Swiss KP-LULUCF Reporting In meinem Beitrag heute werde ich über die Anrechnung des LULUCF-Sektors unter dem KP berichten LULUC -> Beat F -> Das F steht für FORESTRY; „Bilanz Wald“ beleuchten ! Nele Rogiers Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, Forest Division

Swiss Init. Report: Forest Management = productive + unproductive forest Tree species Area kha Data Productive forest Picea abies, Fagus sylvatica 1240 NFI Unproductive forest Alnus viridis, Pinus Mugo 95 Case studies Gains = losses = 0 The activity FM takes place on the whole Swiss Forest area. This Swiss Forest area is devided in productive and unproductive forest. Definition from LFI/NIR CC13 = unzugänglicher Wald Picea abies: norway spruce Fagus sylvatica= beech Alnus viridis: green alder Pinus Mugo: mountain pine

Unproductive forest: carbon stocks? C living biomass scarce information on stocks: data available on geographical extension (increase); no repeated measurements NFI to calculated gross growth and cut&mortality C dead wood, litter and SOC: yasso applicable? ERT: However, some of the assumptions used still require further justification; for example, by providing the references to published literature (e.g. the assumptions concerning the carbon stock changes in unproductive forests and the average growing stock of these forests can be supported by literature instead of being based on expert judgement). -> provide references to support the assumptions -> incorporate additional information on the scientific justification for the basic assumptions - Area of productive and unproductive forest - Unproductive forest= not accessable, non-productive

Living Biomass: gains & losses Untill NIR 2012: application of BCEF x BCEF Volumen * Umwandlungsfaktor = Biomasse TOTAL Die Methode zur Berechnung von Zuwachs und Abgang wurde revidiert BCEF rechnet aus Vorrat in Schaftholz (Volumen) der Vorrat in Biomasse (kg C) für den ganzen Baum, inklusive Wurzel, Blätter, kleine Äste, .. Summe (Vorrat in Biomasse) / Summe (Vorrat in Schaftholz) 30 verschiedene BCEFs für Schweiz (Prodreg, H.ü.M.,Nadel/Laub): 15 räumliche Straten (5 ProdReg * 3 Höhenstufen) * Laubholz/Nadelholz kein Unterschied BCEF_Zuwachs, BCEF_Abgang -> dies wurde im Expert Peer Review von der UNO bemängelt Zuwachs und Abgänge [Schaftholz] * BCEF = Zuwachs und Abgänge [Biomasse] BCEF: Biomass Conversion and Expansion Factor Aggregation at the beginning: 30 BCEFs for Switzerland BCEFgains = BCEFlosses

Living Biomass: gains & losses From NIR2013: individual trees gross growth and cut&moratlity in biomas per individual tree Biomass 2 - Biomass 1 = Spezifische allometrische Funktionen zur Schätzung der Einzelbaum- Biomasse Anwendung BHD-bezogener Funktionen auf repräsentative BHD-Verteilung Zuwachs & Abgänge berechnet aus Differenz der Biomasse zu 2 Zeitpunkten (1 und 2) Keine Verwendung von Faktoren (BCEFs) Aggregation erst zur Generierung der Resultate 7.3.4.4 Estimation of Growing Stock, Gains and Losses in Biomass The biomass of all tree compartments (stem-wood over bark including stock, coarse and small branches, needles/leaves, and roots) were estimated based on established allometries to tree-dimensions (Table 7-17; Thürig and Herold 2013). Estimates for branches, foliage and roots were derived from tree diameter at breast height (DBH). For stem-wood over bark including stock, additionally, diameter at tree height 7 m (D7) and total tree height were required. Except for roots, the biomass functions were empirically derived from a large number of single-tree data from Swiss forest sites (see references in Table 7-17). The biomass of all individual trees was calculated and, in a second step, single-tree estimates of gains and losses were obtained as the difference in biomass between subsequent NFIs (Thürig and Herold 2013). Estimates of biomass based on established allometries to tree-dimensions; no BCEFs Aggregation at the end to generate results per region

Living Biomass: gains & losses ALB 30 Root-Shoot-Ratios BLB

Use of „included elsewhere“ ? Above and below ground biomass Yasso-Output In our view, the reporting is complete, the reviewer argues with „comparibility“ and „transparancy“ -> when is „IE“ allowed ?