WP1/WP3 teleconference on use of biomass maps for national GHG inventory

On 10th of September, a workshop between WP1 and WP3 has been held on use of biomass maps for national GHG inventory.

WP1/WP3 teleconference on use of biomass maps for national GHG inventory

10. Sept. 2020, 2-3 pm

Participants:

Lucia Perugini | Peter Smith | Carlos Robert | Giacomo Grassi | Marina Vitullo | Matt McGrath | Martin Herold | Phillippe Peylin | Yusuf Srengil | Natalia Malaga | Paul Ruyssenaars

Agenda:

1. Update on developments regarding biomass mapping use in AFOLU and for VERIFY

Presentation circulated to participants by Martin Herold

2.   Evolving requirements:(i.e. ETF, EU regulation 841/2018 etc. for spatially-explicit data and use of biomass map data) - short pitches

• EU regulation 841/2018: more guidance is coming, for members states - approach 3 is needed (spatially explicit conversion data)
• Move from statistical-based estimation to spatial reporting – make use of biomass density maps to identify where changes are happening and be able to track those changes.
• Two general objectives:
  • Support statistical estimation (GHG-I) – IPCC GPG AFOLU. Useful for those countries that have incomplete National Forest Inventories (NFI) or the lack of their continuity.
  • Spatial explicit estimation at country level that is now in more demand – not necessarily a statistical estimate, country experiences for spatially-explicit requirements? Countries could benefit from the spatialization of mitigation targets. The map does not give the estimate but could indicate the distribution of biomass. Also, Biomass maps could be handy to define where to better allocate future data collection efforts (for countries that are less data intensive).
• Example of the potential of biomass maps to support local mitigation actions: A new communication for EU 2030 climate ambition to conserve and enhance the forest related C sink as it is currently declining. More incentives to forest owners are expected, certifications, etc. to support farmers and foresters to conserve forest sinks.
• Biomass maps could also contribute to capture the spatial / temporal fluctuations of biomass more completely than solely NFI data.
• Be aware that mitigation actions will be accounted for at the national level. Therefore, it is important that the Earth Observation information is reliable at the national level and consistent with national numbers. There are some positive examples already (e.g. Finland and Sweden) on the ways to integrate EO with national/local estimates.
• Time series consistency is key, how can biomass contribute to this, since reports are built up to 1990? Additionally, the biomass data changes quality over time. One approach could be (research still in progress) Tier 3 modelling back in time biomass data by using better data today, though the quality might not be enough for GHG-I requirements.
• Quite some information on needs/status of GHG-I is already available (i.e. https://unfccc.int/ghg-inventories-annex-i-parties/2020), needs and experiences for moving to spatial estimation are much less documented.
• How to combine biomass maps with Tier 3 models:
  • Saturation with more than 100tC – issue is there – less prominent for Europe. Some preliminary work has been done in modeling and assessing whether this bias can be accounted for (discarded?) from the analysis. There is also a slight tendency for overestimation in very low biomass ranges (confirmed by VERIFY biomass map validation work)
  • Consistency challenges for land cover/forest change data when integrated with biomass maps. Be aware of the definitions (e.g. forest class, countries’ forest definition, carbon pools). Keep in mind that the GHG reports focus on land use and EO products are for land cover.
• Turkey (Yusuf): In Turkey this Biomass maps could help. It is a large country with no National Forest Inventory; reports are based on EO and management data. Current assumptions in GHG-I: different forests types (e.g., degraded and non-degraded) have the same increments values and are looking on ways to differentiate them depending on the forest type. An opportunity for Biomass density maps could also be to compare carbon stocks between different European countries.

3.   Discussion on a (joint) strategy to approach that in VERIFY and beyond

• Take advantage of VERIFY having EO, modelling, GHG-I experts ad work together towards synthesis
• Refining the requirements and options for using biomass maps in countries to improve estimation (GHG-I) and moving towards spatially explicit estimation (WP1/3 effort – using a simple questionnaire, networking meeting in November) -
• How can we help countries with specific data gaps? Work on specific examples (which ones?)
• Prepare a questionnaire aimed at understanding the current status of inventories at EU level and potential future developments towards special explicit reporting, also testing if and how the inventory agencies are considering the use of biomass maps (simple questions, to provide a snapshot of the current status, max 10 min). The questionnaire should be submitted to inventory agencies prior the networking meeting between research and inventory community of Verify (planned for 10-12 November).
• Document most promising areas and challenges, experiences and steps forward (paper?)

Presentation available here.