FCCC/CP/2015/7

FCCC/CP/2015/7
133. While the guidelines applied differ, many Parties are shifting or intending to shift
towards more recent guidelines. They are also widening the coverage of sectors and GHGs
in their inventories.
134. Many Parties referred to the standard methods and procedures contained in the
different IPCC guidelines. Some Parties mentioned the use of the 2013 Revised
Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol, as
well as the IPCC good practice guidance, the IPCC good practice guidance for LULUCF
and the 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories: Wetlands.
Global warming potentials and other metrics
135. GWPs are used for aggregating emissions of the different GHGs into a single
national total. Several of the INDCs communicated by Parties contain information on
GWPs. Most of these INDCs considered GWPs on a 100-year timescale in accordance with
either the IPCC Second Assessment Report (including those INDCs that refer to decision
17/CP.8) or the AR4 (including the INDCs that refer to decision 24/CP.19). A few Parties
used GWP values published in the AR5, and one Party used GWP values and also global
temperature potentials to describe its mitigation targets. 46
Land use, land-use change and forestry
136. Many Parties included emissions and removals from LULUCF or specific mitigation
actions targeting them in their INDCs. Several Parties mentioned actions in the LULUCF
sector among the priority areas in the implementation of their INDCs.
137. Some of the INDCs contain information specific to LULUCF accounting. Many of
them, however, do not include comprehensive information on the assumptions and methods
to be used in the accounting of emissions and removals from LULUCF. This presents a
major challenge in the assessment of the aggregate effect as it represents a major area of
uncertainty.
138. A few Parties stated their intention to account for LULUCF, covering all emissions
and removals from all pools and gases, using a net-net approach. Others listed a number of
activities, namely afforestation, reforestation, revegetation, wetland restoration, reducing
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.
139. A few Parties indicated that they are switching to a comprehensive land-based
approach but that the actual approach for quantifying LULUCF is still to be defined. A few
Parties explained that the decision on whether LULUCF would be included, and any related
methods, would be made at a later stage once better information on mitigation potential is
available.
140. A few Parties stated that they will also make use of specific provisions for LULUCF
in order to address specific issues in the contribution, such as how to address the inclusion
of harvested wood products, the exclusion of emissions from natural disturbances,
permanence, land-use flexibility, legacy and non-anthropogenic effects.
141. Some Parties indicated that a common framework for accounting may be desirable,
which could be based on existing guidance and experiences under the Convention and its
Kyoto Protocol. Most of these Parties are of the view that such a framework should be
comprehensive and should ensure transparency and environmental integrity. Finally, one
46 One Party used GWPs for black carbon as described in Bond et al. 2013. Bounding the role of black
carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118(11): pp.5380–
5552.
31