Abstract
AbstractGermany, 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.
Funder
Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, Bundesforschungsinstitut für Ländliche Räume, Wald und Fischerei
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Ecology,Global and Planetary Change
Reference88 articles.
1. Ampaire EL, Jassogne L, Providence H, Acosta M, Twyman J, Winowiecki L, Van Asten P (2017) Institutional challenges to climate change adaptation: a case study on policy action gaps in Uganda. Environ Sci Policy 75:81–90
2. Ari I, Sari R (2017) Differentiation of developed and developing countries for the Paris Agreement. Energ Strat Rev 18:175–182
3. Avitabile V, Herold M, Henry M, Schmullius C (2011) Mapping biomass with remote sensing: a comparison of methods for the case study of Uganda. Carbon Balance Manage 6:7
4. Baritz R, Strich S (2000) Forests and the national greenhouse gas inventory of Germany. COST E21 Workshop. Contribution of forests and forestry to mitigate greenhouse effects. Joensuu (Finland). 28-30 Sep 2000. Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement
5. Batjes N (1997) A world dataset of derived soil properties by FAO–UNESCO soil unit for global modelling. Soil Use Manag 13:9–16