1. Experience of France for reporting under the Kyoto Protocol
Etienne MATHIAS (CITEPA)
Nicolas STACH (IFN) – Michel-Paul MOREL (SSP)
Technical workshop on LULUCF reporting issues under the Kyoto Protocol
13-14 November 2008
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

2. Plan
1. Global scheme of French LULUCF inventory 2. French reporting under the Kyoto protocol 3. Specific issues related to the Kyoto protocol 3.1. Land use monitoring Annual survey – Mainland Data treatment Remote sensing analysis – French Guiana 3.2. Reporting by region - improvements/difficulties 4. Conclusion
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

3. 1. Global scheme of the LULUCF inventory
France applies the 2003 Guidelines for LULUCF since the submission of April for the UNFCCC. The discussions on the implementation of the reporting under the Kyoto protocol have begun in the same time.
The inventory is based on land use change matrixes which represent all the possible land use changes.
For each of this land the net carbon balance is estimated for each carbon pool.
Forestland
Grassland
Cropland
Settlements
Wetlands
Other lands
Aboveground biomass
Underground biomass
Litter
Dead wood
Soil
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

4. 1. Global scheme of the LULUCF inventory
On forestland the carbon balance for living biomass is estimated thanks to the method of fluxes. The net balance is estimated by difference between the growth and the harvests.
Net carbon balance = carbon growth – carbon harvests
For the dead organic matter and the soils, a tier 1 default method is used; emissions and removals are reported when there are land use changes.
∆Carbon = Carbon before conversion - Carbon after conversion A
A=>B
B=>A
Dead organic matter
1year
20years
Soil B
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

5. 2. French reporting under the Kyoto Protocol
France chose to submit annually the estimate of the figures for the articles 3.3 and 3.4 under the Kyoto Protocol.
France elected the only Forest management option under the article 3.4.
The cap for France for this option is 0.88tC/year (3.2 tCO2/year) for the commitment period
A trial on the year 2006 within the Kyoto format was submitted to the UNFCCC for the 15th of April 2008.
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

6. 3. Specific issue related to the Kyoto Protocol
The reporting under the UNFCCC doesn’t perfectly correspond to what is demanded for the Kyoto Protocol especially on two points according to France:
Areas have to be monitored from 1990 to the end of the commitment period
The reporting must be done for smaller regions than the entire territory.
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

7. 3.1. Land use change survey
Many ways have been imagined to be able to report under the Kyoto Protocol with :
accuracy (0.5 ha of deforested forestland must be detected),
completeness (all the different land uses, forestlands, croplands, grasslands… must be considered)
representativeness (the entire territory must be covered).
France decided to use a national survey based on fixed and systematic sample plots which is named TERUTI. Since 2005, it is named TERUTI-LUCAS because of the harmonization with the other European countries within the framework of LUCAS.
In French Guiana, this survey was not available a remote sensing based study has then been implemented.
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

8. 3.1.1. TERUTI concept An annual area frame sampling survey
A two-stage systematic sampling design
PSUs (Primary Sample Unit) of 324 ha
SSUs (Secondary Sample Unit) of 9 m2
A double observation : for each SSU, the surveyor has to determine, on the spot, land cover and land use (2 nomenclatures).
land cover : wetland, broadleaved forest, wheat, roads … land use : agriculture, forestry, residential, leisure …
A location based on aerial photographs field documents used since 1962
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

9. Altogether, more than 15,500 PSUs et 555,000 SSUs visited every year
TERUTI sample
A grid of 4,700 elements
covers the whole territory
4 to 8 PSUs of 324 ha
in each grid element
36 SSUs observed
in each PSU
Altogether, more than 15,500 PSUs et 555,000 SSUs visited every year
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

10. 3.1.1 TERUTI sample The SSU represents a surface of 100 ha
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

11. 3.1.1. LULUCF nomenclature for France
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

12. 3.1.1 From TERUTI to LULUCF
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

13. LUCF matrix from 2003 to 2004
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

14. Teruti-Lucas PSUs
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

15. 3.1.2. Creation of matrixes to implement the inventory
For the UNFCCC inventory different matrixes are needed for each year of inventory to separate the land keeping the same land use and the land changing of land use:
1 Land use change matrix for a period of 20 years
1 Land use change matrix for a period of 1 year
With the Kyoto reporting another matrix is needed to separate the areas under the articles 3.3 and the 3.4:
1 Land use change matrix for the period between 1990 and the inventory submission.
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

16. 3.1.2. Creation of matrixes to implement the inventory
All those matrixes are very difficult to implement for two main reasons:
The 1 year matrixes are used especially to detect deforested areas but according to the survey it is difficult to estimate if a change is temporary or permanent.
For example when a forested area is cut for wood production it is not possible to know if there will be a land use change or if the forest will come back. The choice made by France is to consider that if the area remains more than five years without forest it is counted as deforested. A special treatment has then been applied to estimate this deforestation but it means that you can estimate the deforested areas only after five years.
There are different time series of the TERUTI database ( ; ; 2005-…)
the differences are some definitions of categories, a different number of sample plots and different places of plots. Consequently, it is not possible to have the monitoring of one plot from 1970 to today. Treatments are then needed to build the 20 year matrixes
To make consistent the different time series of TERUTI.
To estimates all the changes during the period.
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

17. 3.1.3. Case of the French Guiana
TERUTI doesn’t cover the entire territory, and especially not the department of French Guiana which is essentially covered by rainforest. Moreover there is currently no forest inventory in this area.
2 specific studies have then been implemented within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol
1 study to estimate the area deforested
1 study to estimate the biomass released with this deforestation.
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

18. 3.1.3 Context : French Guiana
French overseas “Department” ~ km²
Cayenne
Brazil
Surinam
Oyapock
Maroni
Managed forest
National Park
Petit Saut
Human activity concentrated in a narrow coastal strip and along main rivers
French Guiana forest
~ km² of tropical forest ~ 95% of the total territory ~ 1/3 of total French forest (including mainland)
Deforestation causes in French Guiana
Traditional shifting cultivation: Small individual areas (0.3 to 1 ha)
Extension of modern agriculture
Gold mining: Small individual areas - Legal or illegal – About ha since Along streams and rivers
Petit Saut dam: Hydroelectricity – reservoir about ha, Dam filling in 1994
Limited deforestation concerning small parcels : a challenge for monitoring
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

19. 3.1.3. French Guiana and Kyoto protocol
Specific constraints in French Guiana
France is the only Annex 1 country with tropical forests
No preexisting systematic and exhaustive land use survey
Very recent and partial Land use inventory from the Ministry of agriculture (TERUTI LUCAS)
French NFI permanent inventory of forest resources is limited to mainland France
Impossibility to carry out a systematic ground based survey
No exhaustive Aerial photography mission
Important cloud cover
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

20. 3.1.3. Satellite Data : LANDSAT 1990
7 Images from Global Landcover Facility (GLCF – Uni. Maryland)
+ 1 image USGS
All Images around 1990
From 1986 to 1992
62% of the territory covered by images
Mean acquisition date October 1989
Landsat images georeferenced again using SPOT orthos as references
24 to 49 tie points between each Landsat scene and the corresponding SPOT images
Bilinear model between Landsat Coordinates and SPOT Coordinates
Geometric accuracy from 19 to 27 meters
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

21. 3.1.3. SEAS-Guyane Multiple partner Project leaded by IRD
Technologic platform for acquisition and processing of High resolution satellite data (SPOT et ENVISAT)
2005: Installation of a new SPOT/ ENVISAT Ground Receiving Station in Cayenne
The Antenna
The receiving area
Dramatic Increase of SPOT image acquisition capacities over the region
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

22. 3.1.3. Annex SPOT Receiving station Network 13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

23. 3.1.3. Partenaires Inventaire Forestier National IGN Espace
Porteur du projet / Photo-interprétation / Articulation avec inventaire Kyoto / Appui méthodologique et technique au traitement d’image
IGN Espace
Spatiotriangulation, géoréférencement
IRD Unité Espace
Acquisition et Traitement des images
Transfert local (résultats et applications)
Cemagref UMR TETIS
Appui scientifique (traitement d’images et protocole de Kyoto)
ONF Direction régionale Guyane
Expertise forestière locale / Aide à la stratification
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

24. Satellite Data : SPOT 2006
Several thousands SPOT scenes acquired at the Cayenne Ground station during 2006
SPOT 5
SPOT 4
SPOT 2
Cloud cover < 75 %
Cloud cover < 25 %
Cloud cover < 10 %
Selection of 2 to 7 images per frame (depending on the cloud coverage)
65 SPOT 2 20m multispectral
63 SPOT 4 20m multispectral
47 SPOT 5 10m multispectral
Mean acquisition date : September 2006
11/03/08
Assessment of forest cover changes in French Guiana using satellite imagery

25. 3.1.3. Definition of the strata
Sources : ONF
levés terrain lors de missions aéroportées
exploitation légale et clandestine
Sources : ONF
DIREN
Source: ARUAG
Source: DAF 2005
Source : Agence Régionale d’Urbanisme et d’Aménagement de la Guyane (ARUAG) 2003
Source: ONF
Source: ONF
Source: ONF
ONF GIS analysis on existing information
Roads
Agriculture
Human settlements
Cities
Urban areas
Gold mining
Maroni villages
Camopi & 3 Sauts Villages
2km Buffer
→ Strata R definition
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

26. Sample points distance
Sampling design
Localization of the 3 strata
Systematic/random grid
Square grid m between points
Random origin and inclination
Sample definition
Strata R : All Grid points
Strata P : All Grid points
Strata N : sub-sample 1 point out of 9
Strata
Total Area
Sampling type
Sample size
Sample points distance N
Normal
973
8388 P
Reinforced
2453
932 R
13360
Permanent sampling : same sample in 1990 and 2006
Good estimation of Land Use areas AND Land Use Changes
11/03/08
Assessment of forest cover changes in French Guiana using satellite imagery

27. 3.1.3. Photo interpretation Shifting Cultivation Gold mining
Landsat 5 TM GLCF
SPOT – © CNES
SPOT – © CNES
Landsat 5 TM GLCF
Petit Saut Reservoir
Agriculture extension
SPOT – © CNES
Landsat 5 TM GLCF
Landsat 5 TM GLCF
SPOT – © CNES
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

28. 3.1.3. Results: Land uses 1990 & 2006 Land use 1990 / 2006
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

29. 42 050 ha (standard error 4%) 2 486 ha/year
Results
Analysis forest changes in French Guyana
Total forest / non forest conversion: ha – standard error 12 %
3 181 ha ha ha ha ha ha
5 000 ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Usual deforestation
Punctual event std. err. 4%
Natural changes
St. err. 67%
ha (standard error 4%) ha/year
Forest 1990 / Gold mining 2006
Forest 1990 /
Other settlements 2006
Forest 1990 / Croplands 2006
Forest 1990 / Other Land uses 2006
Forest 1990 / P. Saut Reservoir 2006
Mangrove 1990 / sea 2006
0 ha
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

30. 3.1.3. Emission factors ONF / CIRAD/ CNRS Dendrometric expertise
Dispositifs
Biomasse épigée totale des arbres de plus de 10cm
> Volume sur écorce, densité, facteurs d’expansion
> Terre ferme 350 T/ha ± 25 > Marécages 290 T/ha ± 30
• Autres compartiments - étude bibliographique :
> Biomasse épigée vivante autre que les arbres > 10 cm : à 30 T/ha ;
> Biomasse épigée morte (litière et bois mort) : à 40 T/ha ;
> Matière organique du sol : à 100 TC/ha
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

31. 3.2. Reporting by regions
In the framework of the Kyoto protocol, France has to report by smaller geographical units than the entire country. The administrative level of the regions has been chosen for this reporting which means that 26 results are reported for the LULUCF sector for the 26 different regions (with oversea territories).
It has been an opportunity to take more specific parameters
Many parameters and data don’t exist with this accuracy and must be estimated
It represents a lot of work.
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

32. 3.2. An opportunity for improvements
One of the base of the LULUCF inventory is the cross between the land use data (TERUTI) and the Forest inventory data (IFN), the results of land use survey can perfectly be given by region the result for
=> France is the sum of the regional data, of course the accuracy is lower when we just look at the regional level, but it doesn’t change anything for the total.
The IFN was able to provide data of growth and carbon stocks by super regions (5 super regions in France).
=> This changes a lot the results compared to the previous submission to the UNFCCC and should improve the relevancy of the result.
The data for soils were also improved with updated data by region for each type of land use.
=> This changes the results too.
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

33. 3.2. Estimation of unknown regional parameters
The harvests are well known by department (smaller geographical units than regions) except for fuel wood, the national consumption of wood fuel is estimated thanks to the energy data to not forget non commercial consumption. But this data is not available by region each year. Moreover it is very difficult to estimate the transport of fuel wood between regions.
=> For the last test submission we considered that there is no transport of fuel wood between regions but inconsistencies can appear and corrections could be necessary.
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

34. 4. Conclusion on the submission within the Kyoto format
This regional reporting demands a lot of work but has been an opportunity to look for more accurate data. It is difficult to estimate the relevancy at the level of the region but French local actors feel really more concerned with this level of result.
The monitoring of the surfaces remains a very difficult issue especially to have time and geographical consistency (especially because the Kyoto Protocol put the stress on afforested and deforested areas which are very small areas compared to the lands without change)
No big trouble was met with the filling of the new reporting tables.
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF

35. 4. Conclusion on the submission within the Kyoto format
France was very involved to estimate the balance of the article 3.3, and the first estimate for the year 2006 gave a net sink of tons of carbon which means clearly nothing according to the level of uncertainty (impossible to know whether the future balance will be positive or negative).
If the trends and the methodology were completely stable we could assume that the balance would be positive for the commitment period but it is currently not the case.
It is very difficult to communicate with these different estimates under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, for example because the afforested areas in the Kyoto Protocol (since 1990) are not the same than in the Convention reporting (for 20 years).
The future French submissions for the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol should be completely harmonized and consistent but there is no way to check this consistency.
13-14 November 2008
JRC - LULUCF