@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 = "20 maio 2024"
}