Abstract
Germany, as an Annex I Party is expected to prepare and submit annual Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventories of emissions and removals, including Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) sector. Uganda, a non-Annex 1 party, is institutionalizing a sustainable national GHG inventory system. The LULUCF sector is a key emission source and plays a vital role in these two countries’ GHG inventories. This research analyzes the differences between applied LULUCF methodologies in Uganda as a developing country and Germany as a developed country with a particular focus on the forestry sector. It further analyzes the root cause factors for the different approaches, existing gaps and gives recommendations for future inventory improvement. The intricate institutional, policy framework, expertise, and applied methodological approaches for carbon change estimations in biomass pools are analyzed. Uncertainty analysis and time-series consistency process is reviewed with regard to how the countries’ quality assurance/control (QA/QC) and verification approaches adhere to the transparency framework. Resource limitations and data collection challenges dictate that Uganda uses the tier 1 methodological approach for emissions inventory. Consolidation and institutionalization of the GHG process will improve inventory accuracy while enhancing adherence to climate commitments. Germany uses higher tiers. Besides, government support for planned improvements using the recently developed country-specific biomass functions for estimating belowground biomass of silver birch, oak, and Scotch pine tree species will be essential for improving inventory quality. Operationalization of the inventory plan (IP) will be critical in driving inventory improvements geared towards time-series consistency, comparability, and transparency.
Highlights
There is a clear distinction of obligations between Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 countries such as Germany and Uganda, respectively, under the Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (Kartha and Erickson 2011)
The analysis showed that there were no significant differences in the aboveground biomass (AGB) estimated by the model of Chave et al (2014) and that of the National Biomass Studies (NBS) equations
Continue to pursue inventory improvements, knowing that national inventory and reporting systems get better over time
Summary
There is a clear distinction of obligations between Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 countries such as Germany and Uganda, respectively, under the Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (Kartha and Erickson 2011). These differences have increasingly become less delineated especially in light of the 2015 Paris Agreement (PA) (Lahn and Sundqvist 2017; Mbeva and Pauw 2016). Unlike the UNFCCC, the PA does not refer to Annex 1, non-Annex 1 (Den Elzen and Höhne 2008), or any specific country groups; it highlights them as developed and developing countries (Obergassel et al 2015) This differentiation of developed and developing countries is still a critical challenge in the operationalization of the PA (Ari and Sari 2017). A situation well epitomized by the slow operationalization progress of the country’s GHGI, the importance of this research
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
