROUND DATA FOR AFOLU

ANNUAL CARBON HWP CONTRIBUTION TO TOTAL AFOLU CO2 REMOVALS AND EMISSIONS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Variable number
Inventory
year
1A
1B
2A
2B
Annual
Change in
stock of
HWP in use
from
consumption
Annual
Change in
stock of
HWP in
SWDS from
consumption
Annual
Change in
stock of
HWP in use
produced
from
domestic
harvest
Annual
Change in
stock of
HWP in
SWDS
produced
from
domestic
harvest
Annual
Imports of
wood, and
paper
products +
wood fuel,
pulp,
recovered
paper,
roundwood/
chips
Annual
Exports of
wood, and
paper
products +
wood fuel,
pulp,
recovered
paper,
roundwood/
chips
Annual
Domestic
Harvest
Annual
release of
carbon to the
atmosphere
from HWP
consumption
(from
fuelwood &
products in
use and
products in
SWDS)
Annual
release of
carbon to the
atmosphere
from HWP
(including
fuelwoood)
where wood
came from
domestic
harvest (from
products in
use and
products in
SWDS )
HWP
Contribution
to AFOLU
CO2
emissions/
removals
Approach
used to
estimate
HWP
Contribution1
CHWP IU DC
CHWP SWDS DC
C HWP IU DH
CHWP SWDS DH
PIM
PEX
CHWP DC
CHWP DH
Gg C /yr
Gg CO2 /yr
1990
..
Report Col 6 or 7 as needed for the approach used. Col 6 or 7 may be computed using cols 1 through 5 or by a Tier 3 method. Always report cols 3, 4, and 5. Report cols 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B if they are used.
The HWP contribution and approach should be reported in columns 8 and 9 together with a description of the approach chosen and main assumptions in the Documentation Box
Additional Variables calculated and used should be reported to enhance the transparency of the results. (eg CH4 from SWDS if this was used) Add additional columns if needed.
Note: C HWP DC = H + PIM PEX - C HWP IU DC - C HWP SWDS DC AND C HWP DH = H - C HWP IU DH - C HWP SWDS DH
Documentation
Box:
12.26

ANNEX 12A.1 Some Approaches
2
3
4
5
6
7
This annex provides descriptions of some approaches for HWP. The descriptions included here are based on the
original descriptions of the approaches (Brown et al., 1998; and Ford-Robertson, 2003) and are provided here as
additional background information for inventory compilers. The inclusion of an approach here does not imply
any endorsement of that approach or any guidance on what approach to use. The special inventory terms
"emissions", "removals" and "sinks" are used without any judgment that they are correctly used given their
special definitions.
S TOCK - CHANGE
APPROACH
ATMOSPHERE
NEE
EW
System boundary
AFOLU
without
HWP
HWP
in use
PEX
PIM
HWP
in SWDS
National boundary
9
10
Figure 12A.1. System boundary of the stock-change approach.
11
12
13
14
15
Note: NEE = net ecosystem exchange of carbon, E = carbon release to the atmosphere from HWP in use, EW = carbon release to the
atmosphere from HWP in SWDS, H = carbon transfer in the form of harvested wood biomass transported from harvest sites, W = carbon
transfer in the form of wood waste into SWDS, PEX = carbon transfer in the form of HWP exports, PIM = carbon transfer in the form of HWP
imports, O = possible other cross-border carbon transfers from rest of AFOLU (assumed zero here).
16
17
18
19
20
21
The Stock Change approach (SCA) estimates changes in wood carbon stocks in the forest pool (and other wood
producing lands) and wood-products pool in the reporting country. Changes in carbon stock in forests and other
wood producing land categories are reported by the country in which the wood is grown, referred to as the
producing country. Changes in the products pool are reported by the country where the products are used,
referred to as the consuming country. Because the stock changes actually occur in the reporting country the
report indicates when and where the stock changes occur.
22
23
24
25
The system boundary of the stock-change approach and the carbon pools under consideration are shown in
Figure 12A.1. In the stock-change approach all the national annual C-stock changes in biomass pools of the
AFOLU sector are summed up and the national carbon dioxide emissions are approximated using Equation
12A.1:
12.27
1
2
EQUATION 12A.1
EMISSIONS FROM AFOLU BY THE STOCK-CHANGE APPROACH
3
4
Annual CO2 emissions from AFOLU = 44/12 [(AFOLU without HWP) + (HWP in use) +
(HWP in SWDS)]
= 44/12 [(AFOLU without HWP) + CHWP IU DC+CHWP SWDS DC]
OR
= 44/12 [(AFOLU without HWP) + H + PIM PEX - CHWP DC]
Where:
9
10
means annual change in carbon stock of the pool within the brackets. Note that the variables CHWP IU
and CHWP SWDS DC are defined in Table 12.1.
DC
11
12
13
Figure 12A.2 may be used to express Equations 12A.3 and 12A.4 using either carbon stock change variables
(CHWP IU DC+CHWP SWDS DC ) or carbon release variables and carbon transfer variables (CHWP DC, H, PIM,
PEX).
14
Where
15
H = Harvest of wood to be used for HWP (including fuelwood)
16
CHWP DC = E + EW
17
E = carbon release to the atmosphere from HWP in use
18
19
20
21
22
EW = carbon release to the atmosphere from HWP in SWDS. (Note that here the carbon release is not
considered as a sum of C-stock changes as in the Stock Change and Production approaches. HWP in
use include all harvested wood products consumed in the reporting country and HWP in SWDS
include all wood-based waste disposed into the solid waste disposal sites (including both open dumps
and landfill sites) of the reporting country).
23
PEX = carbon transfer in the form of exported wood-based biomass
24
PIM = carbon transfer in the form of imported wood-based biomass
25
26
As the quantity = 44/12 (AFOLU without HWP) is already reported in the rest of AFOLU, the HWP
Contribution to be reported in the HWP module is given by Equation 12A.2:
27
28
EQUATION 12A.2
STOCK-CHANGE APPROACH: HWP CONRIBUTION
29
HWP Contribution to AFOLU Net CO2 emissions SCA = 44/12 [CHWP IU DC+CHWP SWDS DC]
30
OR
31
HWP Contribution to AFOLU Net CO2 emissions SCA = 44/12 [ H + PIM PEX - CHWP DC ]
32
33
34
In the specific case when stock change of carbon in the HWP pools is zero, HWP Contribution is reported as
zero (Equation 12A.2).
12.28

A TMOSPHERIC - FLOW
APPROACH
ATMOSPHERE
NEE
System boundary
AFOLU
without
HWP
EW
HWP
in use
PIM
PEX
HWP
in SWDS
National boundary
2
3
Figure 12A.2. System boundary of the Atmospheric flow approach.
4
5
6
7
Note: NEE = net ecosystem exchange of carbon, E = carbon release to the atmosphere from HWP in use, EW = carbon release to the
atmosphere from HWP in SWDS, H = carbon transfer in the form of harvested wood biomass transported from harvest sites, W = carbon
transfer of wood waste into SWDS, PEX = carbon transfer in the form of HWP exports, PIM = carbon transfer in the form of HWP imports, O
= possible other cross-border carbon transfers from rest of AFOLU (assumed zero here).
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
The Atmospheric flow approach (AFA) estimates fluxes of carbon to/from the atmosphere for the forest pool
(and other wood producing lands) and wood products pool within national boundaries, and reports where and
when these emissions and removals occur. A country includes in its estimate of emissions/ removals the gross
removals of carbon from the atmosphere due to tree biomass growth in forests and other wood producing land
categories (net of decay within forests), and the carbon release to the atmosphere from oxidation of harvested
wood products that are consumed in their country. The carbon release to the atmosphere from harvested wood
products includes carbon release from imports to the reporting country.
15
16
17
18
The system boundary of the Atmospheric-flow approach and the carbon pools under consideration are shown in
Figure 12A.2. The pools are the same as in the stock-change approach. The difference is that the Atmosphericflow approach estimates the atmospheric carbon exchange of the AFOLU sector of the reporting country rather
than stock changes within the country. The national carbon dioxide emissions are given by Equation 12A.3:
19
20
EQUATION 12A.3
EMISSIONS FROM AFOLU AS BY THE ATMOSPHERIC FLOW APPROACH
21
CO2 emissions from AFOLU = 44/12 (NEE E EW) = 44/12 (NEE CHWP DC )
22
= 44/12 [(AFOLU without HWP) + CHWP IU DC+CHWP SWDS DC+ PEX PIM ]
23
OR
24
= - 44/12 [(AFOLU without HWP) + H - CHWP DC ]
25
26
27
Figure 12A.2 may be used to express Equations 12A.3 and 12A.4 using either carbon stock change and carbon
transfer variables (CHWP IU DC, CHWP SWDS DC PIM, PEX) or carbon release variables and carbon transfer
variables ( CHWP DC, H).
28
Where:
29
NEE = net ecosystem exchange of C
30
E, EW, CHWP DC , PEX, PIM and H are define above
31
32
As the quantity 44/12 (AFOLU without HWP) is reported elsewhere, the HWP Contribution be reported is
given by Equation 12A.4:
12.29
1
2
EQUATION 12A.4
ATMOSPHERIC FLOW APPROACH: HWP CONTRIBUTION
3
4
HWP Contribution to AFOLU Net CO2 emissions AF = 44/12 [CHWP IU DC+CHWP SWDS DC +
PEX PIM + O]
OR
HWP Contribution to AFOLU Net CO2 emissions AF = -44/12 [H - CHWP DC]
7
8
9
10
In the specific case when stock change of carbon in the HWP pools is zero the carbon imports minus carbon
exports must still be reported as the HWP Contribution to AFOLU net CO2 emissions (see Equation 12A.4) .
P RODUCTION
APPROACH
ATMOSPHERE
NEE
EDOM
EIM
EEX DOM
System boundary
AFOLU
without
HWP
HWP
in use or
in SWDS
HWP
in use or
in SWDS
domestic imported
from dom. rw.

in export markets
National boundary
PIM
PEX
11
12
Figure 12A.3. System boundary of the Production approach.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Note: NEE = net ecosystem exchange of carbon, EDOM = carbon release to the atmosphere from the pools of domestically grown HWP in use
and in SWDS, EIM = carbon release to the atmosphere from the pools of imported HWP in use and in SWDS, EEX DOM = carbon release to the
atmosphere from the pools of domestically grown but exported HWP in use and in SWDS, H = carbon transfer in the form of harvested wood
biomass transported from harvest sites, PEX = carbon transfer in the form of HWP exports, PIM = carbon transfer in the form off HWP
imports, O = possible other cross-border carbon transfers from rest of AFOLU (assumed zero here). Note: Only those HWP in the export
markets that are produced from domestic roundwood are within the system boundary, not those only processed in the reporting country but
made from imported roundwood. The transfer PEX can in principle include both.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The Production approach (PA) estimates changes in carbon stocks in the forest pool (and other wood producing
lands) of the reporting country and the wood products pool containing products made from wood harvested in the
reporting country. The wood products pool includes products made from domestic harvest that are be exported
and stored in uses in other countries. This approach inventories carbon in wood products from domestically
harvested wood only and does not provide a complete inventory of wood carbon in national stocks. Because
some of the stock changes reported by a country may occur in other countries (where exports are held), the stock
change report indicates when changes occur but not where they occur.
27
28
The system boundary of the Production approach and the carbon pools under consideration are shown in Figure
12A.3. The national carbon dioxide emissions are approximated using Equation 12A.5:
12.30

1
2
EQUATION 12A.5
EMISSIONS FROM AFOLU BY THE PRODUCTION APPROACH
CO2 emissions from AFOLU = 44/12 [(AFOLU without HWP)+CHWP IU DH+CHWP SWDSDH]
OR
= - 44/12 [(AFOLU without HWP) + H - CHWP DH]
6
7
8
9
10
Figure 12A.3 may be used to express Equations 12A.5 and 12A.6 using either carbon stock change and carbon
transfer variables (CHWP IU DH, CHWP SWDS DH) or carbon release variables and carbon transfer variables (
CHWP DH, H). Where variables CHWP IU DH and CHWP SWDSDH are defined in Table 12.1 and CHWP DH.= EDOM
+ EEX DOM.
11
12
As the quantity = 44/12 (AFOLU without HWP) is reported in the rest of AFOLU, the HWP Contribution
to be reported in the HWP module is given by Equation 12A.6:
13
14
EQUATION 12A.6
PRODUCTION APPROACH: HWP CONTRIBUTION
15
HWP Contribution to AFOLU Net CO2 emissions PA = 44/12 [CHWP IU DH+CHWP SWDSDH]
16
OR
17
HWP Contribution to AFOLU Net CO2 emissions PA = 44/12 [H - CHWP DH]
18
19
In the specific case when stock change of carbon in the above HWP pools is zero, and the HWP Contribution to
net CO2 emissions HWP is reported as zero (Equation 12A.6).
20
S IMPLE D ECAY
21
22
23
This approach estimates and reports the net emissions or removals of carbon to/from the atmosphere when, but
not where they occur if wood products are traded. Removals of carbon from the atmosphere due to forest growth,
and emissions resulting from oxidation of harvested wood products are reported by the producing country.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
This approach to estimate and report from HWP (simple decay) has been proposed by Ford-Robertson (2003).
Just as the production approach differs from the stock change approach (for the production approach all stock
changes are accounted for and reported by the producer and for the stock change approach all stock changes are
reported by the country where they occur) the Simple Decay (SD) approach is similarly related to the
atmospheric flow approach (for the Simple Decay approach all CO2 release is reported by the country where the
HWP was harvested and for the atmospheric flow approach all CO2 release is reported by the country where the
release occurs). The Simple Decay differs from production approach in that HWP pool is considered to be
related to activities in the forest and hence does not assume instant oxidation of wood in the year of harvest. This
means the amount of harvest in a year (Variable H, remains part of the AFOLU carbon pool ( e.g. forest or other
land area) and not counted as a part of emissions. The amount estimated for simple decay is the amount of
emissions from HWP each year (CHWP DH ). This suggestion to include and report annual harvest as part of the
land area CO2 removals, and report the HWP Contribution as (44/12*C HWP DH ) is only a proposal at this point.
For these guidelines compilers are requested to report the HWP Contribution for Simple Decay as (-44/12* (H -C
HWP DH
))
12.31
1
TABLE A12.1
SUMMARY OF HOW TO COMPUTE HWP CONTRIBUTION USING VARIALBES IN TABLE 12.7
Approach
How to estimate HWP contribution using

HWP variables 1-5
How to estimate HWP Contribution using carbon

release estimates (variables 6 and 7) and HWP
variables 3-5
Stock
change
-44/12* C HWP DC. (i.e. -44/12 x (var 1A + var

1B))
-44/12* (H + PIM - PEX - C HWP DC) (i.e. -44/12* (var 5

+ var 3 var 4 - var 6 )
Atmospheric
flow
-44/12* (C HWP DC + PEX - PIM), (i.e. -44/12 x

(var 1A + var 1B - var 3 + var 4))
-44/12* (H -C HWP DC ) (i.e. -44/12* (var 5 - var 6 )
Production
-44/12* C HWP DH (i.e. -44/12 x (var 2A + var

2B))
-44/12* (H -C HWP DH ) (i.e. -44/12* (var 5 - var 7 )
NA
Under these guidelines report HWP Contribution as
Simple
decay
-44/12* (H -C HWP DH ) (i.e. -44/12* (var 5 - var 7 )

Proposal for a change in reporting
report ( -44/12 * H ) as part of the AFOLU land area
(forest or land area) removals
report HWP Contribution as CO2 release from HWP
(44/12* CHWP DH )
12.32
Annex 1: AFOLU Worksheets

2
3
ANNEX 1
AFOLU WORKSHEETS
A1.1
1
Authors
2
3
Zoltan Somogyi (European Commission/Hungary)

Joe Mangino (USA), Stephen Ogle (USA), John Raison (Australia), and Louis Verchot (ICRAF)
A1.2

INTRODUCTION
2
3
4
5
This Annex presents worksheets to enable inventory compilers to readily implement the Tier 1 methods. Note
that, in many cases, these worksheets are applicable to Tier 2 methods, where the same equations and variables
are applied together with country-specific information. Volume 1 Chapter 8 gives guidance on how to report the
resulting emission and removal estimates.
6
7
8
Tables A1.1, A1.2, and A1.3 below provide the summary of Tier 1 worksheets available in this Volume. These
worksheets are presented according to the following three broad categories in the Reporting Guidance and
Tables (Volume 1 Table 8.2):
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1.
2.
3.
Worksheets for Livestock (3A)

Worksheets for Land (3B)
Worksheets for Aggregate sources and non- CO2 emissions sources on land (3C)
Worksheets for Livestock include enteric fermentation and manure management worksheets. Worksheets for
Land are grouped into six land-use categories and each group is sub-divided into three: biomass worksheets;
dead organic matter worksheets; and soil worksheets (which are further divided into mineral soils and organic
soils). Worksheets for aggregate sources and non-CO2 emissions sources on land include worksheets for: 1)
greenhouse emissions from biomass burning; 2) liming; 3) urea application; 4) direct and indirect N2O emissions
from managed soils and manure management; and 5) rice cultivation.
19
All worksheets are labelled according to:
20
1) Sector (i.e., AFOLU)
21
2) Category/sub-category (see category list in Table 8.2 of Volume 1)
22
3) Category code (also in Table 8.2); and
23
4) Sheet number
24
25
Worksheets for land use categories contain columns for both the initial and final land-use categories. The
worksheets allow further stratification using the column for sub-categories for the reporting year.
26
27
28
When using the worksheets, care should be taken to apply the appropriate units for both the input, as well as the
output values. Note that while a positive stock-change implies the stock increases, for the purpose of reporting,
the signs are always positive (+) for emissions and negative (-) for removals or uptake.
29
Abbreviations used in the worksheets for the units of the variables are the following:
30
C = carbon
31
yr = year
32
ha = hectare
33
dm = dry mass
34
ag = above-ground
35
bg = below-ground
36
GHG = greenhouse gas
37
- means dimensionless
38
A1.3
1
TABLE A1.1
TIER 1 WORKSHEETS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR LAND USE BASED C STOCK CHANGES
Land use
category
Forest land (FL)
Cropland (CL)
Grassland (GL)
Wetland (WL)
Land use subcategory
or Peat
Dead
Organic
Matter 2
Soils
Mineral
Organic
Yes
Yes
Land converted to FL
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
CL remaining CL
Yes
Yes
Yes
Land converted to CL
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Land converted to GL
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
WL remaining WL
Yes
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
GL remaining GL
SL remaining SL
Land converted to SL
Other land (OL)
FL remaining FL
Land converted to WL
Settlements (SL)
Biomass 1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
OL remaining OL
NA
NA
NA
NA
Land converted to OL
Yes
NA
Yes
Yes
Notes:
Yes = worksheets for Tier 1 methods are available.
0 = default assumption is that emissions are zero or in equilibrium; no worksheets are needed
NA = not applicable
1
Includes above-ground and above-ground biomass unless specified.
Includes deadwood and litter.
Peat is applicable only to Wetlands.
Includes only above-ground biomass; C stock changes from below-ground biomass is zero.
Use the worksheet for Cropland, if needed
2
3
A1.4

1
TABLE A1.2
TIER 1 WORKSHEETS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR LAND USE BASED NON-CO2 EMISSIONS
Land use
category
Forest land (FL)
Cropland (CL)
Grassland (GL)
Wetland (WL)
Land use subcategory
Non-CO2
from Fire
CH4
Emissions
from Rice
cultivation
N2O
Emissions
from peat
management
FL remaining FL
Yes
NA
NA
Land converted to FL
Yes
NA
NA
CL remaining CL
Yes
Yes
NA
Land converted to CL
Yes
NA
NA
GL remaining GL
Yes
NA
NA
Land converted to GL
Yes
NA
NA
WL remaining WL
NA
NA
Yes
NA
Yes
Land converted to WL
Settlements (SL)
Other land (OL)
Yes
SL remaining SL
NA
NA
NA
Land converted to SL
NA
NA
NA
OL remaining OL
NA
NA
NA
Land converted to OL
NA
NA
NA
Notes:
Yes = worksheets for Tier 1 methods are available.
NA = not applicable
NC = not considered
1
Refer to guidance in the Forest land, Cropland, and Grassland Chapters.
2
3
4
TABLE A1.3
TIER 1 WORKSHEETS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR N2O EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED SOILS, AND CO2 EMISSIONS FROM LIME AND
UREA APPLICATION.
Emissions
Worksheet
Direct N2O emissions from managed soils
Yes
N2O from atmospheric deposition of N volatilised from managed soils
Yes
Annual CO2 emissions from lime application
Yes
Annual CO2 emission from urea application
Yes
5
6
7
A1.5
1
2
3
4
5
WORKSHEETS FOR LIVESTOCK (3A)
3A1 Enteric Fermentation
3A2 Manure Management
A1.6

1
Sector
Category
Category code
Sheet

Methane Emissions from Enteric Fermentation and Manure Management
3A1 and 3A2
1 of 1
Equation 10.19
Equation
Species/Livestock
category
Eq. 10.19 and 10.20
Equation 10.22
Number of
animals
Emission Factor
for Enteric
Fermentation
CH4 Emissions from

Enteric Fermentation
Emission Factor
for Manure
Management
CH4 Emissions from

Manure Management
(head)
(kg head-1 yr-1)
(Gg CH4 yr-1)
(kg head-1 yr-1)
(Gg CH4 yr-1)
Tables 10.10 and

10.11
CH4 Enteric = N(T) * EF(T) *

10-6
Tables 10.14 10.16
CH4 Manure = N(T) * EF(T)

* 10-6
EF(T)
CH4 Enteric
EF(T)
CH4 Manure
N (T)
Dairy cows
Other cattle
Buffalo
Sheep
Goats
Camels
Horses
Mules & Asses
Swine
Poultry
Other1
Total
1
Specify livestock categories as needed using additional lines (e.g. llamas, alpacas, reindeers, rabbits, fur-bearing animals etc.)
A1.7
Sector
Category
Category code
Sheet
Equation
Manure
management
system
(MMS)1
Species/Livestock
category

Manure Management: Direct N2O Emissions from Manure Management Systems1
3A2
1 of 1
Eq. 10.25
Equation 10.30
Equation 10.25
Total
nitrogen
excretion
for the
MMS 4
Emission
factor for
direct N2ON
emissions
from MMS
Annual direct
N2O
emissions
from manure
management
(-)
(kg N yr-1)
[kg N2O-N
(kg N in
MMS)-1]
kg N2O yr-1
Tables
10.21
N2O(mm) =
NEMMS * EF3(S)
* 44/28
EF3(S)
N2OD(mm)
Number of
animals
Default N
excretion
rate
(head)
[kg N
(1000 kg
animal)-1
-1
day ]
(kg)
(kg N animal
-1
year )
Tables
10.19
Tables
A4-A9
Nex(T) = Nrate(T) *
TAM * 10-3 * 365
Tables A4-A8
Nrate(T)
TAM
Nex(T)
MS(T,S)
N(T)
Annual N
excretion per head
of
species/livestock
category3
Fraction of total
annual nitrogen
excretion
managed in MMS
for each
species/livestock
category
Typical
animal
mass for
livestock
category
-1
NEMMS =
N(T) *
Nex(T) *
MS(T,S)
NEMMS
Dairy cows
Other cattle
Buffalo
Sheep
Goats
Camels
Horses
Mules & Asses
Swine
Poultry
2
Other
Total
1
The calculations must be done by manure management system, and for each management system, the relevant species/livestock category(ies) must be selected. For the manure
management systems, see Table 10.18.
2
3
Country-specific values are preferred to directly enter into this column. If these are not available, use default values of Nrate(T) and TAM to calculate this variable.
4
This value will be input to worksheet in Indirect N2O emissions from manure management (see category 3C6).
A1.8

1
2
3
4
5
WORKSHEETS FOR LAND (3B)
3B1 Forest land
3B2 Cropland
3B3 Grassland
3B4 Wetlands
10
3B5 Settlements
11
3B6 Other land
12
A1.9
1
Sector
Category
Category code
Sheet
Equation

Forest Land Remaining Forest Land: Annual increase in carbon stocks in biomass (includes above- and below-ground
biomass)
3B1a
1 of 4
Equation 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land
use
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Sub-categories
for reporting
year
Equation 2.9
Equation 2.10
Area of forest land

remaining forest land
Average annual
above-ground
biomass growth
Ratio of belowground biomass to

above-ground
biomass
Average annual
biomass growth
above and
below-ground
Carbon fraction
of dry matter
Annual increase in
biomass carbon
stocks due to
biomass growth
(ha)
(tonnes dm
ha-1 yr-1)
[tonnes bg dm (tonne
ag dm)-1]
(tonnes dm
ha-1 yr-1)
[tonnes C
(tonne dm)-1]
-1
(tonnes C yr )
National statistics or
international data
sources
Tables
4.11, 4.12 and 4.14
zero (0) or
Table 4.4
GTOTAL = GW *
(1+R)
0.5 or
Table 4.3
CG = A * GTOTAL *
CF
GW
GTOTAL
CF
CG
(a)
FL
FL
(b)
(c)
Total
A1.10
Equation 2.9

1
Sector
Category

Forest Land Remaining Forest Land: Loss of carbon from wood removals
Category code
3B1a
Sheet
2 of 4
Equation
Equation 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land
use
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Subcategories for
reporting year
Equation 2.12
Annual wood
removal
Biomass conversion and

expansion factor for
conversion of removals in
merchantable biomass to
biomass removals (including
bark)

above-ground
biomass
Carbon
fraction of dry
matter
Annual carbon loss

due to biomass
removals
(m3 yr-1)
[tonnes of biomass removals

3
1
(m of removals) ]
[tonnes bg dm
(tonne ag dm)-1]
[tonnes C
(tonnes dm)-1]
(tonnes C yr-1)
National statistics
or international
data sources
Table 4.5
zero (0) or
Table 4.4
0.5 or
Table 4.3
Lwood-removals = H *
BCEFR * (1+R) * CF
BCEFR
CF
Lwood-removals
(a)
FL
FL
(b)
(c)
Total
A1.11
1
Sector
Category

Forest Land Remaining Forest Land: Loss of carbon from fuelwood removals
Category code
3B1a
Sheet
3 of 4
Equation
Equation 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land
use
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Subcategories for
reporting year
Equation 2.13
Annual
volume of
fuelwood
removal of
whole trees

biomass removals (including
bark)
Ratio of belowground biomass

to above-ground
biomass
Annual
volume of
fuelwood
removal as
tree parts
Carbon
fraction of
dry matter
Annual carbon loss

due to fuelwood
removal
(m3 yr-1)
[tonnes of biomass removals

3
1
(m of removals) ]
[tonnes bg dm
(tonne ag dm)-1]
3
-1
(m yr )
[tonnes C
-1
(tonne dm) ]
-1
(tonnes C yr )
FAO
statistics
(after
cheking)
Table 4.5
zero (0) or
Table 4.4
FAO
statistics
(after
cheking)
0.5 or
Table 4.3
Lfuelwood = [FGtrees *
BCEFR * (1+R) +
Fgparts] * CF
FGtrees
BCEFR
FGpart
CF
Lfuelwood
(a)
FL
FL
(b)
(c)
Total
A1.12

1
Sector
Category

Forest Land Remaining Forest Land: Loss of carbon from disturbance
Category code
3B1a
Sheet
4 of 4
Equation
Equation 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land
use
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Subcategories for
reporting year
Equation 2.14
Equation 2.7
Area affected by
disturbances
Average aboveground biomass

of areas affected

to above-ground
biomass
Carbon
fraction of dry
matter
Annual other
losses of
carbon
Annual decrease
in carbon stocks
due to biomass
loss
(ha yr-1)
(tonnes dm ha-1)
[tonnes bg dm
-1
(tonne ag dm) ]
[tonnes C
(tonne dm)-1]
(tonnes C
yr-1)
-1
(tonnes C yr )
National
statistics or
international data
sources
Table 4.9
zero (0) or
Table 4.4
0.5 or
Table 4.3
Ldisturbances = A
* BW * (1+R) *
CF
CL = Lwood-removal
+ Lfuelwood
+ Ldisturbancess
Adisturbance
BW
CF
Ldisturbances
CL
(a)
FL
FL
(b)
(c)
Total
2
3
4
5
6
7
A1.13
Sector
Category

Forest land Remaining Forest land (FL-FL): Annual carbon loss from drained organic soils
Category code
3B1a
Sheet
1 of 1
Equation
Equation 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land
use
Land-use
during
reporting year
Equation 2.26
Land area of drained
organic soil
Emission factor for

climate type
Annual carbon loss from drained

organic soils
(ha)
(tonnes C yr-1)
Table 4.6
LOrganic = A * EF
EF
LOrganic
Sub-categories for
reporting year
A
(a)
FL
FL
(b)
(c)
Total
1
2
3
A1.14

1
Sector
Category

Land Converted to Forest Land: Annual increase in carbon stocks in biomass (includes above- and below-ground biomass)
Category code
3B1b
Sheet
1 of 4
Equation
Equation 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land
1
use
CL
Land-use
during
reporting
year
FL
Subcategories for
reporting year
Equation 2.9
Equation 2.10
Equation 2.9
Area of land
converted to
forest land
Average
annual
above-ground
biomass
growth

to above-ground
biomass
Average annual
biomass growth
above and
below-ground
Carbon fraction of
dry matter
Annual increase in
biomass carbon
stocks due to
biomass growth
(ha yr-1)
(tonnes dm
-1
-1
ha yr )
[tonnes bg dm
(tonne ag dm)-1]
(tonnes dm
ha-1 yr-1)
[tonnes C
(tonne dm)-1]
(tonnes C yr-1)
National statistics
or international
data sources
Tables
4.11, 4.12
and 4.14
zero (0) or
Table 4.4
GTOTAL = GW *
(1+R)
0.5 or
Table 4.3
CG = A * GTOTAL *
CF
GW
GTOTAL
CF
CG
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
GL
FL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
WL
FL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
SL
FL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
OL
FL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
Total
1
If data by initial land use is not available, use only "non-FL" in this column.
A1.15
Sector
Category

Land Converted to Forest Land: Loss of carbon from wood removals1
Category code
3B1b
Sheet
2 of 4
Equation
Equation 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land
2
use
CL
Land-use
during
reporting year
Subcategories for
reporting year
FL
(a)
(b)
Equation 2.12
Annual wood
removal

expansion factor for conversion
of removals in merchantable
biomass to biomass removals
(including bark)
biomass to
above-ground
biomass
Carbon
fraction of dry
matter
Annual carbon loss

due to biomass
removals
(m3 yr-1)
[tonnes of biomass removals (m3

1
of removals) ]
[tonnes bg dm
(tonne ag dm)
1
]
[tonnes C
(tonne dm)-1]
(tonnes C yr-1)
Table 4.5
zero (0) or
Table 4.4
0.5 or
Table 4.3
Lwood-removals = H * D *
REFW * (1+R) * CF
BCEFR
CF
Lwood-removals
National statistics
or international
data sources
H
Sub-total
GL
FL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
WL
FL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
SL
FL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
OL
FL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
Total
1
2
This worksheet is to be used if the assumption is that losses are not zero. See Chapter 4.3.1.1.
A1.16

Sector
Category
Category code
Sheet
Equation

Land Converted to Forest Land: Loss of carbon from fuelwood removals1
3B1b
3 of 4
Equation 2.2
Equation 2.13
biomass removals
(including bark)

to above-ground
biomass
Annual volume
of fuelwood
removal as
tree parts
(m yr )
[tonnes of biomass
removal
3
1
(m of removals) ]
[tonnes bg dm
-1
(tonne ag dm) ]
FAO statistics (after

cheking)
Table 4.5
FGtrees
BCEFR
Annual volume of
fuelwood removal of
whole trees
Land-use category
Initial land
2
use
CL
Land-use
during
reporting year
Sub-categories
for reporting
year
FL
(a)
(b)
-1
Carbon
fraction of
dry matter
Annual carbon loss due to

fuelwood removal
(m yr )
[tonnes C
-1
(tonne dm) ]
(tonnes C yr )
zero (0) or
Table 4.4
FAO statistics
(after cheking)
0.5 or
Table 4.3
Lfuelwood = [FGtrees *
BCEFR * (1+R) + Fgparts] * CF
FGparts
CF
Lfuelwood
Sub-total
GL
FL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
WL
FL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
SL
FL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
OL
FL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
Total
1
2
A1.17
-1
-1
Sector
Category

Land Converted to Forest Land: Loss of carbon from disturbance1
Category code
3B1b
Sheet
4 of 4
Equation
Equation 2.2
Equation 2.14
Area affected by
disturbances
Land-use category
CL
Land-use
during reporting
year
FL
Sub-categories
for reporting
year

above-ground
biomass
Carbon
fraction of dry
matter
Annual other
losses of carbon
(tonnes dm ha )
[tonnes bg dm
-1
(tonne ag dm) ]
[tonnes C
-1
(tonne dm) ]
(tonnes C yr )
[tonnes C
-1
(tonne dm) ]
international data
sources
Table 4.9
zero (0) or
Table 4.4
0.5 or
Table 4.3
Ldisturbances =
Adisturbances * BW *
(1+R) * CF
CL = Lwood-removal
+ Lfuelwood
+ Ldisturbances
Adisturbances
BW
CF
Ldisturbances
CL
-1
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
GL
FL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
WL
FL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
SL
FL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
OL
FL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
Total
2
1
A1.18
Annual decrease in
carbon stocks due
to biomass loss
(ha yr )
-1
Initial land
2
use
Average aboveground biomass of

areas affected
Equation 2.7
-1

Sector
Category
Category code
Sheet
Equation
Land Converted to Forest Land: Annual change in carbon stocks in dead organic matter due to land conversion
3B1b
1 of 1
Equation
2.2
Equation 2.23
Area undergoing
conversion from old
to new land-use
category
Land-use category
Dead wood/litter stock,

under the new land-use
category
-1
Initial land
1
use
CL
Land-use
during reporting
year
FL
Sub-categories
for reporting
year
-1
Dead wood/litter
stock, under the
old land-use
category
-1
Time period of the

transition from old to
new land-use
category
Annual change in carbon stocks in

dead wood/litter
(tonnes C ha )
(tonnes C ha )
(yr)
(tonnes C yr )
international data
sources
Table 2.2 for litter, or

national statistics
default value is
zero (0)
default value is 20
CDOM = A * (Cn - Co) / T
Cn
Co
CDOM
(a)
20
(b)
20
Sub-total
GL
FL
(a)
20
(b)
20
(a)
20
(b)
20
Sub-total
WL
FL
Sub-total
SL
FL
(a)
20
(b)
20
Sub-total
OL
FL
(a)
20
(b)
20
Sub-total
Total
1
-1
(ha yr )
A1.19
Sector
Category
Category
code
Sheet
Land Converted to Forest land: Annual change in carbon stocks in mineral soils
3B1b
1 of 2
Equation
2.2
Equation
Land-use category
Initial
land
1
use
CL
Equation 2.25, Formulation B in Box 2.1 of Section 2.3.3.1

Area for
land use
change by
climate
and soil
combination
Reference
carbon
stock
for the
climate and
soil combination
Time
dependence
of stock
change
factors (D) or
number of
years over a
single
inventory time
period (T)
Stock
change
factor for
land-use
system in
the last
year of an
inventory
time period
Stock change
factor for
management
regime in last
year of an
inventory
period
Stock
change
factor for
C input in
the last
year of
the
inventory
period
Stock
change
factor for
land-use
system at the
beginning of
the inventory
time period
Stock change
factor for
management
regime at the
beginning of
the inventory
time period
Stock
change
factor for C
input at the
beginning of
the
inventory
time period
Annual
change in
carbon
stocks in
mineral
soils
(ha)
(tonnes C
-1
ha )
(yr)
(-)
(-)
(-)
(-)
(-)
(-)
(tonnes C
-1
yr )
Table 2.3;
section
2.3.3.1
(default is 20
yr; if T>D then
use the value
of T)
See
section
4.3.3
See section
4.3.3
See
section
4.3.3
See section
4.3.3
See section
4.3.3
See section
4.3.3
CMineral
as in Eq.
2.25
FLU(0)
FMG(0)
FI(0)
FLU(0-T)
FMG(0-T)
FI(0-T)
CMineral
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Subcategories of
unique
climate, soil,
land use
change and
mangement
combinations
FL
(a)
(b)
20
20
(a)
(b)
20
20
(a)
(b)
20
20
(a)
(b)
20
20
(a)
(b)
20
20
A(0)
SOCref
Sub-total
GL
FL
Sub-total
WL
FL
SL
FL
Sub-total
Sub-total
OL
FL
Sub-total
Total
1
A1.20

Sector
Category
Category code
Sheet
Equation
Land Converted to Forest land: Annual change in carbon stocks in organic soils
3B1b
2 of 2
Equation 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land
use1
CL
Land-use
during
reporting year
Sub-categories for
reporting year2
FL
(a)
(b)
Equation 2.26
Area of organic soils
on converted land
Emission factor for

climate type
Annual carbon loss from

organic soils
(ha)
(tonnes C yr-1)
Table 4.6
LOrganic = A * EF
EF
LOrganic
Sub-total
GL
FL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
WL
FL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
SL
FL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
OL
FL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
Total
1
1
A1.21
1
Sector
Category

Cropland Remaining Cropland: Annual change in carbon stocks in biomass
Category code
3B2a
Sheet
1 of 1
Equation
Land-use category
Initial land
use
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Equation 2.71
Equation 2.2
Annual area of
cropland with
perennial woody
biomass
Annual growth rate

of perennial woody
biomass
(ha)
(tonnes C ha yr )
(tonnes C ha yr )
(tonnes C yr )
National estimates,
or Table 5.1
National estimates, or
Table 5.1
CB = A * (CG - CL)
CG
CL
CB
Subcategories for
reporting year
-1
-1
Annual carbon stock

in biomass removed
(removal or harvest)
-1
(a)
CL
CL
(b)
(c)
Total
1
Multiplying per ha values from Table 5.1 is required here according to text in section 5.2.1.
A1.22
-1
Annual change in
carbon stocks in
biomass
-1

1
Sector
Category
Category code
Sheet
Equation

Cropland Remaining Cropland: Annual change in carbon stocks in mineral soils
3B2a
1 of 2
Equation
2.2
Land-use category
Initial land
use
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Equation 2.25, Formulation A in Box 2.1 of Section 2.3.3.1
CL
(tonnes C
ha-1)
(yr)
(-)
Table 2.3
Table 2.3
(default is 20
yr; if T>D
then use the
value of T)
Table
5.5
Table 5.5
Table
5.5
SOCref(0)
SOCref(T-0)
FLU
FMG
FI
Area in
the last
year of
an
inventory
period
Area at
the
beginning
of an
inventory
period
Reference
carbon
stock
in the last
year of an
inventory
period
(ha)
(ha)
(tonnes C
ha-1)
Subcategories
for reporting
year
A(0)
CL
Reference
carbon
stock
at the
beginning
of an
inventory
period
Time
dependence
of stock
change
factors (D) or
number of
years over a
single
inventory
time period
(T)
A(0-T)
(a)
20
(b)
20
(c)
20
Total
2
3
4
A1.23
Stock
change
factor
for landuse
system
or subsystem
Stock
change
factor for
management
regime
Stock
change
factor
for input
of
organic
matter
Annual
change
in carbon
stocks in
mineral
soils
(-)
(-)
(tonnes
C yr-1)
CMineral
as in
Equation
2.25
CMineral
1
Sector
Category

Cropland Remaining Cropland: Annual change in carbon stocks in organic soils
Category code
3B2a
Sheet
2 of 2
Equation
Equation 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land
use
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Subcategories for
reporting year
Equation 2.26
Land area of cultivated
organic soil
Emission factor for

climate type
Annual carbon loss

from cultivated
organic soils
(ha)
(tonnes C yr-1)
Table 5.6
LOrganic = A * EF
EF
LOrganic
A
(a)
CL
CL
(b)
(c)
Total
A1.24

1
Sector
Category

Land Converted to Cropland: Annual change in carbon stocks in biomass
Category code
3B2b
Sheet
1 of 1
Equation
Equation 2.2
Equation 2.16
Annual area
of land
converted to
cropland
Land-use category
(ha)
Initial land
1
use
Land-use
during
reporting year
Sub-categories
for reporting
year
A
FL
CL
Biomass
stocks
before the
conversion
(tonnes
-1
dm ha )
Equation 2.15, 2.16
Carbon fraction
of dry matter
Annual biomass
carbon growth
Annual loss of
biomass carbon
Annual change in carbon

stocks in biomass
[tonnes C
-1
(tonne dm) ]
(tonnes C
-1
-1
ha yr )
(tonnes C
-1
-1
ha yr )
(tonnes C yr )
Table 5.8
0.5
Table 5.9
National estimates,
or Table 5.1
CCONVERSION = A *
(CG + (0 - BBEFORE) * CF CL)
BBEFORE
CF
CG
CL
CCONVERSION
(a)
0.5
(b)
0.5
Sub-total
GL
CL
(a)
0.5
(b)
0.5
(a)
0.5
(b)
0.5
(a)
0.5
(b)
0.5
Sub-total
WL
CL
Sub-total
SL
CL
Sub-total
OL
CL
(a)
0.5
(b)
0.5
Sub-total
Total
1
If data by initial land use is not available, use only "non-CL" in this column.
A1.25
-1
1
Sector
Category

Land Converted to Cropland: Annual change in carbon stocks in dead organic matter due to land conversion1
Category code
3B2b
Sheet
1 of 1
Equation
Equation 2.2
Equation 2.23
Area undergoing
conversion from old
to new land-use
category
Land-use category
-1
Initial land
2
use
FL
Land-use
during
reporting year
CL
Dead wood/litter stock

under the old land-use
category
-1
Dead wood/litter
stock under the
new land-use
category
Time period of the

new land-use
category

stocks in dead wood/litter
-1
(tonnes C ha )
(tonnes C ha )
(yr)
(tonnes C yr )
international data
sources

national statistics
default value is
zero (0)
default value is 1
Co
Cn
CDOM
(a)
(b)
0
0
1
1
(a)
(b)
0
0
1
1
(a)
(b)
0
0
1
1
(a)
(b)
0
0
1
1
(a)
(b)
0
0
1
1
Sub-categories
for reporting
year
Sub-total
GL
CL
Sub-total
WL
CL
Sub-total
SL
CL
Sub-total
OL
CL
Sub-total
Total
1
2
Use separate worksheets to separately estimate carbon stock changes in deadwood and in litter.
A1.26
-1
(ha yr )

Sector
Category
Category
code
Sheet
1 of 2
Equation
Eq. 2.2
Land-use category
Land Converted to Cropland: Annual change in carbon stocks in mineral soils

3B2b
Area for land

use change
by climate
and soil
combination
Reference
carbon stock
for the
climate/soil
combination
Time
dependence
of stock
change
factors (D) or
number of
years over a
single
inventory
time period
(T)
Sub(tonnes C
(ha)
(yr)
-1
categories of
ha )
Land-use
unique
Initial
(default is 20
during
climate, soil,
Table 2.3;
land
yr; if T>D
land use
reporting
section
1
use
then use the
year
change and
2.3.3.1
value of T)
mangement
SOC
D
A
(0)
ref
combinations
(a)
20
FL
CL
(b)
20
Sub-total
(a)
20
GL
CL
(b)
20
Sub-total
(a)
20
WL
CL
(b)
20
Sub-total
(a)
20
SL
CL
(b)
20
Sub-total
(a)
20
OL
CL
(b)
20
Sub-total
Total
1
Stock
change
factor for
land-use
system in
the last
year of an
inventory
time
period
Stock change
factor for
management
regime in last
year of an
inventory
period
Stock
change
factor for
C input in
the last
year of
the
inventory
period
Stock
change
factor for
land-use
system at
the
beginning of
the inventory
time period
Stock change
factor for
management
regime at the
beginning of
the inventory
time period
Stock
change
factor for C
input at the
beginning of
the
inventory
time period
Annual
change in
carbon
stocks in
mineral
soils
(-)
(-)
(-)
(-)
(-)
(-)
(tonnes C
-1
yr )
Table 5.10
Table 5.10
Table
5.10
Table 5.5
Table 5.5
Table 5.5
CMineral
as in
Equation
2.25
FLU(0)
FMG(0)
FI(0)
FLU(0-T)
FMG(0-T)
FI(0-T)
CMineral
A1.27
Sector
Category

Land Converted to Cropland: Annual change in carbon stocks in organic soils
Category code
3B2b
Sheet
2 of 2
Equation
Equation 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land
use
FL
Land-use
during
reporting
year
CL
Subcategories for
reporting year
Equation 2.26
organic soil
Emission factor for

climate type
Annual carbon loss

from cultivated
organic soils
(ha)
(tonnes C yr-1)
Table 5.6
LOrganic = A * EF
EF
LOrganic
A
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
GL
CL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
WL
CL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
SL
CL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
OL
CL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
Total
1
A1.28

Sector
Category

Grassland Remaining Grassland: Annual change in carbon stocks in mineral soils
Category code
3B3a
Sheet
1 of 2
Equation
Equation 2.2
Land-use category
Initial
land
use
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Subcategories of
unique
climate,soil,
and
mangement
combinations
Equation 2.25
Area in
the last
year of
an
inventory
period
Area at
the
beginning
of an
inventory
period
(ha)
(ha)
A(0)
A(0-T)
Reference
carbon stock
for
Climate/Soil
Combination
Stock
change
factor for
land-use
system or
sub-system
Stock change
factor for
management
regime
(tonnes C
-1
ha )
(-)
(-)
Stock
change
factor for
C input
Carbon
stock in
last year
of an
inventory
period
Carbon
stock at
the
beginning
of an
inventory
period
Time
dependence of
stock change
factors (D) or
number of
years over a
single
inventory time
period (T)
Annual
change in
carbon
stocks in
mineral
soils
(-)
tonnes C
tonnes C
(yr)
(tonnes C
-1
yr )
(default is 20
yr; if T>D
then use the
value of T)
CMineral
as in
Equation
2.25
CMineral
Table 2.3,
Section
2.3.3.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.2
Table 6.2
SOCref
FLU
FMG
FI
SOC0
SOC0-T
(a)
(b)
(c)
GL
GL
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
Total
20
Note: This worksheet is designed for computations using Formulation A in Box 2.1 of Section 2.3.3.1
A1.29
1
Sector
Category

Grassland Remaining Grassland: Annual change in carbon stocks in organic soils
Category code
3B3a
Sheet
2 of 2
Equation
Equation 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land
use
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Subcategories for
reporting year
Equation 2.26
organic soil
Emission factor for

climate type
Annual carbon loss

from cultivated
organic soils
(ha)
(tonnes C yr-1)
Table 6.3
LOrganic = A * EF
EF
LOrganic
A
(a)
GL
GL
(b)
(c)
Total
2
3
A1.30

1
Sector
Category

Land Converted to Grassland: Annual change in carbon stocks in biomass
Category code
3B3b
Sheet
1 of 1
Equation
Equation 2.2
Equation 2.16
Land-use category
Initial
land
use1
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Subcategories
for reporting
year
Biomass
stocks after
the
conversion
Biomass
stocks
before the
conversion
Carbon
fraction of dry
matter
Annual
biomass
carbon
growth
Annual loss
of biomass
carbon
Annual change in
carbon stocks in
biomass
(ha)
(tonnes dm
ha-1)
(tonnes dm
ha-1)
[tonnes C
(tonne dm)-1]
(tonnes C
ha-1 yr-1)
(tonnes C
ha-1 yr-1)
-1
(tonnes C yr )
0,
or Table 6.4
(see
section
6.3.1.2)
0,47 (for
herbaceous
vegetation);
0,5 or Table
4.3 (for
woody
vegatation)
Table 5.9
National
estimates,
or Table
5.1
CCONVERSION = A *
(CG + (BAFTER BBEFORE) * CF - CL)
BAFTER
BBEFORE
CF
CG
CL
CCONVERSION
Type of
vegetation2
A
(a)
[non-GL]
Equation 2.15, 2.16
Annual
area of
land
converted
to
grassland
Herbaceous
Woody
Sub-total
GL
(b)
Herbaceous
Woody
Sub-total
Total
1
If data by initial land use is not available, use only "non-GL" in this column. Otherwise use separate blocks by initial land use.
2
Within each subcagetory (a), (b) etc., calculations are to be made separately for herbaceous and wood vegetation.
2
3
A1.31
1
Sector
Category

Land Converted to Grassland: Annual change in carbon stocks in dead organic matter due to land conversion1
Category code
3B3b
Sheet
1 of 1
Equation
Equation 2.2
Equation 2.23
Land-use category
Initial
land use2
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Subcategories for
reporting
year
(a)
[non-GL]
GL
Type of
vegetation2
Area undergoing
conversion from
old to new landuse category
Dead wood/litter
stock under the
old land-use
category
Dead wood/litter
stock under the
new land-use
category
Time period of
the transition
from old to new
land-use
category
Annual change in
carbon stocks in
dead wood/litter
(ha yr-1)
(tonnes C ha-1)
(tonnes C ha-1)
(yr)
(tonnes C yr-1)
National statistics
or international
data sources
Table 2.2 for litter,

or national
statistics
default value is
zero (0)
default value is 1
CDOM = A *
(Cn - Co) / T
Co
Cn
CDOM
Deadwood
Litter
Deadwood
Litter
Sub-total
(b)
Sub-total
Total
1
If data by initial land use is not available, use only "non-GL" in this column. Otherwise use separate blocks by initial land use.
2
Within each subcagetory (a), (b) etc., calculations are to be made separately for deadwood and litter.
A1.32

1
Sector
Category
Category
code
Sheet
Land Converted to Grassland: Annual change in carbon stocks in mineral soils

3B3b
1 of 2
Equation
Equation 2.2
Land-use category

Area for
land use
change
by
climate
and soil
combination
Reference
carbon
stock
for the
climate and
soil combination
Time
dependence of
stock change
factors (D) or
number of
years over a
single
inventory time
period (T)
(ha)
(tonnes C
-1
ha )
(yr)
(-)
(-)
(-)
(-)
(-)
(-)
(tonnes C
-1
yr )
Table 2.3;
section
2.3.3.1
(default is 20
yr; if T>D then
use the value
of T)
Table 6.2
Table 6.2
Table 6.2
Table 5.5
(cropland);
1 for other
uses
Table 5.5
(cropland); 1
for other uses
Table 5.5
(cropland);
1 for other
uses
CMineral as
in
Equation
2.25
FLU(0)
FMG(0)
FI(0)
FLU(0-T)
FMG(0-T)
FI(0-T)
CMineral
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Sub-categories
of unique
climate, soil,
land use change
and mangement
combinations
FL
GL
(a)
(b)
20
20
CL
GL
(a)
(b)
20
20
(a)
(b)
20
20
(a)
(b)
20
20
(a)
(b)
20
20
Initial
land
2
use
A(0)
SOCref
Stock
change
factor for
land-use
system in
the last
year of an
inventory
time period
Stock change
factor for
management
regime in last
year of an
inventory
period
Stock
change
factor for
C input in
the last
year of the
inventory
period
Stock
change
factor for
land-use
system at
the
beginning
of inventory
time period
Stock change
factor for
management
regime at the
beginning of
the inventory
time period
Stock
change
factor for C
input at the
beginning of
the
inventory
time period
Annual
change in
carbon
stocks in
mineral
soils
Sub-total
Sub-total
WL
GL
Sub-total
SL
GL
Sub-total
OL
GL
Sub-total
Total
If data by initial land use is not available, use only "non-GL" in this column.
A1.33
1
Sector
Category

Land Converted to Grassland: Annual change in carbon stocks in organic soils
Category code
3B3b
Sheet
2 of 2
Equation
Equation 2.2
Land-use category
Initial
land use
FL
Land-use
during
reporting
year
GL
Subcategories for
reporting
year
Equation 2.26
organic soil
Emission factor for

climate type
Annual carbon loss

from cultivated
organic soils
(ha)
(tonnes C yr-1)
Table 6.3
LOrganic = A * EF
EF
LOrganic
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
CL
GL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
WL
GL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
SL
GL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
OL
GL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
Total
1
If data by initial land use is not available, use only "non-GL" in this column.
A1.34

1
Sector
Category
Wetland Remaining Wetland: CO2-C emissions from managed peatlands
Category code
3B4ai
Sheet
1 of 3
Equation
Eq. 2.2
Area of nutrient
rich peat soils
managed for peat
extraction (all
production
phases)
Land-use category
(ha)
Initial land
use
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Emission
factors for
CO2-Cfrom
nutrient rich
peat soils
managed for
peat
extraction
(tonnes C
ha-1 yr-1)
Subcategories
for
reporting
year
Equation 7.4
Area of
nutrient poor
Emission
peat soils
factors for CO2Cfrom nutrient
managed for
poor peat soils
peat
extraction (all
managed for
peat extraction
production
phases)
(tonnes C
(ha)
ha-1 yr-1)
Table 7.4
Table 7.4
CO2-C emissions from

managed peatlands
Gg C yr-1
CO2-CWW PeatSoil =
(APeatRich * EFPeatRich +
APeatPoor * EFPeatPoor) * 103
APeatRich
EF-CO2PeatRrich
APeatPoor
EF-CO2PeatPoor
CO2-CWW PeatSoil
(a)
WLPeat
WLPeat
(b)
(c)
Total
1
Countries may choose to report peat production either in weight units (W), or volumetric units (Vol dry peat), and use the appropriate carbon fraction (CfractionW peat, or
Cfraction vol peat), respectively. The symbols in the equation to calculate the CO2-C emissions should be adjusted accordingly.
2
3
A1.35
1
Sector
Category
Category code
3B4ai
Sheet
2 of 3
Equation
Eq. 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land
use1
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Equation 2.16
Equation 7.4
Annual area
of land
converted to
wetland
Biomass
stocks before
the
conversion
Biomass stocks
after the
conversion
Carbon
fraction of dry
matter
Emissions from
change in C
stocks in biomass
due to vegetation
clearing
On-site CO2-C
emissions from peat
deposit
(ha)
(tonnes dm
ha-1)
(tonnes dm ha-1)
[tonnes C
(tonne dm)-1]
Gg C yr-1
Gg C yr-1
Table 4.7
0.5 or
Table 4.3
CWWpeatB =
{A *
(BAFTER - BBEFORE)
* CF}/1000
CO2-CWW Peat-on-site =
CO2-CWW PeatSoil +
CWWpeatB
BBEFORE
CF
CWWpeatB
CO2-CWW Peat-_on_site
Subcategories
for
reporting
year
A
BAFTER
(a)
non-WLpeat
WLPeat
(b)
(c)
Total
1
2
3
4
5
A1.36

Sector
Category
Category code
3B4ai
Sheet
3 of 3
Equation
Eq. 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land
use
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Equation 7.5
Equations 7.3
Equations 7.2
Air-dry weight
of extracted
peat1
Carbon fraction
of air-dry peat by
weight1
Off-side CO2-C
emissions from
managed
peatlands
CO2-C emissions
from managed
peatlands
CO2 emissions from

soils on lands managed
for peat extraction
(tonnes yr-1)
[tonnes C
(tonne peat)-1]
Gg C yr-1
Gg C yr-1
(tonnes CO2 yr-1)
Table 7.5
CO2-CWW PeatOff-site
= (Wtdry pear *
CfractionWt peat)/1000
CO2-CWW Peat =
CO2-CWW Peat On-Site
+ CO2-CWW PeatOff-
CO2 WW peat = CO2-CWW

peat * 44/12
Subcategories
for
reporting
year
Wt dry Peat
Cfraction wt peat
Site
CO2-CWW PeatOff-site
CO2-CWW Peat
CO2WW Peat
(a)
WLPeat
WLPeat
(b)
(c)
Total
1
Countries may choose to report peat production either in weight units (W), or volumetric units (Vol dry peat), and use the appropriate carbon fraction (CfractionW peat, or Cfraction vol peat),
respectively.
A1.37
1
Sector
Category
Wetland Remaining Wetland: N2O Emissions from peatlands during peat extraction
Category code
3B4ai
Sheet
1 of 1
Equation
Eq. 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land use
Land-use
during
reporting year
Equation 7.7
Area of nutrient rich
peat soils managed
for peat extraction,
including abandoned
areas in which
drainage is still
present
Emission factors for

N2O from nutrient rich
peat soils managed for
peat extraction
N2O-N emissions from

managed peatland
(ha)
(Gg N2O yr-1)
Table 7.6
N2OWW peatExtraction = (APeatRich *

EFN2O-NPeatRich ) * 44/28 *10-6
EFN2O-NPeatRich
N2OWW PeatExtraction
Subcategories for
reporting year
APeatRich
(a)
WLPeat
WLPeat
(b)
(c)
Total
2
A1.38

1
Sector
Category
Land Converted to Wetland: N2O Emissions from land converted for peat extraction
Category code
3B4bi
Sheet
1 of 1
Equation
Eq. 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land use
Land-use
during
reporting year
Equation 7.7
Area of nutrient rich peat
soils managed for peat
extraction, including
abandoned areas in which
drainage is still present
(ha)
Sub-categories
for reporting
year
APeatRich
FL
WLPeat
Emission factors for

N2O from nutrient rich
peat soils managed for
peat extraction
N2O-N emissions from

managed peatland
(Gg N2O yr-1)
Table 7.6
N2OWW peatExtraction = (APeatRich *

-6
EFN2O-NPeatRich ) * 44/28 *10
EFN2O-NPeatRich
N2OWW PeatExtraction
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
CL
WLPeat
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
GL
WLPeat
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
SL
WLPeat
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
OL
WLPeat
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
Total
1
If data by initial land use is not available, use only "non-WL" in this column.
A1.39
Sector
Category
Category code
Sheet
Equation
Land Converted to Wetland: CO2 Emissions from land converted to Flooded land
3B4bii
1 of 2
Eq. 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land
use1
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Equation 2.16
Annual area of land
converted to wetland
Biomass stocks
before the
conversion
Biomass stocks
after the
conversion
Carbon fraction
of dry matter

stocks in biomass due to
conversion
(ha)
(tonnes dm ha-1)
(tonnes dm ha-1)
[tonnes C (tonne
-1
dm) ]
Gg CO2 yr-1
Table 4.7
0.5 or
Table 4.3
CConversion = {A *
(BAFTER - BBEFORE) *
CF}/1000 * 442/12
BBEFORE
CF
CCONVERSION
Subcategories
for reporting
year
A
FL
WLFlooded
BAFTER
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
CL
WLFlooded
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
GL
WLFlooded
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
SL
WLFlooded
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
OL
WLFlooded
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
Total
1
A1.40

1
Sector
Category
Category code
Sheet
Equation
Land Converted to Wetland: CO2 Emissions from land converted to Flooded land
3B4bii
2 of 2
Eq. 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land
1
use
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Equation 7.10
Total reservoir
surface area,
including flooded
land, lakes and
rivers,
Fraction of the
total reservoir
area that was
flooded within
the last 10 yrs
Averaged
daily diffusive
emissions
Number of days
without ice cover
during a year
CO2 emissions from

flooded land
Total CO2 Emissions from

land converted to Flooded
land
(ha)
(-)
(days yr-1)
-1
(Gg CO2 ha yr
1
)
(Gg CO2 yr-1)
(Gg CO2 yr-1)
CO2 EmissionsLW
= Aflood * fA * P *
E(CO2)diff * 10-6
Total CO2 EmissionsLWflood =

CConversion + CO2
EmissionsLW flood
CO2 EmissionsLW
Total CO2 EmissionsLW
flood
flood
Subcategories for
reporting year
Table 7.8
Aflood, total surface
FL
WLFlooded
fA
E(CO2)diff
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
CL
WLFlooded
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
GL
WLFlooded
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
SL
WLFlooded
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
OL
WLFlooded
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
Total
1
A1.41
flood
1
Sector
Category
Settlements remaining Settlements: Annual change in carbon stocks in organic soils
Category code
3B5a
Sheet
1 of 1
Equation
Eq. 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land use
Land-use
during
reporting year
Sub-categories
for reporting
year
Equation 2.26
organic soil
Emission factor for

climate type
Annual carbon loss

from cultivated organic
soils
(ha)
(tonnes C yr-1)
Table 5.6
LOrganic = A * EF
EF
LOrganic
(a)
SL
SL
(b)
(c)
Total
2
A1.42

1
Sector
Category
Land Converted to Settlement: Annual change in carbon stocks in biomass
Category code
3B5b
Sheet
1 of 1
Equation
Eq. 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land
use1
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Equation 2.16
Biomass stocks
before the
conversion
Carbon
fraction of dry
matter
Annual
biomass
carbon growth
Annual loss of
biomass carbon
Annual change in
carbon stocks in
biomass
(ha)
(tonnes dm ha1
)
[tonnes C
(tonne dm)-1]
(tonnes C
ha-1 yr-1)
-1
(tonnes C ha yr
1
)
-1
(tonnes C yr )
Table 5.8
0.5
Table 5.9
National
estimates, or
Table 5.1
CCONVERSION = A *
(CG + (0 - BBEFORE) *
CF - CL)
BBEFORE
CF
CG
CL
CCONVERSION
Subcategories for
reporting year
A
FL
SL
Equation 2.15, 2.16
Annual area
of land
converted to
cropland
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
CL
SL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
GL
SL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
WL
SL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
OL
SL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
Total
1
If data by initial land use is not available, use only "non-SL" in this column.
A1.43
1
Sector
Category
Land Converted to Settlement: Annual change in carbon stocks in dead organic matter due to land conversion1
Category code
3B5b
Sheet
1 of 1
Equation
Eq. 2.2
Area undergoing
conversion from old
to new land-use
category
Dead wood/litter
stock, under the new
land-use category
Dead wood/litter
stock, under the
old land-use
category
Time period of the

new land-use
category

stocks in dead wood/litter
(ha yr-1)
(tonnes C ha-1)
(tonnes C ha-1)
(yr)
(tonnes C yr-1)
National statistics
or international
data sources

national statistics
Cn
Co
CDOM
(a)
(b)
0
0
1
1
(a)
(b)
0
0
1
1
(a)
(b)
0
0
1
1
(a)
(b)
0
0
1
1
(a)
(b)
0
0
1
1
Land-use category
Initial land
2
use
FL
Land-use
during
reporting
year
SL
Equation 2.23
Sub-categories
for reporting
year
Sub-total
CL
SL
Sub-total
GL
SL
Sub-total
WL
SL
Sub-total
OL
SL
Sub-total
Total
1
2
Use separate worksheets to separately estimate carbon stock changes in deadwood and in litter.
A1.44

1
Sector
Category
Land Converted to Settlements: Annual change in carbon stocks in mineral soils
Category code
3B5b
Sheet
1 of 2
Equation
Eq. 2.2
Land-use category
Initial
land
use1
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Area for land

use change by
climate and soil
combination
Reference
carbon stock
for the
climate/soil
combination
Time
dependence of
stock change
factors (D) or
number of
years over a
single inventory
time period (T)
Stock
change
factor for
land-use
system in
the last year
of an
inventory
time period
Stock change
factor for
management
regime in last
year of an
inventory period
Stock
change
factor for C
input in the
last year of
the
inventory
period
Stock change
factor for landuse system at
the beginning
of the
inventory time
period
Stock change
factor for
management
regime at the
beginning of the
inventory time
period
Stock change
factor for C
input at the
beginning of
the inventory
time period
(ha)
(tonnes C
ha-1)
(yr)
(-)
(-)
(-)
(-)
(-)
(-)
Table 2.3;
section 2.3.3.1
(default is 20
yr; if T>D then
use the value of
T)
See section
8.3.3
See section
8.3.3
See
section
8.3.3
See section
8.3.3
See section
8.3.3
See section
8.3.3
SOCref
FLU(0)
FMG(0)
FI(0)
FLU(0-T)
FMG(0-T)
FI(0-T)
Subcategories for
reporting year
A(0)
FL
SL
(a)
20
(b)
20
(a)
20
(b)
20
Sub-total
CL
SL
Sub-total
GL
SL
(a)
20
(b)
20
Sub-total
WL
SL
(a)
20
(b)
20
Sub-total
OL
SL
(a)
20
(b)
20
Sub-total
Total
1
A1.45
Annual
change in
carbon
stocks in
mineral
soils
(tonnes C
yr-1)
CMineral
as in
Equation
2.25
CMineral
1
Sector
Category
Land Converted to Settlements: Annual change in carbon stocks in organic soils
Category code
3B5b
Sheet
2 of 2
Equation
Eq. 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land use
FL
Land-use
during
reporting year
Sub-categories
for reporting
year
SL
(a)
(b)
Equation 2.26
organic soil
Emission factor for

climate type
Annual carbon loss

soils
(ha)
(tonnes C yr-1)
Table 5.6
LOrganic = A * EF
EF
LOrganic
Sub-total
CL
SL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
GL
SL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
WL
SL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
OL
SL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
Total
1
A1.46

1
Sector
Category
Land Converted to Other land: Annual change in carbon stocks in biomass
Category code
3B6b
Sheet
1 of 1
Equation
Eq. 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land
use1
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Equation 2.16
Biomass stocks
before the
conversion
Carbon
fraction of dry
matter
Annual biomass
carbon growth
(ha)
(tonnes dm ha-1)
[tonnes C
(tonne dm)-1]
(tonnes C ha
yr-1)
Table 5.8
0.5
BBEFORE
CF
Subcategories for
reporting year
A
FL
OL
Equation 2.15, 2.16
Annual area
of land
converted to
cropland
Annual loss of
biomass carbon
Annual change in
carbon stocks in
biomass
-1
-1
(tonnes C ha yr )
(tonnes C yr-1)
Table 5.9
National
estimates, or
Table 5.1
CCONVERSION = A *
(CG + (0 - BBEFORE) *
CF - CL)
CG
CL
CCONVERSION
-1
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
CL
OL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
GL
OL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
WL
OL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
SL
OL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
Total
1
If data by initial land use is not available, use only "non-OL" in this column.
A1.47
1
Sector
Category
Category
code
Sheet
Equation
Land Converted to Other land: Annual change in carbon stocks in mineral soils
3B6b
1 of 2
Eq. 2.2
Land-use category
Initial
land
use1
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Area for land

use change by
climate and soil
combination
Reference
carbon stock
for the
climate/soil
combination
Time
dependence of
stock change
factors (D) or
number of
years over a
single inventory
time period (T)
Stock
change
factor for
land-use
system in
the last year
of an
inventory
time period
Stock change
factor for
management
regime in last
year of an
inventory period
Stock
change
factor for C
input in the
last year of
the
inventory
period
Stock change
factor for landuse system at
the beginning
of the
inventory time
period
Stock change
factor for
management
regime at the
beginning of the
inventory time
period
Stock change
factor for C
input at the
beginning of
the inventory
time period
(ha)
(tonnes C
ha-1)
(yr)
(-)
(-)
(-)
(-)
(-)
(-)
See section
9.3.3
See section
9.3.3
See
section
9.3.3
See section
9.3.3
See section
9.3.3
See section
9.3.3
FLU(0)
FMG(0)
FI(0)
FLU(0-T)
FMG(0-T)
FI(0-T)
Sub-categories
for reporting
year
Table 2.3;
section 2.3.3.1
A(0)
FL
OL
SOCref
(default is 20
yr; if T>D then
use the value of
T)
D
(a)
20
(b)
20
(a)
20
(b)
20
(a)
20
(b)
20
(a)
20
(b)
20
(a)
20
(b)
20
Sub-total
CL
OL
Sub-total
GL
OL
Sub-total
WL
OL
Sub-total
SL
OL
Sub-total
Total
A1.48
Annual
change in
carbon
stocks in
mineral
soils
(tonnes C
yr-1)
CMineral
as in
Equation
2.25

1
Sector
Category

Land Converted to Other land: Annual change in carbon stocks in organic soils
Category code
3B6b
Sheet
2 of 2
Equation
Eq. 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land
use
FL
Land-use
during
reporting year
Sub-categories
for reporting
year
OL
(a)
(b)
Equation 2.26
organic soil
Emission factor for

climate type
Annual carbon loss

soils
(ha)
(tonnes C yr-1)
Table 5.6
LOrganic = A * EF
EF
LOrganic
Sub-total
CL
OL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
GL
OL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
WL
OL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
SL
OL
(a)
(b)
Sub-total
Total
1
A1.49
1
2
3
4
AGGREGATE SOURCES AND NON- CO 2 EMISSIONS SOURCES ON LAND (3C)
3C1 Greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning
3C2 Liming
3C3 Urea application
3C4 Direct N2 O emissions from managed soils
10
3C5 Indirect N 2O emissions from managed soils
11
3C6 Indirect N 2O emissions from manure management
12
3C7 Rice cultivation
13
A1.50

1
Sector
Category
Category code
Sheet
Equation

Emissions from biomass burning in Forest Land (Forest Land Remaining Forest Land)
3C1a
1 of 2
Equation
2.2
Equation 2.27
Area
burnt
Land-use category
(ha)
Initial
land use
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Subcategories
for reporting
year1
A
Combustion
factor2
Emission factor
for each GHG
CH4
emissions
from fire
CO
emissions
from fire
N2O
emissions
from fire
NOx
emissions
from fire
(-)
[g GHG
(kg dm burnt)-1]
(tonnes CH4)
(tonnes CO)
(tonnes N2O)
(tonnes NOx)
Table 2.4
Table 2.6
Table 2.5
Lfire-CH4 =
A * MB * Cf *
Gef * 10-6
Lfire-CO =
A * MB * Cf *
Gef * 10-6
Lfire-N2O =
A * MB * Cf *
Gef * 10-6
Lfire-NOx =
A * MB * Cf *
Gef * 10-6
MB
Cf
Gef
Lfire-CH4
Lfire-CO
Lfire-N2O
Lfire-NOx
Mass of fuel
available for
2
combustion
(tonnes
-1
ha )
CH4
(a)
FL
CO
N2O
NOx
FL
CH4
(b)
CO
N2O
NOx
CH4
Total
CO
N2O
NOx
For each subcategory, use separate line for each non-CO2 greenhouse gas.
2
Where data for MB and Cf are not available, a default value for the amount of fuel actually burnt (MB * Cf) can be used (Table 4). In this case, MB takes the value taken from the table,
whereas Cf must be 1.
A1.51
Sector
Category

Emissions from biomass burning in Forest Land (Land Converted to Forest Land)
Category code
3C1a
Sheet
2 of 2
Equation
Equation 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land
1
use
Land-use
during
reporting year
Equation 2.27
Area burnt
Mass of fuel
available for
3
combustion
(ha)
(tonnes ha )
-1
Sub-categories
for reporting
2
year
A
MB
Combustion
3
factor
Emission factor for

each GHG
CH4
emissions
from fire
CO
emissions
from fire
N2O
emissions
from fire
NOx
emissions
from fire
(-)
[g GHG
-1
(kg dm burnt) ]
(tonnes CH4)
(tonnes CO)
(tonnes N2O)
(tonnes NOx)
Table 2.6
Table 2.5
Lfire-CH4 =
A * M B * Cf *
-6
Gef * 10
Lfire-CO =
A * M B * Cf *
-6
Gef * 10
Lfire-N2O =
A * M B * Cf *
-6
Gef * 10
Lfire-NOx =
A * M B * Cf *
-6
Gef * 10
Cf
Gef
Lfire-CH4
Lfire-CO
Lfire-N2O
Lfire-NOx
CH4
CO
(a)
[non-FL]
N2O
NOx
FL
CH4
CO
(b)
N2O
NOx
CH4
CO
Total
N2O
NOx
1
2
Similar tables should be completed separately for each initial land use, and subtotals must be added up.
For each subcategory, use separate lines for each non-CO2 greenhouse gas.
Where data for MB and Cf are not available, a default value for the amount of fuel actually burnt (MB * Cf) can be used (Table 4). In this case, MB takes the value taken from the table, whereas
Cf must be 1.
1
2
A1.52

Sector
Category

Emissions from biomass burning in Cropland (Cropland Remaining Cropland)
Category code
3C1b
Sheet
1 of 2
Equation
Equation 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land
1
use
Land-use
during
reporting year
Equation 2.27
Area burnt
Mass of fuel
available for
3
combustion
(ha)
(tonnes ha )
Sub-categories
for reporting
1
year
Combustion
3
factor
Emission factor for

each GHG
CH4
emissions
from fire
CO
emissions
from fire
N2O
emissions
from fire
NOx
emissions
from fire
(-)
[g GHG
-1
(kg dm burnt) ]
(tonnes CH4)
(tonnes CO)
(tonnes N2O)
(tonnes NOx)
(Table 2.4)
Table 2.6
Table 2.5
Lfire-CH4 =
A * M B * Cf *
-6
Gef * 10
Lfire-CO =
A * M B * Cf *
-6
Gef * 10
Lfire-N2O =
A * M B * Cf *
-6
Gef * 10
Lfire-NOx =
A * M B * Cf *
-6
Gef * 10
MB
Cf
Gef
Lfire-CH4
Lfire-CO
Lfire-N2O
Lfire-NOx
-1
CH4
(a)
CL
CO
N2O
NOx
CL
CH4
(b)
CO
N2O
NOx
CH4
Total
CO
N2O
NOx
Where data for MB and Cf are not available, a default value for the amount of fuel actually burnt (MB * Cf) can be used (Table2.4). In this case, MB takes the value taken from the table,
1
2
A1.53
Sector
Category

Emissions from biomass burning in Cropland (Land Converted to Cropland)
Category code
3C1b
Sheet
2 of 2
Equation
Eq. 2.2
Land-use category
Initial
land
use1
Landuse
during
reporting
year
Equation 2.27
Area
burnt
Mass of fuel
available for
combustion3
Combustion
factor3
Emission factor
for each GHG
CH4
emissions
from fire
CO
emissions
from fire
N2O
emissions
from fire
NOx
emissions
from fire
(ha)
(tonnes
-1
ha )
(-)
[g GHG
(kg dm burnt)-1]
(tonnes
CH4)
(tonnes
CO)
(tonnes
N2O)
(tonnes
NOx)
Table 2.6
Table 2.5
Lfire-CH4 =
A * MB * Cf
* Gef * 10-6
Lfire-CO =
A * MB * Cf
* Gef * 10-6
Lfire-N2O =
A * MB * Cf
* Gef * 10-6
Lfire-NOx =
A * MB * Cf
* Gef * 10-6
Gef
Lfire-CH4
Lfire-CO
Lfire-N2O
Lfire-NOx
Subcategories
for reporting
2
year
A
MB
Cf
CH4
(a)
[nonCL]
N2O
NOx
CL
CH4
(b)
Total
CO
CO
N2O
NOx
CH4
CO
N2O
NOx
Similar tables should be completed separately for each initial land use, and subtotals must be added up.
3
Where data for MB and Cf are not available, a default value for the amount of fuel actually burnt (MB * Cf) can be used (Table 2.4). In this case, MB takes the value taken from the
table, whereas Cf must be 1.
1
2
A1.54

Sector
Category

Emissions from biomass burning in Grassland (Grassland Remaining Grassland)
Category code
3C1c
Sheet
1 of 2
Equation
Equation 2.2
Land-use category
Initial
land use
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Equation 2.27
Area
burnt
Mass of fuel
available for
combustion2
Combustion
factor2
Emission factor for

each GHG
CH4
emissions
from fire
CO
emissions
from fire
N2O
emissions
from fire
NOx
emissions
from fire
(ha)
(tonnes ha1
)
(-)
[g GHG
(kg dm burnt)-1]
(tonnes
CH4)
(tonnes
CO)
(tonnes
N2O)
(tonnes
NOx)
(Table 2.4)2
Table 2.6
Table 2.5
Lfire-CH4 =
A * MB * Cf
* Gef * 10-6
Lfire-CO =
A * MB * Cf
* Gef * 10-6
Lfire-N2O =
A * MB * Cf
* Gef * 10-6
Lfire-NOx =
A * MB * Cf
* Gef * 10-6
MB
Cf
Gef
Lfire-CH4
Lfire-CO
Lfire-N2O
Lfire-NOx
Subcategories for
reporting
year1
A
(a)
GL
GL
(b)
(c )
Total
CH4
CO
N2O
NOx
CH4
CO
N2O
NOx
CH4
CO
N2O
NOx
CH4
CO
N2O
NOx
For each subcategory, use separate line for each non-CO2 greenhouse gas.
Where data for MB and Cf are not available, a default value for the amount of fuel actually burnt (MB * Cf) can be used (Table 2.4). In this case, MB takes the value taken from the
table, whereas Cf must be 1.
A1.55
1
Sector
Category

Emissions from biomass burning in Grassland (Land Converted to Grassland)
Category code
3C1c
Sheet
2 of 2
Equation
Equation 2.2
Land-use category
Initial
land use1
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Equation 2.27
Area
burnt
Mass of fuel
available for
3
combustion
Combustion
factor3
Emission factor
for each GHG
CH4
emissions
from fire
CO
emissions
from fire
N2O
emissions
from fire
NOx
emissions
from fire
(ha)
(tonnes ha1
)
(-)
[g GHG
(kg dm burnt)-1]
(tonnes CH4)
(tonnes CO)
(tonnes N2O)
(tonnes NOx)
Table 2.6
Table 2.5
Lfire-CH4 =
A * MB * Cf *
Gef * 10-6
Lfire-CO =
A * MB * Cf *
Gef * 10-6
Lfire-N2O =
A * MB * Cf *
Gef * 10-6
Lfire-NOx =
A * MB * Cf *
Gef * 10-6
Cf
Gef
Lfire-CH4
Lfire-CO
Lfire-N2O
Lfire-NOx
Subcategories
for reporting
year2
A
MB
CH4
(a)
[non-GL]
CO
N2O
NOx
GL
CH4
(b)
CO
N2O
NOx
CH4
Total
CO
N2O
NOx
Similar tables should be completed separately for each initial land use, and subtotals must be added up. If data by initial land use is not available, use only "non-GL" in this column.
3
Where data for MB and Cf are not available, a default value for the amount of fuel actually burnt (MB * Cf) can be used (Table 2.4). In this case, MB takes the value taken from the table,
A1.56

Sector
Category

Emissions from biomass burning in other land (Land Converted to Wetland)
Category code
3C1d
Sheet
1 of 1
Equation
Eq. 2.2
Land-use category
Initial land
use1
Land-use
during
reporting
year
Equation 2.27
Area
burnt
Mass of fuel
available for
combustion3
Combustion
factor3
Emission factor for

each GHG
(ha)
(tonnes ha-1)
(-)
[g GHG
(kg dm burnt)-1]
Table 2.6
Cf
Subcategories
for reporting
year2
A
MB
CH4
emissions
from fire
(tonnes
CH4)
CO
emissions
from fire
(tonnes
CO)
N2O
emissions
from fire
(tonnes
N2O)
NOx
emissions
from fire
(tonnes
NOx)
Table 2.5
Lfire-CH4 =
A * MB * Cf
* Gef * 10-6
Lfire-CO =
A * MB * Cf
* Gef * 10-6
Lfire-N2O =
A * MB * Cf
* Gef * 10-6
Lfire-NOx =
A * MB * Cf
* Gef * 10-6
Gef
Lfire-CH4
Lfire-CO
Lfire-N2O
Lfire-NOx
CH4
(a)
[non-WL]
CO
N2O
NOx
WL
CH4
(b)
CO
N2O
NOx
CH4
Subtotal
CO
N2O
NOx
Similar tables should be completed separately for each initial land use, and subtotals must be added up. If data by initial land use is not available, use only "non-CL" in this column.
2
Sub-categories are created by vegetation type within strata ( (a), (b), (c) etc.) within the country. For each subcategory, use separate lines for each non-CO2 greenhouse gas.
3
Where data for MB and Cf are not available, a default value for the amount of fuel actually burnt (MB * Cf) can be used (Table 4). In this case, MB takes the value taken from the table,
A1.57
1
Sector
Category
Liming: Annual CO2-C emissions from lime application
Category
code
3C2
Sheet
1 of 1
Equation
Type of lime
applied
Equation 11.12
Annual amount of
calcic limestone
(CaCO3)
Emission factor
Annual amount of
dolomite
(CaMg(CO3)2)
Emission factor
Annual C emissions from

lime application
(tonnes yr-1)
[tonnes of C (tonne of
limestone)-1]
(tonnes yr-1)
[tonnes of C (tonne
of dolomite)-1]
(tonnes C yr-1)
default is 0.13
CO2-C Emission = (MLimestone

* EFLimestone) + (MDolomite *
EFDolomite)
EFDolomite
CO2-C Emission
default is 0.12
MLimestone
EFLimestone
MDolomite
Limestone
Dolomite
Total
2
A1.58

1
Sector
Category
Urea application: Annual CO2 emissions from urea application
Category
code
3C3
Sheet
1 of 1
Equation
Subcategories
for reporting
year
Equation 11.13
Annual amount of urea

fertilization
Emission factor
Annual CO2-C emissions

from urea application
(tonnes yr-1)
[tonnes of C (tonne of
urea)-1]
(tonnes C yr-1)
default is 0.20
CO2-C Emission = M * EF
EF
CO2-C Emission
M
(a)
(b)
(c)
Total
2
A1.59
1
Sector
Category
Category code
Sheet

Direct N2O Emissions from Managed Soils
3C4
1 of 2
Equation
Equation 11.1
Annual amount of N applied
Anthropogenic N input type
(kg N yr-1)
N2O-NN inputs = F * EF
EF
N2O-NN inputs
Anthropogenic
N input types to
estimate annual
direct N2O-N
emissions
produced from
managed soils
Anthropogenic
N input types to
estimate annual
direct N2O-N
emissions
produced from
flooded rice
synthetic fertilizers
FSN: N in synthetic fertilizers
animal manure,
compost, sewage
sludge
FON: N in animal manure, compost, sewage sludge, other
crop residues
FCR: N in crop residues
changes to land use

or management
FSOM: N in mineral soils that is mineralised, in association

with loss of soil C from soil organic matter as a result of
changes to land use or management
synthetic fertilizers
FSN: N in synthetic fertilizers
animal manure,
compost, sewage
sludge
FON: N in animal manure, compost, sewage sludge, other
crop residues
FCR: N in crop residues
changes to land use

or management
FSOM: N in mineral soils that is mineralised, in association

with loss of soil C from soil organic matter as a result of
changes to land use or management
EF1
EF1FR
Total
A1.60
Annual direct N2O-N

emissions produced
from managed soils
Emission factor for

N2O emissions from N
inputs
[kg N2O-N
-1
(kg N input) ]
Table 11.1
-1
(kg N2O-N yr )

1
Sector
Category
Category code
Sheet

Direct N2O Emissions from Managed Soils
3C4
2 of 2
Equation 11.1
Equation
Anthropogenic N input type
1,2
Annual area of
managed/drained
1
organic soils
Emission factor for

N2O emissions from
drained/managed
organic soils
Annual direct
N2O-N emissions
produced from
managed organic
soils
(ha)
(kg N2O-N
-1
-1
ha yr )
(kg N2O-N yr )
Table 11.1
N2O-NOS = FOS *
EF2
EF2
N2O-NOS
FOS
-1
Amount of urine
and dung N
deposited by
grazing animals
on pasture, range
2
and paddock
-1
(kg N yr )
FPRP
Emission factor for

N2O emissions from
urine and dung N
deposited on
pasture, range and
paddock by grazing
animals
[kg N2O-N
-1
(kg N input) ]
Annual direct N2O

emissions from
urine and dung
inputs to grazed
soils
Annual direct
N2O emissions
from urine and
dung inputs to
grazed soils
(kg N2O-N yr )
(kg N2O-N
-1
yr )
Table 11.1
N2O-NPRP = FPRP *
EF3PRP
N2ODirect-N =
N2O-NN input +
N2O-NOS +
N2O-NPRP
EF3PRP
N2O-NPRP
N2ODirect-N
-1
CG, Temp
CG, Trop
Managed
organic soils
F, Temp, NR
F, Temp, NP
F, Trop
Urine and
dung inputs to
grazed soils
CPP
SO
Total
1
The area must be disaggregated by CG, F, Temp, Trop, NR and NP refer to Cropland and Grassland (CG), Forest (F), Temperate (TEMP), Tropical (Trop), Nutrient Rich (NR), and Nutrient
Poor (NP) categories, respectively, see Equation 11.1.
The amounts in this column must be disaggregated by CPP and SO, which refer to Cattle, Poultry and Pigs, and Sheep and Other animals, respectively. See Equation 11.1.
A1.61
1
Sector
Category
Category code
Sheet

Indirect N2O Emissions from Managed Soils: N2O from Atmospheric Deposition of N Volatilised from Managed Soils
3C5
1 of 2
Equation 11.9
Equation
Anthropogenic N
input type
Annual
amount
of
synthetic
fertilizer
N
applied
to soils
Fraction of
synthetic
fertilizer N
that
volatilises
(kg N
yr-1)
[kg NH3-N
(kg of N
applied)-1]
and [kg NOxN (kg of N
applied)-1]
Annual amount of
animal manure,
compost, sewage
sludge and other
organic N
additions
intentionally
applied to soils
(kg N yr-1)
Annual amount
of urine and
dung N
deposited by
grazing animals
on pasture,
range and
paddock
Fraction of applied
organic N fertilizer
materials (FON) and
of urine and dung N
deposited by
grazing animals
(FPRP) that
volatilises
Emission
factor for N2O
emission from
atmospheric
deposition of
N on soils and
water surfaces
Annual amount of
N2O-N produced from
atmospheric
deposition of N
volatilised from
managed soils
(kg N yr-1)
[kg NH3-N (kg of N

applied)-1] and [kg
NOx-N (kg of N
applied)-1]
[kg N2O-N (kg

NH3-N
emitted)-1] and
[kg N2O-N (kg
NOx-N
emitted)-1]
(kg N2O-N yr-1)
Table 11.3
Table 11.3
N2O(ATD)-N = [(FSN *
FracGASF ) + (FON +
FPRP) * FracGASM)] *
EF4
FracGASM
EF4
N2O(ATD)-N
Table 11.3
FSN
FracGASF
FON
FPRP
(a)
(b)
(c)
Total
2
A1.62

1
Sector
Category
Category code
Sheet
Equation

Indirect N2O Emissions from Managed Soils: N2O from N leaching/runoff from Managed Soils
3C5
2 of 2
Equation 11.10
Annual
amount
of
synthetic
fertilizer
N
applied
to soils
Anthropogenic N
input type
(kg N yr-1)
FSN
Annual amount
of animal
manure,
compost,
sewage sludge
and other
organic N
additions
intentionally
applied to soils
(kg N yr-1)
FON
Annual
amount of
urine and
dung N
deposited
by grazing
animals on
pasture,
range and
paddock
(kg N yr-1)
FPRP
Amount of N in
crop residues
(above and belowground), including
N-fixing crops,
and from
forage/pasture
renewal, returned
to soils annually
(kg N yr-1)
FCR
Annual amount of N
mineralized/immobilized
in mineral soils
associated with loss/gain
of soil C from soil
organic matter as a
result of changes to land
use or management
(kg N yr-1)
FSOM
(a)
(b)
(c)
Total
2
A1.63
Fraction of
all N
additions to
managed
soils that is
lost through
leaching and
runoff
Emission
factor for
N2O
emission
from N
leaching
and runoff
Annual amount
of N2O-N
produced from
managed soils
in regions
where leaching
and runoff
occurs
[kg N (kg of N
-1
additions) ]
[kg N2O-N
(kg N
leached
and
runoff)-1]
-1
(kg N2O-N yr )
Table 11.3
Table 11.3
N2O(L)-N = (FSN
+ FON + FPRP +
FCR + FSOM) *
FracLEACH * EF5
FracLEACH
EF5
N2O(L)-N
1
Sector
Category
Category code
Sheet
Equation
Manure
management
system (MMS)1
Species/Livestock
category1

Indirect N2O Emissions from Manure Management1
3C6
1 of 2
Equation 10.25
Equation 10.26
Equation 10.27
Total nitrogen
excretion for the
MMS 3
fraction of
managed
livestock manure
nitrogen that
volatilises
Amount of manure
nitrogen that is
loss due to
volatilisation of
NH3 and NOx
Emission factor for N2O

emissions from
atmospheric deposition
of nitrogen on soils and
water surfaces
Indirect N2O emissions

due to volatilization
from manure
management
kg N yr-1
(per cent)
kg N yr-1
[kg N2O-N (kg NH3-N

and NOx-N emitted)-1]
kg N2O yr
Table 10.22
Nvolatilization-MMS =
NEMMS *
-2
Frac(GasMS) * 10
Table 11.3
N2OG(mm) = NEvolatilizationMMS * EF4 * 44/28
Frac(GasMS)
Nvolatilization-MMS
EF4
N2OG(mm)
NEMMS
-1
Dairy cows
Other cattle
Buffalo
Sheep
Goats
Camels
Horses
Mules & Asses
Swine
Poultry
Other
Total
1
The calculations must be done by manure management system, and for each management system, the relevant species/livestock category(ies) must be selected. For the
manure management systems, see Table 10.18.
2
3
See worksheet for Direct N2O from Manure Management (3A2) for the value of Toatal N excretion for the MMS (NEMMS).
A1.64

Sector
Category
Category code
Sheet

Indirect N2O Emissions from Manure Management1
3C6
2 of 2
Equation
Manure
management
system (MMS)2
Species/Livestock
category2
Equation 10.34
Total
nitrogen
excretion
for the
MMS
Amt. of managed
manure nitrogen
for livestock
category T that is
lost in the manure
management sys.
(kg N yr-1)
(per cent)
Number of
animals
Fraction of total
annual nitrogen
excretion managed
in MMS for each
species/livestock
category
Amount of nitrogen
from bedding
Amount of managed
manure nitrogen
available for application
to managed soils or for
feed, fuel, or
construction purposes
(head)
(-)
(kg N animal-1 yr-1)
(kg N yr-1)
Tables A4-A8
(If applicable to
MMS - see text
under Equation
10.35)
NMMS_Avb = NEMMS * (1-2

FracLossMS * 10 ) + N(T)
* MS(T,S) * NbeddingMS
MS(T,S)
NbeddingMS
NMMS_Avb
Tables 10.23
S
NEMMS
Frac(LossMS)
N(T)
Dairy cows
Other cattle
Buffalo
Sheep
Goats
Camels
Horses
Mules & Asses
Swine
Poultry
3
Other
1
Total
Data to be estimated in this worksheet are necessary for coordinating reporting N2O emissions with N2O emissions from managed soils. See Section 10.5.4.
The calculations must be done by manure management system, and for each management system, the relevant species/livestock category(ies) must be selected, and the same set of
worksheets must be used for all management systems. For the manure management systems, see Table 10.18.
3
2
A1.65
1
Sector
Category
Category code

Rice cultivation: Annual CH4 emission from rice
3C7
Sheet
1 of 2
Equation
Eq. 2.2
Rice Ecosystem
Subcategorie
s for
reporting
year1
Equation 5.1
Equation 5.3
Equation 5.2
Scaling
factor to
account for
the
differences
in water
regime
during the
cultivation
period
Scaling factor to
account for the
differences in
water regime in
the pre-season
before the
cultivation
period
application
rate of
organic
amendment
in fresh
weight
conversion
factor for
organic
amendment
Scaling factor
for both types
and amount of
organic
amendment
applied
(tonnes ha-1)
(-)
(-)
Table 5.14
SFo =
(1+ROAi *
CFOAi)0.59
CFOAi
SFo
Annual
harvested
area
Cultivation
period of
rice
Baseline
emission factor
for continuously
flooded fields
without organic
amendments
(ha)
(day)
kg CH4 ha day
(-)
(-)
Table 5.11
Table 5.12
Table 5.13
EFc
SFW
SFp
-1
-1
ROAi
Irrigated
Sub-total
Rainfed and deep water
Sub-total
Upland
Sub-total
Total
1
Rice ecosystem can be stratified according to water regimes, type and amount of organic amendments, and other conditions under which CH4 emissions from rice may vary.
A1.66

1
Sector
Category
Category code
Sheet
Equation
Rice Ecosystem

Rice cultivation: Annual CH4 emission from rice
3C7
2 of 2
Equation 2.2
Subcategories for
reporting
1
year
Equation 5.2
Equation 5.1
Scaling factor for soil

type, rice cultivar,
etc., if available
Adjusted daily
emission factor for a
particular harvested
area
Annual CH4 emission from rice

cultivation
(-)
(kg CH4 ha-1 day-1)
Gg CH4 yr-1
EFi = EFc * SFw *

SFp * SFo * SFs,r
CH4Rice = A * t * EFi * 10-6
EFi
CH4Rice
SFs,r
Irrigated
Sub-total
Rainfed and deep water
Sub-total
Upland
Sub-total
Total
1
Land should be stratified according to ecosystems, water regimes, type and amount of organic amendments, and other conditions under which
CH4 emissions from rice may vary. The disaggregation of the annual harvest area of rice needs to be done at least for three baseline water
regimes including irrigated, rainfed, and upland. Within each stratum, sub-strata should be separated for each type of organic amendment (see
equation 5.3)
A1.67
Annex 2: Summary of Equations

2
3
ANNEX 2
SUMMARY OF EQUATIONS
4
5
6
*********
7
8
Contents
9
10
A. AFOLU General Equations......................................................................................................................2
11
B. Biomass Equations ...................................................................................................................................3
12
C. Equations for Dead Organic Matter .........................................................................................................7
13
D. Equations for Soil Carbon........................................................................................................................9
14
E. Equations for Biomass Burning..............................................................................................................10
15
F. Equations for Rice Cultivation ...............................................................................................................11
16
G. Equations for Wetlands..........................................................................................................................12
17
H. Equations for Livestock .........................................................................................................................15
18
I. Equations for N2O and Other CO2 Emissions from Managed Soils ........................................................23
19
J. Equations for Harvested Wood Products ................................................................................................28
20
21
A2.1
1
A. AFOLU GENERAL EQUATIONS
2
3
4
5
EQUATION 2.1
ANNUAL CARBON STOCK CHANGES FOR THE ENTIRE AFOLU SECTOR ESTIMATED AS THE SUM OF
CHANGES IN ALL LAND-USE CATEGORIES
C AFOLU = C FL + C CL + C GL + CWL + C SL + C OL
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Where:
C = carbon stock change
Indices denote the following land-use categories:
AFOLU = Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
FL = Forest land
CL = Cropland
GL = Grassland
WL = Wetlands
SL = Settlements
OL = Other land
18
19
20
EQUATION 2.2
ANNUAL CARBON STOCK CHANGES FOR A LAND-USE CATEGORY AS A SUM OF CHANGES IN EACH
STRATA WITHIN THE CATEGORY
C LU = C LU I
21
22
23
24
25
26
Where:
CLU = carbon stock changes for a land-use (LU) category as defined in Equation 2.1.
i denotes a specific stratum or subdivision within the land-use category (by any combination of species,
climatic zone, ecotype, management regime etc., see Chapter 3), i = 1 to n.
27
28
29
EQUATION 2.3
ANNUAL CARBON STOCK CHANGES FOR A STRATUM OF A LAND-USE CATEGORY AS A SUM OF
30
C LU i = C AB + C BB + C DW + C LI + C SO + C HWP
CHANGES IN ALL POOLS
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Where:
CLUi = carbon stock changes for a stratum of a land-use category,
Subscripts denote the following carbon pools:
AB = Above-ground biomass
BB = Below-ground biomass
DW = Deadwood
LI = Litter
SO = Soils
HWP = Harvested Wood Products
41
42
43
EQUATION 2.4
ANNUAL CARBON STOCK CHANGE IN A GIVEN POOL AS A FUNCTION OF GAINS AND LOSSES
(GAIN-LOSS METHOD)
44
C = C G C L
45
46
47
48
49
Where:
CG = annual gain of carbon, tonnes C yr-1
CL = annual loss of carbon, tonnes C yr-1
A2.2

1
2
3
4
EQUATION 2.5
CARBON STOCK CHANGE IN A GIVEN POOL AS AN ANNUAL AVERAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
ESTIMATES AT TWO POINTS IN TIME (STOCK-DIFFERENCE METHOD)
C =
5
6
7
8
9
10
(C t2 C t1 )
(t 2 t1 )
Where:
11
12
EQUATION 2.6
NON-CO2 EMISSIONS TO THE ATMOSPHERE
13
Emission = A EF
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Where:
Emission = non- CO2 emissions, tonnes of the non-CO2 gas
A = activity data relating to the emission source (can be area, animal numbers or mass unit, depending on
the source type)
EF = emission factor for a specific gas and source category, tonnes per unit of A
B. BIOMASS EQUATIONS
21
22
23
24
EQUATION 2.7
IN LAND REMAINING IN A PARTICULAR LAND USE -CATEGORY (GAIN-LOSS METHOD)
25
C B = CG C L
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Where:
terms in Equation 2.3) for each land sub-category, considering the total area, tonnes C yr-1
CG = annual increase in carbon stocks due to biomass growth for each land sub-category, considering
the total area, tonnes C yr-1
CL = annual decrease in carbon stocks due to biomass loss for each land sub-category, considering the
total area, tonnes C yr-1
EQUATION 2.8
IN LAND REMAINING IN THE SAME LAND USE-CATEGORY (STOCK-DIFFERENCE METHOD)
C B =
37
38
39
(t 2 t1 )
(a)
where
C=
{ A
i, j
i, j
40
41
42
43
44
(C t2 C t1 )
Vi , j BCEFSi , j (1 + Ri , j ) CFi , j }
(b)
Where:
terms in Equation 2.3 ) in land remaining in the same category (eg. forest land remaining forest land),
tonnes C yr-1
A2.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
C = total carbon in biomass for time t1 to t2
A = area of land remaining in the same land-use category, ha (see note below)
V = merchantable growing stock volume, m3 ha-1
i = ecological zone i (i = 1 to n)
j= climate domain j (j = 1 to m)
R = ratio of below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass, in tonnes d.m. below-ground biomass
BCEFS = biomass conversion and expansion factor for expansion of merchantable growing stock volume
to above-ground biomass, (see Table 4.5 for Forest Land). BCEFS transforms merchantable volume
of growing stock directly into its above-ground biomass. BCEFS values are more convenient because
they can be applied directly to volume-based forest inventory data and operational records, without
the need of having to resort to basic wood densities (D). They provide best results, when they have
been derived locally and based directly on merchantable volume. However, if BCEFS values are not
available and if the biomass expansion factor (BEFS) and D values are separately estimated, the
BCEFS = BEFS D
19
20
21
22
EQUATION 2.9
ANNUAL INCREASE IN BIOMASS CARBON STOCKS DUE TO BIOMASS INCREMENT
CG = ( Ai , j GTOTALi , j CFi , j )
23
i, j
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Where:
CG = annual increase in biomass carbon stocks due to biomass growth in land remaining in the same
land category by vegetation type and climatic zone, tonnes C yr-1
A = area of land remaining in the same category, ha
GTOTAL = mean annual biomass growth, tonnes dry matter ha-1 yr-1
i = ecological zone (i = 1 to n)
j = climate domain (j = 1 to m)
33
34
35
EQUATION 2.10
AVERAGE ANNUAL INCREMENT IN BIOMASS
Tier 1
GTOTAL = {GW (1 + R)}
36
37
Biomass increment data (dry matter) are used directly
GTOTAL = {I V BCEFI (1 + R)}
38
39
Tiers 2 and 3
Net annual increment data are used to estimate GW
by applying a biomass conversion and expansion factor
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Where:
GTOTAL = average annual biomass growth above and below-ground, tonnes dry matter ha-1 yr-1
GW = average annual above-ground biomass growth for a specific woody vegetation type, tonnes dry
matter ha-1 yr-1
R = ratio of below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass for a specific vegetation type, in tonnes
d.m. below-ground biomass (tonne above-ground d.m. biomass)-1. R can be set to zero if assuming no
changes of below-ground biomass allocation patterns (Tier 1).
IV = average net annual increment for specific vegetation type, m3 ha-1 yr-1
BCEFI = biomass conversion and expansion factor for conversion of net annual increment (including
bark) to above-ground biomass growth for specific vegetation type, tonnes above-ground biomass
growth (m3 net annual increment)-1, (see Table 4.5 for Forest land). If BCEFI values are not available
and if the biomass expansion factor (BEFI) and basic wood density (D) values are separately
estimated, then the following conversion can be used:
BCEFI = BEFI D
A2.4

1
2
3
4
EQUATION 2.11
ANNUAL DECREASE IN CARBON STOCKS DUE TO BIOMASS LOSSES
C L = Lwood removals + L fuelwood + Ldisturbance
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Where:
CL = annual decrease in carbon stocks due to biomass loss in land remaining in the same land category,
tonnes C yr-1
Lwood-removals = annual carbon loss due to wood removals, tonnes C yr-1 (See Equation 2.12)
Lfuelwood = annual biomass carbon loss due to fuelwood removals, tonnes C yr-1 (See Equation 2.13)
Ldisturbance = annual biomass carbon losses due to disturbances, tonnes C yr-1 (See Equation 2.14)
13
14
EQUATION 2.12
ANNUAL CARBON LOSS IN BIOMASS OF WOOD REMOVALS
15
Lwood removals = {H BCEFR (1 + R) CF }
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Where:
Lwood-removals = annual carbon loss due to biomass removals, tonnes C yr-1
H = annual wood removals, roundwood, m3 yr-1
to total biomass removals (including bark), tonnes biomass removal (m3 of removals)-1, (see Table
4.5 for Forest land). However, if BCEFR values are not available and if the biomass expansion factor
for wood removals (REFV) and basic wood density (D) values are separately estimated, then the
BCEFR = REFV D
29
30
EQUATION 2.13
ANNUAL CARBON LOSS IN BIOMASS OF FUELWOOD REMOVAL
31
L fuelwood = [{FGtrees BCEFR (1 + R)} + FG part ] CF
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Where:
Lfuelwood = annual carbon loss due to fuelwood removals, tonnes C yr-1
FGtrees = annual volume of fuelwood removal of whole trees, m3 yr-1
FGpart = annual volume of fuelwood removal as tree parts, m3 yr-1
(tonne above-ground d.m. biomass)-1; R can be set to zero if assuming no changes of below-ground
biomass allocation patterns. (Tier 1)
CF = carbon fraction of dry matter, tonnes C (tonne dry matter)-1
to biomass removals (including bark), tonnes biomass removal (m3 of removals)-1, (see Table 4.5 for
Forest land). If BCEFR values are not available and if the biomass expansion factor for wood
removals (REFV) and basic wood density (D) values are separately estimated, then the following
conversion can be used:
BCEFR = REFV D
47
48
EQUATION 2.14
ANNUAL CARBON LOSSES IN BIOMASS DUE TO DISTURBANCES
49
Ldisturbance = { Adisturbance BW (1 + R) CF fd }
50
Where:
A2.5
Ldisturbances = annual other losses of carbon, tonnes C yr-1 (Note that this is the amount of biomass that is
lost from the total biomass. The partitioning of biomass that is transferred to dead organic matter and
biomass that is oxidized and released to the atmosphere is explained in Equations 2.15 and 2.16).
Adisturbance = area affected by disturbances, ha yr-1
BW = average above-ground biomass of land areas affected by disturbances, tonnes dm ha-1
(tonne above-ground d.m. biomass)-1. R can be set to zero if no changes of below-ground biomass are
assumed. (Tier 1)
CF = carbon fraction of dry matter, tonnes C (tonnes d.m)-1
fd = fraction of biomass lost in disturbance - see note below.
Note: The parameter fd defines the proportion of biomass that is lost from the biomass pool: a standreplacing disturbance will kill all (fd = 1) biomass while an insect disturbance may only remove a
portion (e.g. fd = 0.3) of the average biomass C density. Equation 2.14 does not specify the fate of
the carbon removed from the biomass carbon stock. The Tier 1 assumption is that all of Ldisturbances is
emitted in the year of disturbance. Higher Tier methods assume that some of this carbon is emitted
immediately and some is added to the dead organic matter pools (deadwood, litter) or HWP.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
EQUATION 2.15
ANNUAL CHANGE IN BIOMASS CARBON STOCKS ON LAND CONVERTED TO OTHER LAND-USE
CATEGORY (TIER 2)
21
C B = CG + CCONVERSION C L
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Where:
CB = annual change in carbon stocks in biomass on land converted to other land category, in tonnes C
yr-1
CG = annual increase in carbon stocks in biomass due to growth on land converted to another land
category, in tonnes C yr-1
CCONVERSION = initial change in carbon stocks in biomass on land converted to other land category, in
tonnes C yr-1
CL = annual decrease in biomass carbon stocks due to losses from harvesting, fuel wood gathering and
disturbances on land converted to other land category, in tonnes C yr-1
32
33
34
EQUATION 2.16
INITIAL CHANGE IN BIOMASS CARBON STOCKS ON LAND CONVERTED TO ANOTHER LAND
CATEGORY
CCONVERSION = {( BBEFOREi B AFTERi ) ATO _ OTHERSi } CF
35
36
37
38
39
40
Where:
CCONVERSION = initial change in biomass carbon stocks on land converted to another land category,
tonnes C yr-1
BBEFOREi = biomass stocks on land type i before the conversion, tonnes d.m. ha-1
BAFTERi = biomass stocks on land type i immediately after the conversion, tonnes d.m. ha-1
ATO_OTHERSi = area of land use i converted to another land-use category in a certain year, ha yr-1
CF = carbon fraction of dry matter, tonnes C (tonnes d.m.)-1
i
= type of land use converted to another land-use category
41
42
43
44
A2.6

Additional Equations for Biomass in Settlements
2
3
4
EQUATION 8.1
ANNUAL CARBON CHANGE IN LIVE BIOMASS POOLS IN SETTLEMENTS REMAINING SETTLEMENTS
C B = CTrees + C Shrubs + C Herbs
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Where:
CB = annual carbon accumulation attributed to biomass increment in settlements remaining settlements,
tonnes C yr-1
CTrees = annual carbon accumulation attributed to biomass increment in trees in settlements remaining
settlements, tonnes C yr-1
CShrubs = annual carbon accumulation attributed to biomass increment in shrubs in settlements remaining
settlements, tonnes C yr-1
CHerbs = annual carbon accumulation attributed to biomass increment in herbaceous biomass in
settlements remaining settlements, tonnes C yr-1
EQUATION 8.2
ANNUAL BIOMASS INCREMENT BASED ON TOTAL CROWN COVER AREA
CG = ATi , j CRWi , j
18
i, j
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Where:
CG = annual carbon accumulation attributed to biomass increment in settlements remaining settlements,
tonnes C yr-1
ATij = total crown cover area of class i in woody perennial type j, ha
CRWij = crown cover area-based growth rate of class i in woody perennial type j, tonnes C (ha crown
cover)-1 yr-1
ANNUAL BIOMASS GROWTH
EQUATION 8.3
BASED ON NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL WOODY PLANTS IN BROAD
CLASSES
CG = NTi , j Ci , j
i, j
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Where:
CG = annual carbon accumulation due to live biomass increment in settlements remaining settlements,
tonnes C yr-1
NTij = number of individuals of class i in perennial type j
Cij = annual average carbon accumulation per class i of perennial type j, tonnes C yr-1 per individual
C. EQUATIONS FOR DEAD ORGANIC MATTER
37
38
39
EQUATION 2.17
ANNUAL CHANGE IN CARBON STOCKS IN DEAD ORGANIC MATTER
40
C DOM = C DW + C LT
41
42
43
44
Where:
CDOM = annual change in carbon stocks in dead organic matter (includes dead wood and litter), tonnes C
yr-1
CDW = change in carbon stocks in dead wood, tonnes C yr-1
A2.7
CLT = change in carbon stocks in litter, tonnes C yr-1
1
2
3
4
EQUATION 2.18
ANNUAL CHANGE IN CARBON STOCKS IN DEAD WOOD OR LITTER (GAIN-LOSS METHOD)
C DOM = A {( DOM in DOM out ) CF }
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Where:
C DOM = annual change in carbon stocks in the dead wood/litter pool, tonnes C yr-1
DOMin = average annual transfer of biomass into the dead wood/litter pool due to annual processes and
disturbances, tonnes d.m. ha-1 yr-1 (see next Section for further details).
DOMout = average annual decay and disturbance carbon loss out of dead wood or litter pool, tonnes
d.m. ha-1 yr-1
15
16
17
EQUATION 2.19
ANNUAL CHANGE IN CARBON STOCKS IN DEAD WOOD OR LITTER (STOCK-DIFFERENCE
METHOD)
18
( DOM t2 DOM t1 )
C DOM = A
CF
T
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Where:
T = (t2 t1) = time period between time of the second stock estimate and the first stock estimate, yr
CF = carbon fraction of dry matter (default = 0.37 for litter), tonnes C (tonne d.m.)-1
28
29
EQUATION 2.20
ANNUAL CARBON IN BIOMASS TRANSFERRED TO DEAD ORGANIC MATTER
30
DOM in = {Lmortality + Lslash + ( Ldisturbance f BLol )}
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Where:
DOMin = total carbon in biomass transferred to dead organic matter, tonnes C yr-1
Lmortality = annual biomass carbon transfer to DOM due to mortality, tonnes C yr-1 (See Equation 2.21)
Lslash = annual biomass carbon transfer to DOM as slash, tonnes C yr-1 (See Equations 2.22)
Ldisturbances = annual biomass carbon loss resulting from disturbances, tonnes C yr-1 (See Equation 2.14)
fBLol = fraction of biomass left to decay on the ground (transferred to dead organic matter) from loss due
to disturbance. As shown in Table 2.1, the disturbance losses from the biomass pool are partitioned
into the fractions that are added to deadwood (cell B in Table 2.1) and to litter (cell C), are released
to the atmosphere in the case of fire (cell F) and, if salvage follows the disturbance, transferred to
HWP (cell E).
42
43
EQUATION 2.21
ANNUAL BIOMASS CARBON LOSS DUE TO MORTALITY
Lmortality = ( A GW CF m)
44
45
Where:
46
47
48
49
Lmortality =Annual biomass carbon loss due to mortality, tonnes C yr-1

A = area of forest land remaining forest land, ha
Gw= above-ground biomass growth, tonnes dm ha-1 yr-1 ; (see Equation 2.10)
A2.8

1
2
m = mortality rate expressed as a fraction of above-ground biomass growth, y-1
3
4
EQUATION 2.22
ANNUAL CARBON TRANSFER TO SLASH
Lslash = H [{BCEFR (1 + R)} D] CF
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Where:
Lslash = annual carbon transfer from above-ground biomass to slash, including dead roots, tonnes C yr-1
H = annual wood harvest (wood or fuelwood removal), m3 yr-1
BCEFR = Biomass conversion and expansion factors applicable to wood removals, which transforms
transform merchantable volume of wood removal into above-ground biomass removals. If BCEFR
values are not available and if BEFR and Density values are separately estimated then the following
conversion can be used.
BCEFR= BEFR * D,
o D is the basic wood density, tonnes dm m-3
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
BEFR is the biomass expansion factor. Biomass Expansion Factors (BEF)

expand the dry weight of the merchantable volume of wood removal to account
for non-merchantable components of the tree, stand and forest.

(tonne above-ground d.m. biomass)-1. R can be set to zero if root biomass increment is not included
in Equation 2.10 (Tier 1).
EQUATION 2.23
ANNUAL CHANGE IN CARBON STOCKS IN DEAD WOOD AND LITTER DUE TO LAND CONVERSION
C DOM =
(Cn Co ) Aon
Ton
Where:
Co = dead wood/litter stock, under the old land-use category, tonnes C ha-1
Cn = dead wood/litter stock, under the new land-use category, tonnes C ha-1
Aon = area undergoing conversion from old to new land-use category, ha
Ton = time period of the transition from old to new land-use category, yr. The Tier 1 default is 20 years for
carbon stock increases and 1 year for carbon losses.
D. EQUATIONS FOR SOIL CARBON
35
36
37
EQUATION 2.24
ANNUAL CHANGE IN CARBON STOCKS IN SOILS
38
C Soils = C Mineral LOrganic + C Inorganic
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Where:
= annual change in carbon stocks in soils, tonnes C yr-1
CSoils
CMineral = annual change in organic carbon stocks in mineral soils, tonnes C yr-1
LOrganic = annual loss of carbon from drained organic soils, tonnes C yr-1
CInorganic = annual change in inorganic carbon stocks from soils, tonnes C yr-1 (assumed to be 0 unless
using a Tier 3 approach)
46
A2.9
1
2
EQUATION 2.25
ANNUAL CHANGE IN ORGANIC CARBON STOCKS IN MINERAL SOILS
C Mineral =
SOC =
{SOC
c , s ,i
REFc , s ,i
( SOC 0 SOC ( 0T ) )
D
FLU c , s ,i FMGc , s ,i FI c , s ,i Ac ,s ,i }
(Note: T is used in place of D in this equation if T is 20 years, see note below)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Where:
CMineral = annual change in carbon stocks in mineral soils, tonnes C yr-1
SOC0 = soil organic carbon stock in the last year of an inventory time period, tonnes C ha-1
SOC(0-T) = soil organic carbon stock at the beginning of the inventory time period, tonnes C ha-1
SOC0 and SOC(0-T) are calculated using the SOC equation in the box where the reference carbon stocks
and stock change factors are assigned according to the land-use and management activities and
corresponding areas at each of the points in time (time = 0 and time = 0-T)
T = number of years over a single inventory time period, yr
D = Time dependence of stock change factors which is the default time period for transition between
equilibrium SOC values, yr. Commonly 20 years, but depends on assumptions made in computing
the factors FLU, FMG and FI. If T exceeds D, use the value for T to obtain an annual rate of change
over the inventory time period (0-T years).
c = represents the climate zones, s the soil types, and i the set of management systems that are present in a
country.
SOCREF = the reference carbon stock, tonnes C ha-1 (Table 2.3)
FLU = stock change factor for land-use systems or sub-system for a particular land-use, dimensionless
[Note: FND is substituted for FLU in forest soil C calculation to estimate the influence of natural
disturbance regimes.
FMG = stock change factor for management regime, dimensionless
FI = stock change factor for input of organic matter, dimensionless
A = land area of the stratum being estimated, ha. All land in the stratum should have common biophysical
conditions (i.e., climate and soil type) and management history over the inventory time period to be
treated together for analytical purposes.
30
31
EQUATION 2.26
ANNUAL CARBON LOSS FROM DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS (CO2)
LOrganic = ( A EF ) c
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Where:
LOrganic = annual carbon loss from drained organic soils, tonnes C yr-1
A = land area of drained organic soils in climate type c, ha
Note: A is the same area (Fos) used to estimate N2O emissions in Chapter 11, Equations 11.1 and 11.2
EF = emission factor for climate type c, tonnes C ha-1 yr-1
E. EQUATIONS FOR BIOMASS BURNING
40
41
42
EQUATION 2.27
ESTIMATION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM FIRE
43
L fire = A M B C f Gef 10 6
44
45
46
Where:
Lfire = amount of greenhouse gas emissions from fire, tonnes of each GHG e.g., CH4, N2O, etc.
A = area burned, ha)
A2.10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
MB = mass of fuel available for combustion, tonnes ha-1. This includes biomass, ground litter and dead
wood. When Tier 1 methods are used then litter and dead wood pools are assumed zero, except
where there is a land-use change (see Section 2.3.2.2).
Cf = combustion factor, dimensionless (default values in Table 2.6)
Gef = emission factor, g kg-1 dry matter burnt (default values in Table 2.5)
Note: Where data for MB and Cf are not available, a default value for the amount of fuel actually burnt
(the product of MB and Cf ) can be used (Table 2.4) under Tier 1 methodology.
F. EQUATIONS FOR RICE CULTIVATION
10
11
12
13
EQUATION 5.1
CH4 EMISSIONS FROM RICE CULTIVATION
CH 4 Rice=
(EF
i, j ,k
ti , j , k Ai, j , k 106 )
i, j ,k
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Where:
CH4 Rice = annual methane emissions from rice cultivation, Gg CH4 yr-1
EFijk = a daily emission factor for i, j, and k conditions, in kg CH4 ha-1 day-1
tijk = cultivation period of rice for i, j, and k conditions, in day
Aijk = annual harvested area of rice for i, j, and k conditions, in ha yr-1
i, j, and k = represent different ecosystems, water regimes, type and amount of organic amendments, and
other conditions under which CH4 emissions from rice may vary
22
23
EQUATION 5.2
ADJUSTED DAILY EMISSION FACTOR
24
EFi = EFc SFw SFp SFo SFs ,r
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Where:
EFi = Adjusted daily emission factor for a particular harvested area
EFc = baseline emission factor for continuously flooded fields without organic amendments
SFw = Scaling factor to account for the differences in water regime during the cultivation period (from
Table 5.12)
SFp = Scaling factor to account for the differences in water regime in the pre-season before the cultivation
period (from Table 5.13)
SFo = Scaling factor should vary for both type and amount of organic amendment applied (from Equation
5.3 and Table 5.14)
SFs,r = Scaling factor for soil type, rice cultivar, etc., if available
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
EQUATION 5.3
ADJUSTED CH4 EMISSION SCALING FACTORS FOR ORGANIC AMENDMENTS
SFo = 1 + ROAi CFOAi

i
0.59
Where:
SFo = scaling factor for both type and amount of organic amendment applied
ROAi = application rate of organic amendment i, in dry weight for straw and fresh weight for others,
tonne ha-1
CFOAi = conversion factor for organic amendment i (in terms of its relative effect with respect to straw
applied shortly before cultivation) as shown in Table 5.14.
47
A2.11
1
G. EQUATIONS FOR WETLANDS
2
3
4
EQUATION 7.1
CO2 EMISSIONS FROM WETLANDS
CO2WW = CO2WW peat + CO2WWflood
6
7
Where:
CO2 WW = CO2 emissions from wetlands, Gg CO2 yr-1
CO2 WW peat = CO2 emissions from peatlands managed for peat production, Gg CO2 yr-1
CO2 WW flood = CO2 emissions from (lands converted to) flooded lands, Gg CO2 yr-1
10
11
12
EQUATION 7.2
CO2 EMISSIONS IN PEATLANDS DURING PEAT EXTRACTION
13
44
CO2WW peat = CO2 CWW peatoff site + CO2 CWW peatonsite
12
14
15
16
17
18
Where:
CO2 WWpeat = CO2 emissions from land undergoing peat extraction, Gg CO2 yr-1
CO2-CWW peatoff-site = off-site CO2-C emissions from peat removed for horticultural use, Gg C yr-1
CO2-CWWpeat on-site = on-site CO2-C emissions from drained peat deposits, Gg C yr-1
19
20
EQUATION 7.3
CO2 C EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED PEATLANDS (TIER 1)
21
CO2 CWWpeat = CO2 CWWpeatoff site + CO2 CWWpeaton site
22
23
24
25
26
Where:
CO2 -CWWpeat = CO2 C emissions from managed peatlands, Gg C yr-1
CO2-C WW peat on-site = on-site emissions from peat deposits (all production phases), Gg C yr-1
CO2-C WW peat off-site = off-site emissions from peat removed for horticultural use, Gg C yr-1
27
28
EQUATION 7.4
ON-SITE SOIL CO2-C EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED PEATLANDS (TIER 1)
29
( ApeatRich EFCO2 peatRich ) + ( ApeatPoor EFCO2 peatPoor )

CO2 CWW peatonsite =
CWW peatB
1000
30
31
32
Where:
CO2-C WW peat on-site = on-site CO2-C emissions from peat deposits (all production phases), Gg C yr-1
Apeat rich =
area of nutrient-rich peat soils managed for peat extraction (all production phases), ha
33
Apeat poor =
34
35
EFCO2Peat Rich = CO2 emission factors for nutrient-rich peat soils managed for peat extraction or abandoned
36
37
EFCO2Peat Poor = CO2 emission factors for nutrient-poor peat soils managed for peat extraction or abandoned
38
39
CWW peat B = CO2 C emissions from change in carbon stocks in biomass due to vegetation clearing, Gg
C yr-1
area of nutrient-poor peat soils managed for peat extraction (all production phases), ha
40
A2.12

1
2
3
EQUATION 7.5
OFF-SITE CO2-C EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED PEATLANDS (TIER 1)
CO2 CWW peatoff site =
(Wdry _ peat Cfractionwt _ peat )

1000
or
CO2 CWWpeatoff site =
(Voldry _ peat Cfractionvol _ peat )

1000
Where:
CO2-C WW peat off-site = off-site CO2-C emissions from peat removed for horticultural use, Gg C yr-1
Wt dry peat = air-dry weight of extracted peat, tonnes
10
Vol dry peat = volume of air-dry peat extracted, m3
11
Cfraction wt
12
Cfraction vol peat = carbon fraction of air-dry peat by volume, tonnes C (m3 of air-dry peat)-1
peat
= carbon fraction of air-dry peat by weight, tonnes C (tonne of air-dry peat)-1
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
EQUATION 7.6
ON-SITE CO2-C EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED PEATLANDS (TIERS 2 AND 3)
CO2 CWWpeat
on site
CO2 CWW peatconversion + CO2 CWW peatextraction +
=
CO2 CWW peat
+ CO2 CWWpeat
stockpiling
post
Where:
CO2-C WW peat on-site = on-site CO2-C emissions from peat deposits, Gg C yr-1
CO2-C WW peatconversion = on-site CO2-C emissions from lands conversion for peat extraction, Gg C yr-1
CO2-C WW peatextraction = CO2-C emissions from the surface of peat extraction area, Gg C yr-1
CO2-C WW peatstockpiling= CO2-C emissions from peat stockpiles prior to off-site removal, Gg C yr-1
CO2-C WW peatpost
= CO2-C emissions from soils of abandoned, cut-over peatlands, Gg C yr-1
N2O EMISSIONS FROM

N 2OWW peat
Extraction
EQUATION 7.7
PEATLANDS DURING PEAT EXTRACTION
44
= Apeat EFN 2O N peat
10 6
Rich
Rich
28
Where:
N2O WW peat Extraction = direct N2O emissions from peatlands managed for peat extraction, Gg N2O yr-1
ApeatRich = area of nutrient-rich peat soils managed for peat extraction, including abandoned areas in which
drainage is still present, ha
EFN2OPeat Rich = emission factor for drained nutrient-rich wetlands organic soils, kg N2O-N ha-1 yr-1
33
34
EQUATION 7.8
CO2 C EMISSIONS IN PEATLAND BEING DRAINED FOR PEAT EXTRACTION
35
CO2 CLW peat _ onsite = CWW peatB + CWW peatDOM + CO2 CLW peat _ drainage
36
37
38
39
40
) (
Where:
CO2-C LW peat on-site = CO2-C emissions from land being converted for peat extraction Gg C yr-1
CWW peat B = CO2 C emissions from change in carbon stocks in living biomass, Gg C yr-1
CWW peatDOM = CO2 C emissions from change in carbon stocks in dead organic matter pool, Gg C yr-1
CO2-C LW peat drainage = CO2 C emissions from soils during drainage, Gg C yr-1
A2.13
1
2
3
EQUATION 7.9
CO2 C EMISSIONS FROM SOILS IN PEATLAND BEING DRAINED FOR PEAT EXTRACTION
CO2 C LW peat _ drainage
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
(
(
)
)
Adrained _ peatRich EFCO2drained _ peatRich +
Adrained _ peatPoor EFCO2drained _ peatPoor
1000
Where:
CO2-C LW peat drainage = CO2 C emissions from soils on lands converted for peat extraction, in Gg C yr-1
Adrained peat Rich =

area of nutrient-rich peat soils being drained, ha
Adrained peat Poor =
area of nutrient-poor peat soils being drained, ha
EFCO2drained peat Rich = emission factors for CO2-C from nutrient-rich peat soils being drained, tonnes C ha-1 yr-1
EFCO2 drained peat Poor = emission factors for CO2-C from nutrient-poor peat soils being drained, tonnes C ha-1 yr-1
12
13
EQUATION 7.10
14
CO2 EmissionsLWflood = P E (C2O) diff A flood ,total _ surface f A 106
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Where:
CO2 EmissionsLW flood = total CO2 emissions from land converted to flooded land, Gg CO2 yr-1
P = number of days without ice cover during a year, days yr-1
E(CO2)diff = averaged daily diffusive emissions, kg CO2 ha-1 day-1
Aflood, total surface = total reservoir surface area, including flooded land, lakes and rivers, ha
fA = fraction of the total reservoir area that was flooded within the last 10 yrs
22
23
EQUATION 7.11
( Pf E f (CO2 ) diff ) + ( Pi Ei (CO2 ) diff )

CO2 EmissionsLWflood =
A flood , surface f A 106
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Where:
CO2 emissionsLW flood = total CO2 emissions from land converted to flooded land, Gg CO2 yr-1
Ef(CO2)diff = averaged daily diffusive emissions from air water-interface during the ice-free period,
kg CO2 ha-1 day-1
Ei(CO2)diff = diffusive emissions related to the ice-covered period, kg CO2 ha-1 day-1
Aflood, surface= total reservoir surface area 10 years old or less, including flooded land, lakes and rivers , ha
fA = fraction of the total area flooded within the last 10 yrs, dimensionless
A2.14

H. EQUATIONS FOR LIVESTOCK
2
3
4
EQUATION 10.1
ANNUAL AVERAGE POPULATION
NAPA
AAP = Days _alive

365
_
days
6
7
8
9
Where:
AAP = annual average population
NAPA = number of animals produced annually
10
11
EQUATION 10.2
COEFFICIENT FOR CALCULATING NET ENERGY FOR MAINTENANCE
12
Cf i (in _ cold ) = Cf i + 0.0048 (20 C )
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Where:
Calculating NEm).
C = Mean daily temperature during winter season.
EQUATION 10.3
NET ENERGY FOR MAINTENANCE
NE m = Cf i (Weight )
0.75
Where:
NEm = net energy required by the animal for maintenance, MJ day-1
Calculating NEm)
Weight = live-weight of animal, kg
27
28
EQUATION 10.4
NET ENERGY FOR ACTIVITY (FOR CATTLE AND BUFFALO)
29
NEa = C a NE m
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Where:
Ca = coefficient corresponding to animals feeding situation (Table 10.5, Activity Coefficients)
EQUATION 10.5
NET ENERGY FOR ACTIVITY (FOR SHEEP)
NEa = C a (weight )
Where:
Ca = coefficient corresponding to animals feeding situation (Table 10.5)
weight = live-weight of animal, kg
A2.15
1
2
EQUATION 10.6
NET ENERGY FOR GROWTH (FOR CATTLE AND BUFFALO)
BW
NE g = 22.02
C MW
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
0.75
WG1.097
Where:
BW = the average live body weight (BW) of the animals in the population, kg
C = a coefficient with a value of 0.8 for females, 1.0 for castrates and 1.2 for bulls (NRC, 1996)
MW = the mature live body weight of an adult female in moderate body condition, kg
WG = the average daily weight gain of the animals in the population, kg day-1
12
13
EQUATION 10.7
NET ENERGY FOR GROWTH (FOR SHEEP)
NE g =
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
WGlamb (a + 0.5b(BWi + BW f ))
365 _ days / year
Where:
WGlamb = the weight gain (BWf BWi), kg
BWi = the live bodyweight at weaning, kg
BWf = the live bodyweight at 1-year old or at slaughter (live-weight) if slaughtered prior to 1 year of age,
kg
a,b = constants as described in Table 10.6.
22
23
24
EQUATION 10.8
NET ENERGY FOR LACTATION (FOR BEEF CATTLE, DAIRY CATTLE AND BUFFALO)
NE1 = Milk (1.47 + 0.40 Fat )
25
26
27
28
29
30
Where:
Fat = fat content of milk, % by weight.
31
32
33
EQUATION 10.9
NET ENERGY FOR LACTATION FOR SHEEP (MILK PRODUCTION KNOWN)
34
NE1 = Milk EVmilk
35
36
37
38
39
40
Where:
EVmilk = the net energy required to produce 1 kg of milk. A default value of 4.6 MJ/kg (AFRC, 1993) can
be used which corresponds to a milk fat content of 7% by weight
41
A2.16

1
2
EQUATION 10.10
NET ENERGY FOR LACTATION FOR SHEEP (MILK PRODUCTION UNKNOWN)
(5 WGwean )
NE1 =
EVmilk
365 _ days
3
4
5
6
7
8
Where:
WG wean = the weight gain of the lamb between birth and weaning in kg
EVmilk = the energy required to produce 1 kg of milk. A default value of 4.6 MJ/kg (AFRC, 1993) can be
used
9
10
11
EQUATION 10.11
NET ENERGY FOR WORK (FOR CATTLE AND BUFFALO)
12
NE work = 0.10 NE m Hours
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Where:
NEwork = net energy for work, MJ day-1
Hours = number of hours of work per day
EQUATION 10.12
NET ENERGY TO PRODUCE WOOL (FOR SHEEP)
EV Pr oductionwool
NE wool = wool
365 _ days / yr
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Where:
NEwool = net energy required to produce wool, MJ day-1
EVwool = the energy value of each kg of wool produced (weighed after drying but before scouring). A
default value of 24 MJ/kg (AFRC, 1993) can be used for this estimate.
Productionwool = annual wool production per sheep, kg yr-1
27
28
EQUATION 10.13
NET ENERGY FOR PREGNANCY (FOR CATTLE/BUFFALO AND SHEEP)
29
NE p = C pregnancy NE m
30
31
32
33
34
Where:
NEp = net energy required for pregnancy, MJ day-1
Cpregnancy = pregnancy coefficient (see Table 10.7)
35
36
37
EQUATION 10.14
RATIO OF NET ENERGY AVAILABLE IN A DIET FOR MAINTENANCE TO DIGESTIBLE ENERGY
CONSUMED
38
25.4
2
REM = 1.123 4.092 10 3 DE % + 1.126 10 5 (DE % )
DE %
39
40
41
42
) [
Where:
REM = ratio of net energy available in a diet for maintenance to digestible energy consumed
43
A2.17
1
2
3
EQUATION 10.15
RATIO OF NET ENERGY AVAILABLE FOR GROWTH IN A DIET TO DIGESTIBLE ENERGY
CONSUMED
37.4
2
REG = 1.164 5.160 10 3 DE % + 1.308 10 5 (DE % )
DE %
) [
5
6
7
8
Where:
REG= ratio of net energy available for growth in a diet to digestible energy consumed
9
10
EQUATION 10.16
GROSS ENERGY FOR CATTLE/BUFFALO AND SHEEP
NE m + NE a + NE1 + NE work + NE p

REM
GE =
DE %
100
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NE g + NE wool
+
REG

Where:
GE = gross energy, MJ day-1
NEa = net energy for animal activity (Equations 10.4 and 10.5), MJ day-1
NEl = net energy for lactation (Equations 10.8, 10.9, and 10.10), MJ day-1
NEw = net energy for work (Equation 10.11), MJ day-1
NEp = net energy required for pregnancy (Equation 10.13), MJ day-1
REM = ratio of net energy available in a diet for maintenance to digestible energy consumed (Equation
10.14)
NEg = net energy needed for growth (Equations 10.6 and 10.7), MJ day-1
NEwool = net energy required to produce a year of wool (Equation 10.12), MJ day-1
REG = ratio of net energy available for growth in a diet to digestible energy consumed (Equation 10.15)
DE%= digestible energy expressed as a percentage of gross energy
26
27
EQUATION 10.17
ESTIMATION OF DRY MATTER INTAKE FOR GROWING AND FINISHING CATTLE.
DMI = BW
28
29
30
31
32
33
0.75
0.2444 NE ma 0.0111 NE ma 2 0.472
NE ma
Where:
NEma = estimated dietary net energy concentration of diet or default values in Table 10.8, MJ kg-1
34
35
EQUATION 10.18a
ESTIMATION OF DRY MATTER INTAKE FOR MATURE BEEF CATTLE
DMI = BW
36
37
38
39
40
41
0.75
0.0119 NE ma 2 + 0.1938
NE ma
Where:
NEma = estimated dietary net energy concentration of diet or default values given in Table 10.8, MJ kg-1
A2.18

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
EQUATION 10.18b
ESTIMATION OF DRY MATTER INTAKE FOR MATURE DAIRY COWS
(5.4 BW ) (100 DE % )
DMI =
500
100

Where:
DE%= digestible energy expressed as a percentage of gross energy (typically 45-55% for low quality
forages)
10
11
EQUATION 10.19
ENTERIC FERMENTATION EMISSIONS FROM A LIVESTOCK CATEGORY
12
N (T )
Emissions = EF(T ) 6
10
/
kg
Gg
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Where:
Emissions = methane emissions from enteric fermentation, Gg CH4 yr-1
N(T) = the number of head of livestock species / category T in the country
T= Species / category of livestock
EQUATION 10.20
TOTAL EMISSIONS FROM LIVESTOCK ENTERIC FERMENTATION
Total CH 4 Enteric =
22
23
24
25
Where:
Total CH4Enteric = total methane emissions from enteric fermentation, Gg CH4 yr-1
Ei = is the emissions for the ith livestock categories and sub-categories
26
27
EQUATION 10.21
CH4 EMISSION FACTORS FOR ENTERIC FERMENTATION FROM A LIVESTOCK CATEGORY
28
Ym
GE 100 365 days / yr
EF =
55.65 MJ / kg CH 4
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Where:
EF = emission factor, kg CH4 head-1 yr-1
GE = gross energy intake, MJ head-1 day-1
Ym = methane conversion factor, per cent of gross energy in feed converted to methane
EQUATION 10.22
CH4 EMISSIONS FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT
CH 4 Manure =
(T )
37
38
39
40
(EF(T ) N(T ) )
106 kg / Gg
Where:
CH4Manure = CH4 emissions from manure management, for a defined population, Gg CH4 yr-1
N(T) = the number of head of livestock species/category T in the country
A2.19
1
2
3
4
EQUATION 10.23
CH4 EMISSION FACTOR FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT
MCFS ,k
MS (T ,S ,k )
EF(T ) = (VS (T ) 365 days / year ) Bo (T ) 0.67 kg / m 3
100
S ,k
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Where:
EF(T) = annual CH4 emission factor for livestock category T, kg CH4 animal-1 yr-1
VS(T) = daily VS excreted for livestock category T, kg dry matter animal-1 day-1
365 = basis for calculating annual VS production, day yr-1
Bo(T) = maximum methane producing capacity for manure produced by livestock category T, m3 CH4 kg-1
of VS excreted
0.67 = conversion factor of m3 CH4 to kilograms CH4
MCF(S,k) = methane conversion factors for each manure management system S by climate region k, %
MS(T,S,k) = fraction of livestock category T's manure handled using manure management system S in
climate region k, dimensionless
17
18
EQUATION 10.24
VOLATILE SOLID EXCRETION RATES
19
1 ASH
1 DE %
VS = GE
+ (UE GE )
100
18.45
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Where:
VS = volatile solid excretion per day on a dry-organic matter basis, kg VS day-1
GE = gross energy intake in MJ day-1
DE% = digestibility of the feed in percent (e.g. 60%)
(UE GE) = urinary energy expressed as fraction of GE. Typically 0.04GE can be considered urinary
energy excretion by most ruminants (reduce to 0.02 for ruminants fed with 85% or more grain in the
diet or for swine). Use country-specific values where available.
ASH = the ash content of manure calculated as a fraction of the dry matter feed intake (e.g., 0.08 for
cattle). Use country-specific values where available.
18.45 = conversion factor for dietary GE per kg of dry matter (MJ kg-1). This value is relatively constant
32
33
EQUATION 10.25
DIRECT N2O EMISSIONS FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT
34
N 2OD ( mm) =
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
44
(N(T ) Nex(T ) MS(T ,S ) ) EF3(S ) 28
S
Where:
N2OD(mm) = Direct N2O emissions from manure management in the country, kg N2O yr-1
EF3(S) =Emission factor for direct N2O emissions from manure management system S in the country, kg
N2O-N/kg N in manure management system S
44/28 = Conversion of (N2O-N)(mm) emissions to N2O(mm) emissions
A2.20

1
2
EQUATION 10.26
N LOSSES DUE TO VOLATILISATION FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT
FracGasMS
N volatilization MMS = (N (T ) Nex(T ) MS (T ,S ) )
100
S T

T
S
(
,
)

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Where:
Nvolatilization-MMS = amount of manure nitrogen that is lost due to volatilisation of NH3 and NOx, kg N yr-1
FracGasMS = percent of managed manure nitrogen for livestock category T that volatilises as NH3 and NOx
in the manure management system S, %
EQUATION 10.27
INDIRECT N2O EMISSIONS DUE TO VOLATILISATION OF N FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT
N 2 OG ( mm ) = ( N volatilization MMS EF4 )
44
28
Where:
N2OG(mm) = Indirect N2O emissions due to volatilization of N from manure management in the country, kg
N2O yr-1
EF4 = Emission factor for N2O emissions from atmospheric deposition of nitrogen on soils and water
surfaces, kg N2O-N/kg NH3-N and NOx-N emitted (default value 0.01 kg N2O-N/kg NH3-N and NOxN given in the Chapter 11 Section 11.2 (N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, Indirect Emissions),
Table 11.3)
24
25
EQUATION 10.28
N LOSSES DUE TO LEACHING FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
26
FracleachMS
N leaching MMS = (N (T ) Nex(T ) MS (T ,S ) )
(T ,S )
100
S T

27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Where:
Nleaching-MMS = amount of manure nitrogen that leached from manure management systems, kg N yr-1
FracleachMS = percent of managed manure nitrogen losses for livestock category T due to runoff and
leaching during solid and liquid storage of manure (typical range 1-20%)
EQUATION 10.29
INDIRECT N2O EMISSIONS DUE TO LEACHING FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT
N 2OL ( mm ) = (N leaching MMS EF5 )
44
28
Where:
N2OL(mm) = Indirect N2O emissions due to leaching and run-off from manure management in the country,
kg N2O yr-1
EF5 = Emission factor for N2O emissions from nitrogen leaching and run-off, kg N2O-N/kg N leached and
run-off (default value 0.0075 kg N2O-N/kg N leaching/runoff, given in the Chapter 11 Section 11.2
(N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, Indirect Emissions), Table 11.3
A2.21
1
2
EQUATION 10.30
ANNUAL N EXCRETION RATES
Nex(T ) = N rate (T )
3
4
5
6
7
8
TAM
365 days / year
1000
Where:
Nex(T) = annual N excretion for livestock category T, kg N animal-1 yr-1
Nrate(T) = default N excretion rate, kg N/1000 kg animal mass/day (see Table 10.19)
TAM(T) = typical animal mass for livestock category T, kg
9
10
EQUATION 10.31
ANNUAL N EXCRETION RATES (TIER 2)
Nex(T ) = N int ake(T ) (1 N retention (T ) )
11
12
13
14
15
16
Where:
Nex(T) = annual N excretion rates, kg N animal-1 yr-1
Nintake(T) = the annual N intake per head of animal of species/category T , kg N animal-1 yr-1
Nretention(T) = fraction of annual N intake that is retained by animal of species/category T, dimensionless
17
18
EQUATION 10.32
N INTAKE RATES FOR CATTLE
19
CP %
GE 100
=
18.45 6.25
N int ake (T )
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Where:
Nintake(T) = daily N consumed per animal of category T, kg N animal-1 day-1
GE = gross energy intake of the animal, in enteric model, based on digestible energy, milk production,
pregnancy, current weight, mature weight, rate of weight gain, and IPCC constants, MJ day-1
18.45 = conversion factor for dietary GE per kg of dry matter (MJ/kg). This value is relatively constant
CP% = percent crude protein in diet, input
6.25 = conversion from kg of dietary protein to kg of dietary N, kg feed protein (kg N)-1
29
30
EQUATION 10.33
N RETAINED RATES FOR CATTLE
31
N retention (T )
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Milk PR% WG 268 7.03 NE g
Milk
WG
100
+
=
1000
6.38

6.25
Where:
Nretention(T) = daily N retained per animal of category T, kg N animal-1 day-1
Milk = milk production, kg day-1(applicable to dairy cows only)
Milk PR% = percent of protein in milk, calculated as [1.9 + 0.4 * %Fat], where % fat is an input, assumed
to be 4 percent (applicable to dairy cows only)
6.38 = conversion from milk protein to milk N, kg Protein (kg N)-1
WG = weight gain, input for each livestock category, kg day-1
268 and 7.03 = constants from Equation 3-8 in NRC (1996)
NEg = net energy for growth, calculated in livestock characterisation, based on current weight, mature
weight, rate of weight gain, and IPCC constants, MJ day-1
1000 = conversion from grams per kilogram, g kg-1
A2.22

1
2
3
4
5
6.25 = conversion from kg dietary protein to kg dietary N, kg Protein (kg N)-1
EQUATION 10.34
MANAGED MANURE N AVAILABLE FOR APPLICATION TO MANAGED SOILS, FEED, FUEL OR
CONSTRUCTION USES
N MMS _ Avb

1 Frac LossMS
(N (T ) Nex(T ) MS (T ,S ) )
100
=
S (T )
N (T ) MS (T ,S ) N beddingMS
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Where:
NMMS_AVB = amount of managed manure nitrogen available for application to managed soils or for feed,
fuel, or construction purposes, kg N yr-1
Nex(T) = Annual average N excretion per animal of species/category T in the country, kg N animal-1 yr-1
FracLossMS = amount of managed manure nitrogen for livestock category T that is lost in the manure
management system S, % (see Table 10.23)
NbeddingMS = amount of nitrogen from bedding (to be applied for solid storage and deep bedding MMS if
known organic bedding usage), kg N animal-1 yr-1
21
I. EQUATIONS FOR N 2 O AND OTHER CO 2 EMISSIONS

FROM MANAGED SOILS
22
23
24
25
EQUATION 11.1
26
N 2ODirect - N = N 2O - N N inputs + N 2O - N OS + N 2O - N PRP
27
Where:
[(FSN + FON + FCR + FSOM ) EF1 ] +

N 2O - N N inputs =
[(FSN + FON + FCR + FSOM )FR EF1FR ]
28
29
N 2O - N OS
30
31
(FOS ,CG ,Temp EF2CG ,Temp ) + (FOS ,CG ,Trop EF2CG ,Trop ) +
= (FOS ,F ,Temp , NR EF2 F ,Temp , NR ) + (FOS ,F ,Temp , NP EF2 F ,Temp , NP ) +

(F
OS ,F ,Trop EF2 F ,Trop )
N 2O - N PRP = [(FPRP,CPP EF3 PRP ,CPP ) + (FPRP ,SO EF3 PRP ,SO )]
32
33
Where:
34
N2ODirect -N = annual direct N2O-N emissions produced from managed soils, kg N2O-N yr-1
35
N2O-NN inputs = annual direct N2O-N emissions from N inputs to managed soils, kg N2O-N yr-1
36
N2O-NOS = annual direct N2O-N emissions from managed organic soils, kg N2O-N yr-1
37
N2O-NPRP = annual direct N2O-N emissions from urine and dung inputs to grazed soils, kg N2O-N yr-1
38
A2.23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
FON = annual amount of animal manure, compost, sewage sludge and other organic N additions applied
to soils (Note: If including sewage sludge, cross-check with Waste sector to ensure there is no double
counting of N2O emissions from the N in sewage sludge), kg N yr-1
forage/pasture renewal, returned to soils, kg N yr-1
FSOM = annual amount of N in mineral soils that is mineralised, in association with loss of soil C from soil
organic matter as a result of changes to land use or management, kg N yr-1
FOS = annual area of managed/drained organic soils, hectares (Note: the subscripts CG, F, Temp, Trop,
NR and NP refer to Cropland and Grassland, Forest, Temperate, Tropical, Nutrient Rich, and
Nutrient Poor, respectively)
kg N yr-1 (Note: the subscripts CPP and SO refer to Cattle, Poultry and Pigs, and Sheep and Other
animals, respectively)
EF1 = emission factor for N2O emissions from N inputs, kg N2O-N (kg N input)-1(Table 11.1)
EF1FR is the emission factor for N2O emissions from N inputs to flooded rice, kg N2O-N (kg N input)-1
(Table 11.1) 1
EF2 = emission factor for N2O emissions from drained/managed organic soils, kg N2O-N ha-1 yr-1; (Table
11.1) (Note: the subscripts CG, F, Temp, Trop, NR and NP refer to Cropland and Grassland, Forest
soil, Temperate, Tropical, Nutrient Rich, and Nutrient Poor, respectively)
EF3PRP = emission factor for N2O emissions from urine and dung N deposited on pasture, range and
paddock by grazing animals, kg N2O-N (kg N input)-1; (Table 11.1) (Note: the subscripts CPP and
SO refer to Cattle, Poultry and Pigs, and Sheep and Other animals, respectively)
23
24
25
EQUATION 11.2
N 2ODirect - N = (FSN + FON )i EF1i + (FCR + FSOM ) EF1 + N 2O - N OS + N 2O - N PRP
26
27
28
29
30
31
Where:
EF1i = emission factors developed for N2O emissions from synthetic fertiliser and organic N application
under conditions i (kg N2O-N (kg N input)-1); i = 1, n.
32
33
EQUATION 11.3
N FROM ORGANIC N ADDITIONS APPLIED TO SOILS (TIER 1)
34
FON = FAM + FSEW + FCOMP + FOOA
35
36
37
38
Where:
FON = total annual amount of organic N fertiliser applied to soils other than by grazing animals, kg N
yr-1
39
When the total annual quantity of N applied to flooded paddy rice is known, this N input may be multiplied by a lower
default emission factor applicable to this crop, EF1FR (Table 11.1) (Akiyama et al. 2005) or, where a country-specific
emission factor has been determined, by that factor instead. Although there is some evidence that intermittent flooding (as
described in Chapter 5.5) can increase N2O emissions, current scientific data indicate that EF1FR also applies to intermittent
flooding situations.
A2.24

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
FSEW = annual amount of total sewage N (coordinate with Waste sector to ensure that sewage N is not
double-counted) that is applied to soils, kg N yr-1
FCOMP = annual amount of total compost N applied to soils (ensure that manure N in compost is not
double-counted), kg N yr-1
FOOA = annual amount of other organic amendments used as fertiliser (e.g, rendering waste, guano,
brewery waste, etc.), kg N yr-1
EQUATION 11.4
N FROM ANIMAL MANURE APPLIED TO SOILS (TIER 1)
[ (
FAM = N MMS Avb 1 FracFEED + Frac FUEL + FracCNST
)]
Where:
NMMS_Avb = amount of managed manure N available for soil application, feed, fuel or construction, kg
N yr-1 (see Equation 10.34 in Chapter 10)
FracFEED = fraction of managed manure used for feed
FracFUEL = fraction of managed manure used for fuel
FracCNST = fraction of managed manure used for construction
EQUATION 11.5
N IN URINE AND DUNG DEPOSITED BY GRAZING ANIMALS ON PASTURE, RANGE AND PADDOCK (TIER 1)
FPRP = (N (T ) Nex(T ) ) MS (T ,PRP )
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Where:
FPRP = annual amount of urine and dung N deposited on pasture, range, paddock and by grazing animals,
kg N yr-1
N(T) = number of head of livestock species/category T in the country, head (See Chapter 10, Section 10.2)
Nex(T) = annual average N excretion per head of species/category T in the country, kg N (animal - yr)-1
(see Chapter 10, Section 10.5)
MS(T,PRP) = fraction of total annual N excretion for each livestock species/category T that is deposited on
pasture, range and paddock (see Chapter 10, Section 10.5)
EQUATION 11.6
N FROM CROP RESIDUES AND FORAGE/PASTURE RENEWAL (TIER 1)
Crop(T ) (Area(T ) Area burnt(T ) CF ) FracRe new(T )

FCR =
T
RAG (T ) N AG (T ) (1 FracRe move(T ) ) + RBG (T ) N BG (T )
Where:
Crop(T)
= harvested annual dry matter yield for crop T, kg DM ha-1
Area(T)
= total annual area harvested of crop T, ha yr-1
Area burnt (T) = annual area of crop T burnt, ha
CF = Combustion factor (dimensionless) (refer to Chapter 2, Table 2.6).
FracRenew (T) = fraction of total area under crop T that is renewed annually. For countries where pastures
are renewed on average every X years, FracRenew = 1/X. For annual crops FracRenew = 1.
RAG(T)
= ratio of above-ground residues dry matter (AGDM(T)) to harvested yield for crop T (Crop(T)),
kg DM (kg DM)-1,
= AGDM(T)/Crop(T) (calculating AGDM(T) from the information in Table 11.2)
NAG(T) = N content of above-ground residues for crop T, kg N (kg DM) -1, (Table 11.2)
FracRemove(T) = fraction of above-ground residues of crop T removed annually for purposes such as feed,
bedding and construction. Survey of experts in country is required to obtain data. If data for
FracRemove are not available, assume no removal. kg N (kg crop-N)-1
RBG(T) = ratio of below-ground residues to harvested yield for crop T, kg DM (kg DM)-1. If alternative data
are not available, RBG(T) may be calculated by multiplying RBG-BIO in Table 11.2 by the ratio of total
A2.25
1
2
3
4
5
above-ground biomass to crop yield ( = (AGDM + CropT)/CropT), (also calculating AGDM from the
information in Table 11.2).
NBG(T) = N content of below-ground residues for crop T, kg N (kg DM)-1, (Table 11.2)
T = crop or forage type
6
7
EQUATION 11.7
DRY-WEIGHT CORRECTION OF REPORTED CROP YIELDS
Crop(T ) = Yield Fresh(T ) DRY
9
10
11
12
13
Where:
Crop(T) = harvested dry matter yield for crop T, kg DM ha-1
Yield_Fresh(T) = harvested fresh yield for crop T, kg fresh weight ha-1
DRY = dry matter fraction of harvested crop T, kg DM (kg fresh weight)-1
14
15
16
EQUATION 11.7A
ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO ESTIMATE FCR (USING TABLE 2)
AGDM (T ) (Area(T ) Area burnt (T ) CF ) FracRe new(T )

FCR =
T
N AG (T ) (1 FracRe move(T ) ) + RBG BIO (T ) N BG (T )
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
EQUATION 11.8
N MINERALISED IN MINERAL SOILS AS A RESULT OF LOSS OF SOIL C THROUGH CHANGE IN LAND
USE OR MANAGEMENT (TIERS 1 AND 2)
25
1
FSOM = Cmin eral ,LU 1000
R
LU
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Where:
FSOM = the net annual amount of N mineralised in mineral soils as a result of loss of soil carbon through
change in land use or management, kg N
Cmineral, LU = average annual loss of soil carbon for each land-use type (LU ), tonnes C (Note: for Tier 1,
Cmineral, LU will have a single value for all land-uses and management systems. Using Tier 2 the
value for Cmineral, LU will be disaggregated by individual land-use and/or management systems.
R = C:N ratio of the soil organic matter. A default value of 15 (uncertainty range from 10 to 30) for the
C:N ratio (R) may be used for situations involving land-use change from forest or grassland to
cropland, in the absence of more specific data for the area. A default value of 10 (range from 8 to
15) may be used for situations involving management changes on cropland remaining cropland. C:N
ratio can change over time, land use, or management practice. If countries can document changes in
C:N ratio, then different values can be used over the time series, land use, or management practice.
LU = Land-use and/or management system type
40
41
EQUATION 11.9
42
N 2O( ATD ) - N = [(FSN FracGASF ) + ((FON FPRP ) FracGASM )] EF4
43
44
45
46
Where:
A2.26
from

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
FracGASF = fraction of synthetic fertiliser N that volatilises as NH3 and NOx, kg N volatilised (kg of N
applied)-1 (Table 11.3)
kg N yr-1
13
14
15
16
EQUATION 11.10
N2O FROM N LEACHING/RUNOFF FROM MANAGED SOILS IN REGIONS WHERE
LEACHING/RUNOFF OCCURS (TIER 1)
N 2O( L ) - N = (FSN + FON + FPRP + FCR + FSOM ) FracLEACH ( H ) EF5
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Where:
N2O(L)-N = annual amount of N2O-N produced from leaching and runoff of N additions to managed
soils in regions where leaching/runoff occurs, kg N2O-N yr-1
FSN = annual amount of synthetic fertiliser N applied to soils in regions where leaching/runoff occurs, kg
N yr-1
applied to soils in regions where leaching/runoff occurs, kg N yr-1
FPRP = annual amount of urine and dung N deposited by grazing animals in regions where leaching/runoff
occurs, kg N yr-1 (from Equation 11.5)
FCR = amount of N in crop residues (above and below ground), including N-fixing crops, and from
forage/pasture renewal, returned to soils annually in regions where leaching/runoff occurs, kg N yr-1
FSOM = Annual amount of N mineralised in mineral soils associated with loss of soil C from soil organic
matter as a result of changes to land use or management in regions where leaching/runoff occurs, kg
N yr-1 (from Equation 11.8)
FracLEACH-(H) = fraction of all N added to/mineralised in managed soils in regions where leaching/runoff
occurs that is lost through leaching and runoff, kg N (kg of N additions)-1 (Table 11.3)
EF5 = emission factor for N2O emissions from N leaching and runoff, kg N2O-N (kg N leached and
runoff)-1 (Table 11.3)
37
38
EQUATION 11.11
39
N 2O( ATD ) - N = FSNi FracGASFi + [(FON FPRP ) FracGASM ] EF4

i
40
Where:
41
42

43
FSNi = annual amount of synthetic fertiliser N applied to soils under different conditions i, kg N yr-1
44
45
FracGASF i = fraction of synthetic fertiliser N that volatilises as NH3 and NOx under different conditions i,
kg N volatilised (kg of N applied)-1
46
47
48
49
FPRP =
50
51
52
FracGASM
from
annual amount of urine and dung N deposited by grazing animals on pasture, range and paddock,
kg N yr-1
= fraction of applied organic N fertiliser materials (FON) and of urine and dung N deposited
A2.27
1
2
3
4
5
EQUATION 11.12
ANNUAL CARBON EMISSIONS FROM LIME APPLICATION (CO2)
CO2 - C Emission = (M Limestone EFLimestone ) + (M Dolomite EFDolomite )
7
8
9
10
Where:
CO2-C Emission = annual C emissions from lime application, tonnes C yr-1
M = annual amount of calcic limestone (CaCO3) or dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2), tonnes yr-1
EF = emission factor, tonne of C per tonne of limestone or dolomite
11
12
EQUATION 11.13
ANNUAL CARBON EMISSIONS FROM UREA APPLICATION (CO2)
13
CO2 - C Emission = M EF
14
15
16
17
18
19
Where:
CO2-C Emission = annual C emissions from urea application, tonnes C yr-1
M = annual amount of urea fertilisation, tonnes urea yr-1
EF = emission factor, tonne of C per tonne of urea.
J. EQUATIONS FOR HARVESTED WOOD PRODUCTS
20
21
22
23
24
EQUATION 12.1
ESTIMATION OF CARBON STOCK AND ITS ANNUAL CHANGE IN HWP POOLS OF THE REPORTING
25
( A)
1 e k
C (i + 1) = e k C (i ) +
Inflow(i )
26
( B)
C (i ) = C (i + 1) C (i)
27
28
Note: For an explanation of technique used in Equations 12.1A to estimate first-order decay see
Pingoud and Wagner (2006).
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Where:
i
=
year,
C(i) =
the carbon stock of the HWP pool in the beginning of year i, Gg C
k
=
decay constant of first-order decay given in units, yr1 ( k = ln(2) / HL, where HL is half-life
of the HWP pool in years. A half-life is the number of years it takes to lose one-half of the material
currently in the pool.)
Inflow(i) = the inflow to the HWP pool during year i, Gg C yr-1
C(i) = carbon stock change of the HWP pool during year i, Gg C yr-1
COUNTRY
Starting with i = 1900 and continuing to present year, compute
with C (1900) = 0.0
38
39
40
41
EQUATION 12.2
ESTIMATION OF HWP PRODUCTS PRODUCED ANNAULLY FROM DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION
Inflow DC = P + SFPIM SFPEX
42
43
44
45
Where:
InflowDC = Carbon in annual consumption of solidwood or paper products that came from wood
harvested in the reporting country (that is, from domestic harvest), Gg C yr-1
P = Carbon in annual production of solidwood or paper products in the reporting country, Gg C yr-1
A2.28

1
2
3
4
SFPIM and SFPEX = Imports and exports of semi-finished wood and paper products. For solidwood this
includes sawnwood, panels, and other industrial roundwood. For paper products this includes paper
and paperboard, Gg C yr-1
5
6
7
EQUATION 12.3
ESTIMATION OF HWP PRODUCTS PRODUCED ANNUALLY FROM DOMESTIC HARVEST
IRWH
InflowDH = P
IRWH + IRWIM + IRWEX + WCH IM WCH EX + WRIM WREX
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Where:
InflowDH = Carbon in annual production of solidwood or paper products that came from wood harvested
in the reporting country (that is, from domestic harvest), Gg C yr-1
P = Carbon in annual production of solidwood or paper products in the reporting country, Gg C yr-1. Note
that paper product production includes wood fibre and excludes non wood fibre. An equation to
estimate the wood fibre in paper products production is shown in Note 1 of Table 12.5.
IRWH = Industrial roundwood harvest in the reporting country. This is the harvest of wood to make
solidwood and paper products including IRW for export. [The FAO variable is called Industrial RW
Production], Gg C yr-1
IRWIM , IRWEX = Industrial roundwood imports and exports, respectively, Gg C yr-1
WCHIM, WCHEX = Wood chip imports and exports, respectively, Gg C yr-1
WRIM, WREX = Wood residues from wood products mills imports and exports, respectively Gg C yr-1
22
23
24
25
26
EQUATION 12.4
ESTIMATION OF ANNUAL CHANGE IN CARBON IN HWP IN DOMESTIC SWDS WHERE HWP
CAME FROM DOMESTIC HARVEST

Imported wood material
C HWP SWDS DH = C HWP SWDS DC 1
Produced wood material + Imported wood material
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
IRW IM + WCH IM + WR IM + SawnW IM + WPan IM +

Imported wood material =
P & PB IM + WPulp & Re cPap IM

Produced wood material = IRW H
Where:
CHWP SWDSDH = Variable 2B = Annual change in carbon in HWP in DOMESTIC SWDS where HWP
came from domesitic wood harvest, Gg C yr-1
CHWP SWDS DC = Variable 1B = Annual change in carbon in HWP in SWDS in the reporting country, Gg C
yr-1
IRWH and IRWIM = Industrial roundwood harvest in the reporting country and industrial roundwood
imports, respectively, Gg C yr-1
WCHIM = Wood chip imports, Gg C yr-1
WRIM =Wood residues from wood products mills imports, Gg C yr-1
SawnWIM = Sawn wood imports and, Gg C yr-1
WPanIM = Wood panel imports, Gg C yr-1
P&PBIM = Paper and paperboard imports, Gg C yr-1
WPulp&RecPapIM = Wood pulp and recovered paper imports, Gg C yr-1
45
A2.29
1
2
3
EQUATION 12.5
ESTIMATION OF CARBON RELEASE USING HWP VARIABLES
For annual carbon release from wood stocks in the reporting country
C HWP DC = H + PIM PEX C HWP IU DC C HWP SWDS DC
( A)
For annual carbon release from wood harvested in the reporting country
( B)
C HWP DH = H C HWP IU DH C HWP SWDS DH
7
8
9
10
11
EQUATION 12.6
EQUATION TO ESTIMATE PRODUCTION, IMPORTS OR EXPORT VARIABLES IN TABLE 12.5 FOR
YEARS BEFORE 1961
V =V
e [ U (t 1961) ]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1961
Where,
Vt = Annual production, imports or exports for a solidwood or paper product for year t, Gg C yr-1
t = year
V1961 = Annual production, imports or exports for a solidwood or paper product for the year 1961, Gg C
yr-1
U = Estimated continuous rate of change in industrial roundwood consumption for the region that
includes the reporting county between 1900 and 1961 (see Table 12.3), yr-1
21
A2.30
Appendix 1: CO2 removals in residual combustion products (charcoal)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Appendix 1 CO2 Removals in Residual Combustion Products

(charcoal): Basis for future methodological
development
Background
Charred materials are the product of the incomplete combustion of vegetation and fossil fuels(Goldberg,1985).
The continuum of combustion products such as char, ash, soot and charcoal are commonly referred to as black
carbon (BC). BC is a heterogeneous mixture of residues that have contrasting chemistry and thus resistance to
further biological or chemical degradation. Together they occur ubiquitously in soils and other terrestrial
sediments, and in marine sediments as well.
A large portion (>80%) of the BC that is produced by a fire event remains proximal to the site where it was
formed. It is then incorporated into the soil where it can remain for long periods of time. However, BC can also
be transported via fluvial and atmospheric pathways to marine sediments, with the majority moving through the
fluvial system. This results in most of the particulate BC transported to the oceans being deposited on the coastal
shelves, while a smaller portion continues on to the deeper ocean sediments. Another fraction of the particulate
BC produced is dispersed into the atmosphere. With residence times that can exceed 7days, much of this
component of BC is transported to the oceans and ultimately contributes to the BC fraction of deep ocean
sediments, where it is very stable.
Over the past few decades BC concentrations in the earths atmosphere and biosphere have become of interest
because; in aerosol form they are strong absorbers of solar radiation, they can provide a record of palaeoenvironments in sediment and ice cores, and they may also be a sizable contributor of oxygen to the atmosphere
over geological time frames. BC, in particular the charcoal component, is also important because it represents
one of the few ways that carbon can be rendered relatively inert, such that it can not easily recombine with
oxygen to form CO2. Hence there is a strong potential for BC to act as a significant removal (sink) of carbon
from the more rapid bio-atmospheric carbon cycle to the slower (long-term) geological carbon cycle (e.g. Graetz
and Skjemstad, 2003; Schmidt, 2004; Druffel, 2004).
Role of Black Carbon in the Global C budget

In a recent review of the formation and persistence of BC in terrestrial ecosystems, Forbes et al, 2006 provided a
revised estimate of the formation of BC from vegetation fires and fossil fuel burning of 50-270 Tg/yr. This is a
very large C flux and a key question is thus whether the rate of annual BC formation exceeds the amount of C
released from the large pool of BC that is already accumulated in terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Whilst it is
currently not possible to definitively answer this question, it is important to continue research that will enable a
methodology to be developed in the future for accounting for BC in greenhouse gas inventories, and for better
understanding the role of BC in the global C budget.
Forbes et al. (2006) also identified a set of important issues to be addressed in order to make development of a
reliable methodology possible. They identified the need to describe rates of BC formation in a consistent way
and suggested it should be expressed as a percentage of the amount of C consumed (CC) by fire. They found that
when expressed this way (BC/CC), the rates of BC formation were <3% for grass and savanna fires, and 4-5%
for forest fires. The authors concluded that estimates of BC formation based solely on physical measures are
very unreliable (lead to significant over estimates) because they are unable to accurately identify and quantify
the BC component of post-fire residues that also contain a range of partly combusted materials.
BC is subject to slow rates of degradation by photochemical processes and by microbial processes in soils and
sediments, but knowledge of longer-term rates and of the factors affecting them is very limited. Research such as
incubation studies has shown that BC degradation through biological processes is very slow. Other evidence also
suggests very slow degradation of BC; BC can comprise up to 40% of the organic C in terrestrial soils and 1231% of the very large pool of organic C in deep ocean sediments, and has radiocarbon ages in soils in excess of
thousands of years. Hence, BC appears to have a significant half-life, in the order of thousands of years and is
thus the most stable biomass-derived material in the biospheric C cycle. This relative inertness means that the
estimated 3-5% of the carbon converted to BC during forest, savanna and grassland fires, must be considered a
significant component of the global carbon cycle with a very slow turnover.
Ap1.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Conclusions
In order to better gauge the influence of BC on the global carbon cycle, an improved understanding of the
production and degradation rates of BC are required for those ecosystems exposed to extensive vegetation fires.
Further, the assessment of fluvial and aeolian transport of BC needs to be understood at fine scales, and a better
understanding gained of degradation rates of BC in land and ocean sediments. This will allow a methodology for
accounting for BC in greenhouse gas inventories to be developed, and for uncertainties and discrepancies
regarding estimates of BC fluxes between the atmosphere, biosphere and oceans to be minimised. The result will
be a more accurate global black carbon budget, and better understanding of the role of BC as a potential sink in
the global C cycle.
References
Druffel E.R.M. (2004) Comments on Black Carbon in the global carbon cycle. Marine Chem.; 92:197-200.
Forbes, M.S., R.J. Raison, and J.O. Skjemstad (2006). The formation and persistence of Black Carbon
(Charcoal) in Terrestrial ecosystems. Journal of the Science of the Total Environment (in review).
Goldberg, E.D (1985). Black carbon in the Environment: Properties and Distribution. John Wiley and Sons, New
York; 198 pp.
Graetz, R.D., and J.O. Skjemstad (2003). The charcoal sink of biomass burning on the Australian continent.
CSIRO Atmospheric Research Technical Paper; no 64.
Schmidt, M.W.I (2004). Carbon budget in the black. Nature; 427:305-306.
Ap1.2
Appendix 2: CH4 Emissions from Flooded land

Appendix 2 CH4 Emissions from Flooded Land: Basis for future

methodological development
This Appendix provides a basis for future methodological development rather than complete guidance.
4
5
6
7
8
9
Flooded lands may emit CH4 in significant quantities, depending on a variety of characteristic such as age and
depth of reservoirs, land-use prior to flooding, climate, and management practices. In contrast with CO2
emissions, CH4 emissions are highly variable spatially and temporally. Current measurements of CH4 fluxes
from flooded lands are not sufficiently comprehensive to support the development of accurate default emission
factors (especially for bubbles emissions and degassing emissions). In addition, data are not available for
countries with substantial surface area cover by reservoirs, as India, China and Russia.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Measurement studies do not indicate that the time elapsed since flooding has a significant influence on CH4
fluxes from boreal and temperate reservoirs. The opposite is true in tropical regions where time elapsed since
flooding may have a significant influence on both diffusive, bubbles CH4 and degassing emissions. This trend
was observed only on Petit-Saut reservoir in French Guiana (Abril et al., 2005); however some old tropical
reservoirs show high bubbles emissions (Duchemin et al, 2000; Stallard and Keller, 1994). The model
developed on Petit-Saut reservoir predicted very well the dissolved CH4 concentrations in an Ivory Coast
reservoir (Galy-Lacaux et al., 1998).
17
18
19
Evidence suggests that in flooded land, CH4 was generally produced exclusively from flooded soils; the
production of this gas could sustain measured fluxes at the water-air interface (Houel, 2003; Duchemin, 2000;
Abril et al., 2005).
20
2a.1 Flooded land Remaining Flooded land
21
22
23
24
25
26
This section provides information on how to estimate CH4 emissions from flooded land remaining flooded land.
This information is drawn from available literature and is intended to be useful to countries that wish to develop
preliminary estimates of CH4 emissions from this source. Countries with potentially significant CH4 emissions
from flooded lands seeking to report these emissions should consider the development of country-specific
emission factors to reduce overall uncertainty. Guidance on the development of such factors is provided in Box
7.1 in Chapter 7.
27
2 A .1.1
CH 4 E MISSIONS
FROM FLOODED LAND REMAINING
F LOODED
LAND
28
29
30
Post-flooded CH4 emissions can occur via the following pathways:
31
Diffusive emissions, due to molecular diffusion across the air-water interface;
32
33
Bubble emissions, or gas emissions from the sediment through the water column via bubbles; this is a very
important pathway for CH4 emissions, especially in temperate and tropical regions;
34
35
36
37
Degassing emissions, or emissions resulting from a sudden change in hydrostatic pressure, as well as the
increased air/water exchange surface after reservoir waters flow through a turbine and/or a spillway (Hlie,
2004; Soumis et al., 2004, Delmas et al., 2005); this is a very important pathway for CH4 emissions from
young tropical reservoirs.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The Tier 1 approach only covers diffusive emissions. Tier 2 includes a term for estimating CH4 bubble emissions,
and if applicable, separate consideration of ice-free and ice-covered periods. Tier 3 methods refer to any detailed
measurement-based approach that includes an estimate of all relevant CH4 fluxes from flooded land, which also
includes degassing emissions, and considers the depth, the geographical localization and water temperature of
the reservoir for its entire life-time. Tier 3 methods are not outlined further in this chapter, but countries should
refer to Box 7.1 in Chapter 7 on the derivation of country-specific emission factors as a resource for
implementing a Tier 3 approach. Table 2a.1 summarizes the coverage of the three tiers and CH4 emission
pathway.
46
Ap2.1
TABLE 2A.1
SUMMARY OF METHODS AND EMISSIONS COVERAGE
CH4
Tier 1
Diffusive Emissions
Tier 2
Diffusive Emissions
Bubble Emissions
Tier 3
All Emissions
1
2
The following section describes the Tier 2 and Tier 1 approaches for CH4 emissions.
CHOICE OF METHOD
4
5
6
7
8
9
Methane can be emitted from flooded lands through release of bubbles, by diffusion and by degassing. The
decision tree in Figure 2a.1 guides inventory compilers through the processes of selecting an appropriate
approach for CH4 emissions from flooded land. Tier selection and the level of spatial and temporal
disaggregation implemented by inventory compilers will depend upon the availability of activity data and
emission factors, as well as the importance of reservoirs as contributors to national greenhouse gas emissions.
Country-specific scientific evidence and data are always preferable to Tier 1 default data.
10
11
12
13
Tier 1
The Tier 1 method for estimating CH4 emissions from flooded lands includes only diffusion emissions during
ice-free period. Emissions during the ice-cover period are assumed to be zero. Equation 2a.1 can be used with
default emission factors provided in Table 2a.2 and country-specific total area of flooded land:
14
EQUATION 2A.1
CH4 EMISSIONS FROM FLOODED LANDS (TIER 1)
15
16
17
CH 4 EmissionWWflood = P E (CH 4 ) diff A flood _ total _ surface 10 6
18
19
Where:
20
CH4 emissionsWW flood = total CH4 emissions from flooded land, Gg CH4 yr-1
21
22
P = ice-free period, days yr-1 (usually 365 for annual inventory estimates, or less in country with ice-cover
period))
23
E(CH4)diff = averaged daily diffusive emissions, kg CH4 ha-1 day-1
24
Aflood, total surface = total flooded surface area, including flooded land, lakes and rivers, ha
25
Ap2.2

Figure 7a.1 Decision Tree for CH 4 Emissions from flooded land remaining flooded land
2
3
4
START
5
6
7
8
Box 4: Tier 3
Are
country-specific seasonally
integrated emission factors
available for major type of
reservoirs?
Estimate emissions from all

relevant emission pathways
using country-specific
emission factors (Tier 3)
YES
NO
Box 1: Tier 1
Are
country-specific CH4
diffusive and bubble
emissions data available
for major type of
reservoirs?
YES
NO
Are
flooded lands a key
category1 and is CH4
significant2?
NO

(Tier 1)
Determine seasonally
integrated CH4 emission
factors for diffusive and
bubble emissions for
major type of reservoirs
Are
country-specific CH4
degassing data available
for major type of
reservoirs?
Box 3: Tier 1/2
NO
Estimate diffusive and

bubble emissions only, using
country-specific emission
factors (Tier 2)
YES
Estimate diffusive, bubble

and degassing using
country-specific emission
factors (Tier 2)
Box 2: Tier 2
Note 1: See Volume 1 Chapter 4, "Methodological Choice and Identification of Key Categories" (noting Section 4.1.2 on
limited resources), for discussion of key categories and use of decision trees.
Ap2.3
1
2
3
4
5
Tier 2
A Tier 2 approach for CH4 emissions requires country-specific emission factors for diffusive and bubble
emissions, and if applicable, accounts for different rates of diffusion and bubble emissions during the ice-free
and ice-covered periods. Flooded land area may also be disaggregated by climatic zone, or any relevant
parameter listed in Box 7.1 in Chapter 7. This approach is described in Equation 2a.2.
6
EQUATION 2A.2
CH4 EMISSIONS FROM FLOODED LANDS (TIER 2)
7
8
9
CH 4 EmissionsWWflood
10
(Pf Ef (CH 4 ) diff A flood ,surface ) +
= (Pf Ef (CH 4 ) bubble A flood ,surface ) +
P (E (CH ) + E (CH )
i
4 diff
i
4 bubble ) A flood , surface
i
11
12
Where:
CH4 emissionsWW flood = total CH4 emissions from flooded lands per year, kg CH4 yr-1
13
14
15
16
Ef(CH4)diff = averaged daily diffusive emissions from air water-interface during the ice-free period, kg
CH4 ha-1 day-1
17
18
Ef(CH4)bubble = averaged daily bubbles emissions from air water-interface during the ice-free period, kg
CH4 ha-1 day-1
19
Ei(CH4)diff = diffusive emissions related to the ice-cover period, kg CH4 ha-1 day-1
20
Ei(CH4)bubble = bubbles emissions related to the ice-cover period, kg CH4 ha-1 day-1
21
Aflood, surface = total flooded surface area, including flooded land, lakes and rivers, ha
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
The key default values for Tier 1 are emission factors for CH4 via the diffusion pathway. Table 2a.2 provides
default emission factors for various climate zones. To the extent possible given available research, these default
emission factors integrate spatial (intra reservoir and regional variations) and temporal variations (dry/rainy and
other seasonal, inter-annual variations) in the emissions from reservoirs. Default emission factors should be used
in Tier 1 for the ice-free period only. During complete ice-cover period, CH4 emissions are assumed to be zero.
When default data are not available, countries should use the closest default emission factors value (emissions of
the most similar climatic region).
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Under Tier 2, country-specific emission factors should be used instead of default factors to the extent possible.
Additional estimates of winter emissions and CH4 bubble emissions are also needed, which will require the
development of country-specific emission factors. It is anticipated that a mix of default values and countryspecific emission factors will be used when the latter do not cover the full range of environmental and
management conditions. The development of country-specific emission factors is discussed in Box 7.1 in
Chapter 7. The derivation of country-specific factors should be clearly documented, and published in peer
reviewed literature.
38
39
40
41
Several different types of activity data may be needed to estimate flooded land emissions, depending on the tier
being implemented and the known sources of spatial and temporal variability within the national territory. These
activity data types correspond to the same data required for CO2 emissions as described in Section 7.3.2.
42
Flooded land area
43
44
45
46
Country-specific data on flooded land area are required for all tiers to estimate diffusive and bubble emissions.
Alternatively, countries can obtain an estimate of their flooded land area from a drainage basin cover analysis,
from a national dam database, from the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD, 1998) or from the
World Commission on Dams report (WCD, 2000). Since flooded land area could change rapidly, countries
Ap2.4

1
2
3
should use updated and recent data. Tier 2 and Tier 3 approaches preferably rely on a national database to track
reservoirs surface area. This database should also include other parameters as reservoir depth, year of flooding,
reservoir localization (see Box 7.1 in Chapter 7).
Period of ice-free cover/Period of ice-cover
5
6
Under Tiers 2 and 3, the periods during which the reservoirs are ice-free or ice-covered are required to estimate
emissions of CH4 emissions. These data can be obtained from national meteorological services.
Outflow/Spillway Volume
Under Tier 3, flooded land outflow and spillway volume are required to estimate degassing emissions of CH4.
CH4 concentrations upstream and downstream of dams
10
11
12
Under Tier 3, CH4 concentrations upstream and downstream of dams would be needed for estimating degassing
emissions. Information on how to measure these data can be obtained from the references cited in Box 7.1 in
Chapter 7.
13
TABLE 2A.2
DEFAULT CH4 EMISSION FACTORS FOR FLOODED LANDS
Diffusive Emissions (Ice-free period)
Ef(CH4)diff (kg ha-1 d-1)
Climate
Median
Min
Max
Nm
References
Nres
0.086
0.007
0.4
253
13
Blais 2005; Tremblay et al. 2005;

Therrien 2004; Therrien 2005;
Huttunen et al., 2002, Lambert 2002;
Duchemin 2000
0.061
0.001
0.2
233
10
Tremblay et al., 2005; Therrien 2004;

Blais 2005; Lambert 2002; , Duchemin
et al., 1999
Warm Temperate,
moist
0.150
0.004
3.2
416
16
Warm temperate, dry
0.044
0.016
0.043
135
Polar/Boreal Wet
Tremblay et al., 2005; Soumis et al..

2004; Duchemin, 2000;Smith and
Lewis, 1992
Therrien et al., 2005, Therrien 2004;
Soumis et al., 2004
Tropical, Wet
0.630
0.051
5.7
303
Tavares de lima, 2005, Abril et al.

2005;Therrien 2004; Rosa et al., 2002;
Tavares de lima et al., 2002; Duchemin
et al., 2000; Galy-Lacaux et al., 1997;
Galy-Lacaux, 1996 ; Keller and
Stallard, 1994
Tropical Dry
0.295
0.070
5.9
230
Rosa et al., 2002; Dos Santos, 2000
Countries should use the median values as default EF. These values represent the medians of CH4 emissions reported in the
literature, which themselves are arithmetic means of flux measured above individual reservoirs. The medians are used because
the frequency distributions of underlying flux measurements are not normal, and their arithmetic means are already skewed by
extreme values. Min and Max values are, respectively, the lowest and highest of all individual measurements within a given
climate region; these are provided as an indication of variability only. Nm: number of measurements; Nres: number of reservoirs
sampled.
14
15
16
UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT
17
18
19
The two largest sources of uncertainty in the estimation of CH4 emissions from flooded lands are the quality of
emission factors for the various pathways (diffusive, bubble and degassing) and estimates of the flooded land
areas.
20
21
22
23
Emission factors: As shown in Table 2a.2, average diffusive emissions can vary by an order of magnitude in
boreal and temperate regions, and by one to three orders of magnitude in tropical regions. The same variability
in bubble emissions is observed in all regions (about one order of magnitude). Therefore, the use of any default
emission factor will result in high uncertainty.
Ap2.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
CH4 degasssing emissions are also an important source of uncertainty. Degassing emissions are important
component of GHG emissions from flooded tropical lands (Galy-lacaux et al., 1997), accounting for more than
40% of the total GHG emissions from a nine year old reservoir (Delmas et al., 2005). However, for many
reservoirs degassing emissions are small or negligible (Duchemin, 2000; Soumis et al., 2004). Hence, until
additional knowledge becomes available on the dynamics of CH4 degassing emissions, estimation should be
conducted on a case-by-case basis.
7
8
9
10
11
12
To reduce the uncertainties on emissions factors, countries should develop appropriate, statistically-valid
sampling strategies that take into account natural variability of the ecosystem under study (Box 7.1 in Chapter 7).
When applicable, the distinction between ice-free and ice-covered periods may be a significant improvement in
accuracy (Duchemin et al., 2005). Those sampling strategy should include enough sampling stations per
reservoir, enough reservoirs and sampling periods. The number of sampling stations should be determined using
recognized statistical approach. Moreover, countries should consider factors included in Box 7.1 in Chapter 7.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Flooded land surface area: Information on the flooded area retained behind larger dams (>100 km2) should be
available and will probably be uncertain by approximately 10 percent, especially in countries with large dams
and hydroelectric reservoirs. For countries with many flooded lands and where national databases are not
available, flooded area retained behind dams will probably be uncertain by more than 50 percent. Detailed
information on the location, type and function of smaller dams may be also difficult to obtain, though statistical
inference may be possible based on the size distribution of reservoirs for which data are available. In addition,
reservoirs are created for variety of reasons that influence the availability of data, and, consequently, the
uncertainty on surface area is dependent on country specific conditions.
21
2a.2 Lands Converted to Flooded lands
22
23
24
With the actual knowledge, for land converted to flooded land, it is suggested to use default emission factors in
Table 2a.2. Inventory compilers should use Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 methods described in Section 2a.1 to
estimate CH4 emissions from lands converted to flooded land.
25
26
References
27
28
29
30
Abril, G., F. Gurin, S. Richard, R. Delmas, C. Galy-Lacaux, P. Gosse, A. Tremblay, L. Varfalvy, M. Aurelio
Dos Santos et B. Matvienko, 2005. Carbon Dioxide and Methane Emissions and the carbon budget of a 10years old Tropical Reservoir (Petit-Saut, French Guiana), Global Biogeochemical Cycle, 19,
doi:10292005GB002457.
31
32
Blais, Anne-Marie, 2005. tude des gaz effet de serre en milieux aquatiques Relevs de terrain 2005. Rapport
d'Environnement Illimit Hydro-Qubec Production. 30 p. and annexes.
33
34
35
36
37
Delmas, R.. S. Richard, F. Gurin, G. Abril, C. Galy-Lacaux, C. Delon and A. Grgoire, 2005. Long Term
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Hydroelectric Reservoir of Petit Saut (French Guiana) and Potential
Impacts. In Tremblay, A., L. Varfalvy, C. Roehm and M. Garneau (Eds.). Greenhouse gas Emissions: Fluxes
and Processes, Hydroelectric Reservoirs and Natural Environments. Environmental Science Series, Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp. 293-312.
38
39
Dos Santos, M.A., 2000, Inventrio emisses de gases de efeito estufa derivadas de Hidrletricas, PhD.
Dissertation, University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 154p.
40
41
42
Duchemin, E., M. Lucotte, R. Canuel and N Soumis,, 2005, First assessment of CH4 and CO2 emissions from
shallow and deep zones of boreal reservoirs upon ice break-up, accepted in Lakes and reservoirs: research
and management.
43
44
45
Duchemin, , 2000, Hydroelectricity and greenhouse gases: Emission evaluation and identification of
biogeochemical processes responsible for their production, PhD. Dissertation, Universit du Qubec
Montral, Montral (Qubec), Canada, 321 p (available on CD-ROM).
46
47
Duchemin, ., M. Lucotte, R. Canuel and A. Chamberland, 1995, Production of the greenhouse gases CH4 and
CO2 by hydroelectric reservoirs of the boreal region, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 9, 4, 529-540.
48
49
50
Duchemin, ., M. Lucotte, R. Canuel, D. Almeida Cruz, H. C. Pereira, J. Dezincourt and A. G. Queiroz, 2000,
Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from an Old Tropical Reservoir and from other Reservoirs
Worldwide, Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol., 27, 3, 1391-1395.
Ap2.6

1
2
3
Duchemin, ., R. Canuel, P. Ferland, and M. Lucotte, 1999, tude sur la production et lmission de gaz effet
de serre par les rservoirs hydrolectriques dHydro-Qubec et des lacs naturels (Volet 2), Scientific report,
Direction principal Planification Stratgique - Hydro-Qubec, 21046-99027c, 48p.
4
5
6
Galy-Lacaux, C. 1996. Modifications des changes de constituants mineurs atmosphriques lies la cration
d'une retenue hydrolectrique. Impact des barrages sur le bilan du mthane dans l'atmosphre, PhD
dissertation, Universit Paul Sabatier, Toulouse (France), 200 p.
7
8
9
Galy-Lacaux, C., R. Delmas, C. Jambert, J.-F. Dumestre, L. Labroue, S. Richard and P. Gosse, 1997, Gaseous
emissions and oxygen consumption in hydroelectric dams: a case study in French Guyana, Global
Biogeochemical Cycles, 11, 4, 471-483.
10
11
Galy-Lacaux, C., R. Delmas, G. Kouadio, S. Richard and P. Gosse, 1998, Long-term greenhouse gas emissions
from hydroelectric reservoirs in tropical forest regions, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 13, 2, 503-517.
12
13
14
Hlie, J.F., 2004, Geochemistry and fluxes of organic and inorganic in aquatic systems of eastern Canada:
examples of the St-Lawrence River and Robert-Bourassa reservoir: Isotopic approach, PhD. Dissertation,
15
16
Houel, 2003, Dynamique de la matire organique terrigne dans les rservoirs boraux, PhD. Dissertation,
17
18
19
20
Huttunen, J.T., T.S. Visnen, S. K. Hellsten, M. Heikkinen, H. Nyknen, H. Jungner, A. Niskanen, M.O.
Virtanen, O.V. Lindqvist, O.S. Nenonen, and P.J. Martikainen, 2002, Fluxes of CH4, CO2, and N2O in
hydroelectric reservoir Lokka and Porttipahta in the northern boreal zone in Finland, Global Biogeochemical
Cycles, 16, 1, doi:10.1029/2000GB001316.
21
22
International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD). 1998. World register of Dams 1998. Paris. International
Comittee on large Dams (Ed.). Metadatabase.
23
24
Keller, M. and R.F. Stallard. 1994. Methane emission by bubbling from Gatun lake, Panama, J. Geophys. Res.,
99, D4, 8307-8319.
25
26
27
Lambert, M. 2002. Campagne d'chantillonnage sur les missions de gaz effet de serre des rservoirs et des
lacs environnants - Rapport de terrain 2001. Rapport prsent la Direction Barrage et environnement par la
Direction Environnement, Hydro-Qubec, 108 p and appendix.
28
29
30
Rosa, L. P., B. Matvienko Sikar, M.A. dos Santos, E. Matvienko Sikar, 2002, Emissoes de dioxido de carbono e
de metano pelos reservatorios hydroelectricos brasileiros, Relatorio de referencia Inventorio brasileiro de
emissoes antropicas de gase de efeito de estufa, Ministerio da Ciencia e tecnologia, Brazil, 199p.
31
32
Smith, L.K., W.M. Lewis, 1992, Seasonality of methane emissions from five lakes and associated wetlands of
the Colorado Rockies, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 6, 4, 323-338
33
34
Soumis, N., . Duchemin, R. Canuel, et M. Lucotte, 2004, Greenhouse gas emissions from reservoirs of the
western United States, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 18, GB3022, doi:10.1029/2003GB002197.
35
36
Tavares de Lima I, 2005, Biogeochemical distinction of methane releases from two Amazon hydroreservoirs,
Chemosphere, In Press
37
38
39
Tavares de Lima I. 2002. Emissoa de metano em reservatorio hidreletricos amazonicos atraves de leis de
potencia (Methane emission from Amazonian hydroelectric reservoirs through power laws), PhD Dissertation,
Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 119 p.
40
41
Therrien, J., 2004. Flux de gaz effet de serre en milieux aquatiques - Suivi 2003. Rapport de GENIVAR
Groupe Conseil Inc. prsent Hydro-Qubec. 52 p. et annexes.
42
43
44
45
Therrien, J., A. Tremblay and R. Jacques, 2005, CO2 Emissions From Semi-arid Reservoirs and Natural Aquatic
Ecosystems. In Tremblay, A., L. Varfalvy, C. Roehm et M. Garneau (Eds.). Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
Fluxes and Processes, Hydroelectric Reservoirs and Natural Environments. Environmental Science Series,
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp. 233-250.
46
47
48
49
Tremblay, A., J. Therrien, B. Hamlin, E. Wichmann and L. LeDrew, 2005, GHG Emissions from Boreal
Reservoirs and Natural Aquatic Ecosystems. In Tremblay, A., L. Varfalvy, C. Roehm and M. Garneau (Eds.).
Greenhouse gas Emissions: Fluxes and Processes, Hydroelectric Reservoirs and Natural Environments.
Environmental Science Series, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp. 209-231.
50
51
WCD, 2000, Dams and Development a new framework for Decision-Making, The report of the World
Commission on Dams, Earthscan Publications Ltd, London and Sterling, VA, 356 p.
52
Ap2.7

Vol 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vol 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU)

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND

Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Co-ordinating Lead Authors

Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU)

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................1.1

Chapter 2 Generic Methodologies Applicable to Multiple Land Use Categories......................................2.1

Chapter 3 Consistent Representation of Lands ..........................................................................................3.1

Chapter 4 Forest land ................................................................................................................................4.1

Chapter 5: Cropland ..................................................................................................................................5.1

Chapter 6: Grassland .................................................................................................................................6.1

Chapter 7: Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................7.1

Chapter 8: Settlements ...............................................................................................................................8.1

Chapter 9: Other land.................................................................................................................................9.1

Chapter 10: Emissions from Livestock and Manure Management ..........................................................10.1

Chapter 12: Harvested Wood Products....................................................................................................12.1

Annex 1: AFOLU Worksheets ...............................................................................................................A1.1

Annex 2: Summary of Equations...........................................................................................................A2.1

Appendix 1 CO2 Removals in Residual Combustion Products (charcoal): Basis for

Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Overview of Greenhouse Gas emissions and removals in the AFOLU Sector

Carbon pool definitions and non-CO2 gases

Overview of Inventory Preparation for the AFOLU Sector

Land-use and Management Categories

Tier Definitions for Methods in AFOLU

Identification of Key Categories

Steps in Preparing Inventory Estimates

Organisation of Volume 4 in 2006 Guidelines

Figure 1.4 Structure of AFOLU Reporting.................................................................................................17

Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Box 1.1 Framework of tier structure for AFOLU methods.........................................................................12

Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Adherence to principles of mass balance in computing carbon stock changes;

Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

CO2 and non-CO2 emissions from fire on all managed land;

N2O emissions from all managed soils;

CH4 emissions from rice cultivation;

CO2 and N2O emissions from cultivated organic soils;

CH4 emission from livestock (enteric fermentation);

CH4 and N2O emissions from manure management systems; and

C stock change associated with harvested wood products.

1.2 OVERVIEW OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

1.2.1 Science Background

Greenhouse Gases in AFOLU

Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Emission and Removal Processes