Overview of the EU 2017 submissions under UNFCCC and KP

Transcription

1 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 Unit Ispra (Italy) JRC LULUCF workshop, Stresa April 2017

2 OUTLINE Status of reporting Overview of reporting under UNFCCC Overview of reporting under KP Next steps

3 STATUS OF REPORTING (as of 21 April 2017) Submission 2017 MS NIR CRF_convention CRF_KP Observations NIR CRF_convention CRF_KP Austria x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/ KP tables x x x Belgium x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/kp tables with some cells empty x x Bulgaria x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/kp tables x x Croatia x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/kp tables x x x Cyprus NO NIR 15 April Sub./NO Convention tables/no KP tables x x x NIR 15 Czech Republic x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/kp tables x x Denmark x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/kp tables x x Estonia x x NO NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/kp tables x x Finland x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/kp tables x x x France x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/kp tables x x Germany x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables /KP tables x x x Greece x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/kp tables x x x Hungary x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/kp tables x x x Ireland x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/kp tables Italy x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/kp tables x x x Latvia x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/kp tables x x Lithuania x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/kp tables x x x Luxembourg x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/kp tables x x x Malta NO NIR 15 April Sub./NO Convention tables/no KP tables x x Netherlands x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/ KP tables x x x Poland x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/kp tables x x x Portugal x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/kp tables x x x Romania x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/kp tables/2014 and 2015 equal x x x Slovakia x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/kp tables x x x Slovenia x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/kp tables x x Spain x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/kp tables x x Sweden x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/kp tables x x UK x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/kp tables x x x Iceland x x x NIR 15 April Sub./Convention tables/kp tables with some cells empty x x x Total

4 UNFCCC reporting Overview Emissions (+) and removals (-) trends: EU28 + ISL 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 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.

5 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%)

6 Forest conversions: area trends 800 EU forest conversion rates (kha/y) Land converted to FL FL converted to other lands

7 Emissions/removals from LULUCF in EU MS (year 2015) % contribution of LULUCF to total GHG emissions (without LULUCF) In EU28, LULUCF offsets 7% of total GHGs (Forest offsets 10%)

8 Overview The LULUCF hotspots 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)

9 Forest land Trends of emissions/removals (EU28 + ISL) MS emissions/removals (EU28 + ISL)

10 Cropland Trends of emissions/removals (EU28 +ISL) MS emissions/removals (EU28 +ISL)

11 Grassland Trends of emissions/removals (EU28 + ISL) MS emissions/removals (EU28 + ISL)

12 Completeness of reporting of land uses (UNFCCC) Land Use Forest Land Cropland Grassland Wetlands Carbon pool Living biomass Dead organic matter SOC mineral FL-FL 100% 52% 34% L-FL 93% 72% 79% CL-CL 83% 10% 72% L-CL 83% 66% 90% GL-GL 41% 14% 48% L-GL 90% 66% 93% WL-WL 17% 3% 38% L-WL 83% 62% 86% Subcategory = estimate not mandatory under tier 1 Completeness: FL > CL > GL > WL Completeness of land use conversions > land use remaining the same

13 Number of MS reporting Improvement in completeness Coverage of reporting of lands by C pool, from 2012 GHGI to 2017 GHGI

14 Recalculations in LULUCF at EU level 0-50 Mt CO2 eq

15 Uncertainties at MS level Forest land: 10-70% for biomass (EU28 average 35%), % for dead organic matter ( 60%), 15-70% for mineral soils ( 60%) and % 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.

16 KP reporting EU28+ISL Net emissions (+) and removals (-), Mt CO2eq 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 Average accounting quantity , credits (-) or debits (+) Activities elected by MS: CM: DK, DE, IE, IT, PT, ES, UK GM: DK,DE, IE, IT, PT, UK RV: RO

17 Afforestation/Reforestation MS total ARF area 2015 MS emissions/removals

18 Deforestation MS total DEF area 2015 MS emissions/removals

19 Forest Management MS total FM area 2015 MS emissions/removals

20 TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS 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 = FMRL corr - FMRL 20

21 FMRL value and Technical correction 17 MS have implemented TC so far 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)

22 FM, FMRL and FMRLcorr (without HWP) Managed Forest land (MFL) sink in the EU (no HWP), Mt CO2e/y the EU (no HWP), Mt CO2e/y GHGI FM 2017 data (MFL) at the time of FRL submission 2011 (KP-2) FM FRL data KP-2 at the time of FRL submission 2011 (KP-2) FRL KP FMRLcorr

23 NATURAL DISTURBANCES 14 MS and Iceland have stated their intention of excluding emissions resulting from natural disturbances under AR during CP2 19 MS and Iceland have stated their intention of excluding emissions resulting from natural disturbances that affect areas subject to FM during CP2 So far, emissions from natural disturbances have not been excluded from the accounting 23

24 HARVESTED WOOD PRODUCTS All MS and Iceland used used the Production approach to estimate net emissions and removals All MS used the default IPCC method (equation of the 2013 KP Supplement), to allocate the carbon stock changes to specific forest activities under Article 3(3), and Article 3(4). 24

25 NEXT STEPS (outcomes of WG-I meeting 28 th March 2017) 8 th May: MS will send to Commission resubmissions of inventories (CRF tables and NIRs), which plan to resubmit to UNFCCC ( ) including the all technical corrections 27 th May: resubmission of EU GHG inventory (CRF tables and NIR) to UNFCCC 25

26 Thank you!

27 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)

28 Are KP LULUCF estimates complete? Completeness of C pools reporting in KP activities Above-ground biomass Below-ground biomass Litter = estimate not mandatory under CP 2 Dead wood Completeness of C pools: AGB=BGB >Soil Min > Litter > DW Completeness of mandatory activities: DEF > FM > AR Completeness of elected activities: RVE > CM > GM 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 in the 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 29

30 ate FMRL corr ensuring consistency between reported FM and FMRL CHECK LIST TO DETECT METHODOLOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES AND NEED FOR TC Criteria 1 The method used for GHG reporting of FM or FL-FL changed after the adoption of FMRL 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 gases b) Area under FM Recalculated historical data* on area c) Historical data for Recalculated historical data* for FL-FL or FM. GHG inventory d) Forest characteristics Recalculated historical data* and management e) Historical Recalculated historical data* Harvesting rates f) Climate data Different observed climate data as compared to what assumed by models for assumed in FMRL projecting FMRL g) Harvested wood New/recalculated data and/or methods products i) Natural disturbances New/recalculated data and/or method; inclusion of submitted (in 2015) or revised (later) background * data for the time period level used in and the margin construction with of assumptions the FMRL different from Acti on 30