Overview of the EU 2017 submissions under UNFCCC and KP

Giacomo Grassi, Tibor Priwitzer, Raul Abad Viñas, Simone Rossi European Commission, Joint Research Centre

Bioeconomy UnitIspra (Italy)

JRC LULUCF workshop, Stresa 26-27 April 2017

OUTLINE

Status of reporting

Overview of reporting under UNFCCC

Overview of reporting under KP

Next steps

STATUS OF REPORTING (as of 21 April 2017)

MS NIR CRF_convention CRF_KP Observations NIR CRF_convention CRF_KP Observations

Austria x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/ KP tables x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/ KP tables NO public available

Belgium x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables with some cells empty x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/ NO KP tables

Bulgaria x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/ NO KP tables

Croatia x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables empty

Cyprus NO NIR 15 April Sub./NO Convention tables/NO KP tables x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables with most of cells empty/ KP tables with most of cells empty

Czech Republic x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/NO KP tables

Denmark x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/ NO KP tables

Estonia x x NO NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/NO KP tables

Finland x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables

France x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/ NO KP tables

Germany x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables /KP tables x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables /KP tables

Greece x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables

Hungary x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables

Ireland x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables NO NIR 15 April Sub./ NO Convention tables/ NO KP tables

Italy x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables with some cells empty

Latvia x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/NO KP tables

Lithuania x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables with some cells empty

Luxembourg x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables

Malta NO NIR 15 April Sub./NO Convention tables/NO KP tables x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables with few cells empty/NO KP tables

Netherlands x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/ KP tables x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/ KP tables with a lot of tables empty

Poland x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables with some cells empty

Portugal x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables with some cells empty

Romania x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables/2014 and 2015 equal

data

x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables with some cells empty

Slovakia x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables with some cells empty

Slovenia x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/NO KP tables

Spain x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/NO KP tables

Sweden x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/NO KP tables

UK x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables with some cells empty

Iceland x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables with some cells empty x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/KP tables with some cells empty

Total 26 27 27 28 28 17

Submission 2017 Submission 2016

Emissions (+) and removals (-) trends: EU28 + ISL

OverviewUNFCCC reporting

In 2015, the LULUCF sector of the EU MS + ISL results in a total net sink of -297 Mt CO2eq, i.e. an increase of about 32% as compared to 1990. Harvested Wood Products in 2015 is a net sink of -29 Mt CO2eq. Emissions of CH4 and N2O offset about 4% of total annual carbon removals.

Area trends: EU28 + ISL

The total reported area of the different land use categories in 2015 by EU MS and Iceland is 458 Mha. The changes in 2015 as compared to 1990 are: Settlements (+25%), Croplands (-6%), Forest land (+4%), Grassland (-5%), Wetlands (1%)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1990199219941996199820002002200420062008201020122014

EUforestconversionrates(kha/y)

LandconvertedtoFL

FLconvertedtootherlands

Forest conversions: area trends

Emissions/removals from LULUCF in EU MS (year 2015)

In EU28, LULUCF offsets 7% of total GHGs (Forest offsets 10%)

-6 -2 -11 -21 -2 -5 7 -13 -47 -8 -2 -3 -11 7 -8 12 -33 -4 0 3 -8 -13 -16 -16 -33 -12 -94 -1 226 % contribution of LULUCF to total GHG emissions (without LULUCF)

Land use changes represent 9% of EU area but account for > 20% of absolute emissions/removals of respective subcategories

The sink from conversions to FL (-53 MtCO2yr) and GL (-24 MtCO2/yr) compensated by emissions from conversions to CL (49 MtCO2/yr) and SL (47 MtCO2/yr).

Area of organic soils (18 Mha: 12 in FL, 2 in CL, 4 in GL) represents about 5% of the total area of FL + CL + GL in the EU, but their emissions (97 MtCO2/y: 18 in FL, 33 in CL and 46 in GL) account for 30% of net total LULUCF removals.

Biomass burning: about 6-7 MtCO2/yr (3-30, depending on the year)

The LULUCF “hotspots”

Overview

Trends of emissions/removals (EU28 + ISL)

Forest land

MS emissions/removals (EU28 + ISL)

Trends of emissions/removals (EU28 +ISL)

Cropland

MS emissions/removals (EU28 +ISL)

Grassland

Trends of emissions/removals (EU28 + ISL)

MS emissions/removals (EU28 + ISL)

Completeness of reporting of land uses (UNFCCC)

Completeness: FL > CL > GL > WLCompleteness of land use conversions > land use remaining the same

= estimate not mandatory under tier 1

Land Use Subcategory

Carbon pool

Living biomass Dead organic

matterSOC mineral

Forest Land FL-FL 100% 52% 34%L-FL 93% 72% 79%

CroplandCL-CL 83% 10% 72%L-CL 83% 66% 90%

GrasslandGL-GL 41% 14% 48%L-GL 90% 66% 93%

WetlandsWL-WL 17% 3% 38%

L-WL 83% 62% 86%

Improvement in completenessCoverage of reporting of lands by C pool, from 2012 GHGI to 2017 GHGI

Nu

mb

er

of

MS

rep

ort

ing

Recalculations in LULUCF at EU level

-450

-400

-350

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

MtCO2eq

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

Uncertainties at MS level

Forest land: 10-70% for biomass (EU28 average ≈ 35%), 20-100% for dead organic matter (≈60%), 15-70% for mineral soils (≈60%) and 35-150% for organic soils (≈90%).

FM: ≈35%, Forest conversions (AR/D) ≈ 50-60%

Cropland & Grassland: high uncertainties (50-100%), especially for mineral/organic soils

Largest uncertainties shown in land conversions.

EU28+ISL Net emissions (+) and removals (-), Mt CO2eq

1990 2013 2014 2015

ARF -55,6 -57,6 -59,0

DEF 41,7 41,2 40,2

FM -438,3 -424,8 -408,1

CM 66,9 61,5 55,3 56,4

GLM 55,5 46,2 45,8 45,4

RV -0,3 -1,8 -1,8 -1,8

KP reporting

Activities elected by MS:CM: DK, DE, IE, IT, PT, ES, UKGM: DK,DE, IE, IT, PT, UKRV: RO

Average accounting quantity 2013-2015,

credits (-) or debits (+)

≈ - 57

≈ + 41

≈ - 133

≈ - 10

≈ - 10

≈ - 1.5

Afforestation/Reforestation

MS total ARF area 2015

MS emissions/removals

Deforestation

MS total DEF area 2015

MS emissions/removals

Forest Management

MS total FM area 2015

MS emissions/removals

20

If methodological inconsistency exists between the FMRL and the FM reporting during the CP, to ensure consistency, Parties are required to apply a Technical Correction.

The Technical Correction (TC) is a net value of emissions /removals, which is added at the time of accounting to the original FMRL to ensure that accounted emissions / removals will not reflect the impact of methodological inconsistencies

Technical Correction = FMRLcorr - FMRL

TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS

17 MS have implemented TC so far

FMRL value and Technical correction

Please remember to provide information on the rationale for calculating FMRLcorr and the method used in your NIRs !

IIASA/EFI/JRC provided so far new model runs for 3+3 MS (CZ, EE, FR + LT, LV, ES)

-450

-400

-350

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

199

0

199

2

199

4

199

6

199

8

200

0

200

2

200

4

200

6

200

8

201

0

201

2

201

4

201

6

201

8

202

0 M

an

ag

ed

Fo

res

t la

nd

(M

FL

) s

ink

in

th

e E

U (

no

HW

P),

Mt

CO

2e

/y

FM data at the time of FRL submission 2011 (KP-2)

FRL KP-2

-450

-400

-350

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0 1

99

0

199

2

199

4

199

6

199

8

200

0

200

2

200

4

200

6

200

8

201

0

201

2

201

4

201

6

201

8

202

0 M

an

ag

ed

Fo

res

t la

nd

(M

FL

) s

ink

in

th

e E

U (

no

HW

P),

Mt

CO

2e

/y

GHGI 2017 (MFL)

FM data at the time of FRL submission 2011 (KP-2)

FRL KP-2

FM, FMRL and FMRLcorr (without HWP)

FMRLcorr

23

NATURAL DISTURBANCES

• 14 MS and Iceland have stated their intention of excludingemissions resulting from natural disturbances under AR duringCP2

• 19 MS and Iceland have stated their intention of excludingemissions resulting from natural disturbances that affect areassubject to FM during CP2

• So far, emissions from natural disturbances have not beenexcluded from the accounting

24

HARVESTED WOOD PRODUCTS

• All MS and Iceland used used the “Production approach” to estimatenet emissions and removals

• All MS used the default IPCC method (equation 2.8.3 of the 2013 KPSupplement), to allocate the carbon stock changes to specific forestactivities under Article 3(3), and Article 3(4).

25

NEXT STEPS(outcomes of WG-I meeting 28th March 2017)

• 8th May: MS will send to Commission resubmissions of inventories (CRF tables and NIRs), which plan to resubmit to UNFCCC (27.5.2017) including the all technical corrections

• 27th May: resubmission of EU GHG inventory (CRF tables and NIR) to UNFCCC

Thank you !

MS trends of emissions/removals in FL-FL

Absolute levels and long-term trend affected by harvest, increments, age structure. Levels partially affected also by methods/definitions

Inter annual variability affected by natural disturbances (fires, storms) and harvest

Short-term trend also affected by the method (i.e. stock-change vs. gain-loss)

Completeness of C pools reporting in KP activities

Completeness of C pools: AGB=BGB >Soil Min > Litter > DWCompleteness of mandatory activities: DEF > FM > AR Completeness of elected activities: RVE > CM > GM

= estimate not mandatory under CP 2

Are KP LULUCF estimates complete?

Above-ground

biomass

Below-ground

biomass

Litter Dead

wood

Soil Min Soil Org

ARF 93% 93% 86% 62% 76% 48%

DEF 90% 90% 90% 90% 93% 45%

FM 93% 93% 66% 69% 59% 52%

CM 100% 100% 43% 29% 100% 43%

GLM 83% 83% 33% 17% 100% 50%

RVE 100% 100% 100% 50% 100%

29

INFORMATION USED TO ESTIMATE C CHANGES UNDER ARD, FM, CM&GLM ACTIVITIES

• Completeness of C pools reporting for AR activities is similar to reported inthe Convention tables, under D there is full reporting of C pools

• FM C pools are reported more with notation keys as compared to AR and D• mineral soils, litter and DW C pools when reported are estimated to be a

net sink of carbon under FM• organic soils are always reported as a net source whenever drainage took

place in such areas• reporting of C stock changes in litter, dead wood, and mineral soils carbon

pools was improved considerably in the last years• biomass is reported mainly as a net source under GLM and as a net sink

under CM• mineral soils are mainly reported as a net sink under GLM and as a net

source under CM

30

CHECK LIST TO DETECT METHODOLOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES

AND NEED FOR TC

CriteriaAction

1 The method used for GHG reporting of FM or FL-FL changed after the adoption of FMRL

Calc

ula

te F

MRL

corr

ensuri

ng c

onsis

tency b

etw

een

report

ed F

M a

nd F

MRL

2. Any of the following methodological elements used for FMRL (as reported in the FMRL submission) changed after adoption of FMRL

Element Addition /modification in GHG inventory

a) Pools and gases New pools or gasesb) Area under FM Recalculated historical data* on area

c) Historical data for GHG inventory

Recalculated historical data* for FL-FL or FM.

d) Forest characteristics and management

Recalculated historical data*

e) Historical Harvesting rates

Recalculated historical data*

f) Climate data assumed by models for projecting FMRL

Different observed climate data as compared to what assumed in FMRL

g) Harvested wood products

New/recalculated data and/or methods

i) Natural disturbances New/recalculated data and/or method; inclusion of submitted (in 2015) or revised (later) background level and margin with assumptions different from FMRL

* data for the time period used in the construction of the FMRL