@Article{HeinrichHGHHGCRZSMHSA:2023:ReTrFo,
author = "Heinrich, Viola and House, Jo and Gibbs, David A. and Harris,
Nancy and Herold, Martin and Grassi, Giacomo and Cantinho, Roberta
and Rosan, Thais M. and Zimbres, Barbara and Shimbo, Julia Z. and
Melo, Joana and Hales, Tristram and Sitch, Stephen and
Arag{\~a}o, Luiz Eduardo Oliveira e Cruz de",
affiliation = "{University of Bristol} and {University of Bristol} and {World
Resources Institute} and {World Resources Institute} and
{Helmholtz GFZ German Research Centre of Geosciences} and
{European Commission} and {Universidade de Bras{\'{\i}}lia
(UnB)} and {University of Exeter} and {Amazon Environmental
Research Institute (IPAM)} and {Amazon Environmental Research
Institute (IPAM)} and {European Commission} and {Cardiff
University} and {University of Exeter} and {Instituto Nacional de
Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE)}",
title = "Mind the gap: reconciling tropical forest carbon flux estimates
from earth observation and national reporting requires
transparency",
journal = "Carbon Balance and Management",
year = "2023",
volume = "18",
number = "1",
pages = "e22",
month = "Dec.",
keywords = "Carbon budget, CO2 flux, Earth observation, Forests, Inventories,
LULUCF, Managed land proxy, Removal factors, Transparency.",
abstract = "Background: The application of different approaches calculating
the anthropogenic carbon net flux from land, leads to estimates
that vary considerably. One reason for these variations is the
extent to which approaches consider forest land to be managed by
humans, and thus contributing to the net anthropogenic flux.
Global Earth Observation (EO) datasets characterising
spatio-temporal changes in land cover and carbon stocks provide an
independent and consistent approach to estimate forest carbon
fluxes. These can be compared against results reported in National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories (NGHGIs) to support accurate and timely
measuring, reporting and verification (MRV). Using Brazil as a
primary case study, with additional analysis in Indonesia and
Malaysia, we compare a Global EO-based dataset of forest carbon
fluxes to results reported in NGHGIs. Results: Between 2001 and
2020, the EO-derived estimates of all forest-related emissions and
removals indicate that Brazil was a net sink of carbon (\−
0.2 GtCO2yr\−1), while Brazils NGHGI reported a net carbon
source (+ 0.8 GtCO2yr\−1). After adjusting the EO estimate
to use the Brazilian NGHGI definition of managed forest and other
assumptions used in the inventorys methodology, the EO net flux
became a source of + 0.6 GtCO2yr\−1, comparable to the
NGHGI. Remaining discrepancies are due largely to differing carbon
removal factors and forest types applied in the two datasets. In
Indonesia, the EO and NGHGI net flux estimates were similar (+ 0.6
GtCO2 yr\−1), but in Malaysia, they differed in both
magnitude and sign (NGHGI: -0.2 GtCO2 yr\−1; Global EO: +
0.2 GtCO2 yr\−1). Spatially explicit datasets on forest
types were not publicly available for analysis from either NGHGI,
limiting the possibility of detailed adjustments. Conclusions: By
adjusting the EO dataset to improve comparability with carbon
fluxes estimated for managed forests in the Brazilian NGHGI,
initially diverging estimates were largely reconciled and
remaining differences can be explained. Despite limited spatial
data available for Indonesia and Malaysia, our comparison
indicated specific aspects where differing approaches may explain
divergence, including uncertainties and inaccuracies. Our study
highlights the importance of enhanced transparency, as set out by
the Paris Agreement, to enable alignment between different
approaches for independent measuring and verification.",
doi = "10.1186/s13021-023-00240-2",
url = "http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13021-023-00240-2",
issn = "1750-0680",
language = "en",
targetfile = "s13021-023-00240-2.pdf",
urlaccessdate = "03 jun. 2024"
}