Presented by Zuelclady M.F Araujo Gutierrez from IDOM, at Online Workshop Capacity Building on the IPCC 2013 Wetlands Supplement, FREL Diagnostic and Uncertainty Analysis, 20-22 September 2021

1. Diagnostic of how the submitted FREL could be
improved to better align with the TACCC
principles, using Indonesia as an example
(Session 6)
PhD. Zuelclady Araujo
Zuelclady.Araujo@idom.com

2. Summary of key points
• Submission of a technical annex to the BUR on results-based actions
relating to REDD+ is voluntary and in the context of results-based
payments;
• Data and information on REDD+ can be reported to the UNFCCC for
technical analysis in the context of results-based payments through the
voluntary submission of a REDD-plus technical annex to the BUR;
• MRV of anthropogenic forest-related emissions by sources and removals
by sinks, forest carbon stocks, and forest carbon stock and forest-area
changes is to be consistent with the methodological guidance provided
in decision 4/CP.15, and any guidance on the MRV of nationally
appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) by developing country Parties
as agreed by the COP.
• The data and information used by Parties should be transparent, and
consistent over time and with the established forest reference emission
levels and/or forest reference levels (FREL/FRL);

3. Summary of key points
• The figures and approaches presented in the REDD-plus technical annex
may differ from those used in the GHG inventory or NAMAs, such as in
scope and geographical extent. For transparency these differences
should be described in the REDD-plus technical annex;
• Two LULUCF experts from the UNFCCC roster of experts, one each from
a developing country and a developed country Party, will be included
among the members selected for the TTE for the technical analysis of
results-based actions reported in the technical annex to the BUR;
• The technical report produced by the two LULUCF experts will be made
available on the UNFCCC REDD web platform

4. Key questions
• Is summary information on the FREL/FRL presented in the technical annex consistent with assumptions
contained in the final FREL/FRL assessment report for each corresponding assessed FREL/FRL?
• Are there any discrepancies in values, methodologies, starting or ending years or any other substantial
change between the most recent, final assessment report of the FREL/FRL and the summary
information on the FREL/FRL presented in the REDD-plus technical annex?
• If so, have sound explanations on possible discrepancies been provided?
• Is the assessed FREL/FRL expressed in tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year?
• Are the REDD-plus activities or activities for which results have been reported in the technical annex
included in the assessed FREL/FRL?
• Is the territorial forest area covered clearly identified in the technical annex?
• Is the definition of forest used in constructing the reference level defined and consistent with the
definition of forest used by the Party in the BUR?
• Is the date of the FREL/FRL submission and the date of its final technical assessment report included in
the technical annex?
• Is the period (in years) of the assessed FREL/FRL included in the technical annex?
• Are the methodologies used to produce the results reported in the technical annex consistent with
those used to establish the assessed FREL/FRL?
• Does the technical annex include a description of NFMS?
• Does the technical annex include a description of the institutional roles and responsibilities for
measuring, reporting and verifying the results?

5. Examples (2)
Dasometric information from the National Forest assessments for mangrove forest
was not considered for the FREL due to the high error associated with the
corresponding emission factors, which arose because their values were derived from
measurements taken at only two sample plots. Country X consider mangrove as wet
broadleaved forest
Transparency Comparability
Consistency Completeness Accuracy

6. Examples (2)
Dasometric information from the national forest assessments for mangrove forest
was not considered for the FREL due to the high error associated with the
corresponding emission factors, which arose because their values were derived from
measurements taken at only two sample plots. Country X consider mangrove as wet
broadleaved forest
• Country X included mangrove forest as an independent stratum for which
specific emission factors were derived. Specifically, information on above-
ground and below-ground biomass was taken from a subnational study that
analyzed the organic carbon in mangroves, while information from the
national forest inventory of Country Y was used to derive emission factors for
the other carbon pools.
Transparency Comparability
Consistency Completeness Accuracy
• Include this category as a different stratum, in order to increase the overall
accuracy and transparency of the FREL.
• Even uncertainty for this category increase.

7. Examples (3)
Country X has not considered the carbon stocks corresponding to the land use after
deforestation takes place (that is, that the post-deforestation carbon stocks equal
zero).
Transparency Comparability
Consistency Completeness Accuracy

8. Examples (3)
Overestimating emissions from deforestation. Country X has not considered the
carbon stocks corresponding to the land use after deforestation takes place (that is,
that the post-deforestation carbon stocks equal zero). This has been due to a lack of
data on post-deforestation land uses and due to lack of carbon stock values for the
specific post-deforestation land use.
• Using the average carbon stocks of a variety of crops associated to post-
deforestation land uses.
• Using default values from the IPCC as an interim solution to enhance the
accuracy of the FREL/FRL.
• Using default values for annual and perennial crops.
Transparency Comparability
Consistency Completeness Accuracy

9. Examples (4)
The uncertainty of the emission factor for forest plantations in is only 1.44 per cent,
while that for Rainforest X is 32 per cent. Country X did not provide detailed
information on the methods used to estimate the uncertainty of the emission factors.
Transparency Comparability
Consistency Completeness Accuracy

10. Examples (4)
The uncertainty of the emission factor for forest plantations in mainland Country X is
only 1.44 per cent, while that for Rainforest X is 32 per cent. Country X did not
provide detailed information on the methods used to estimate the uncertainty of the
emission factors.
• Provide transparent information on the methods used to estimate
uncertainty.
• Include quantitative uncertainty data on all potential sources of error,
including emission factors, activity data and the FREL/FRL itself.
• Uncertainty analysis shall include all potential sources of error.
Transparency Comparability
Consistency Completeness Accuracy

11. Examples (5)
Forest fire emissions represent the 23% of the AFOLU sector for the Country X in the
GHGI, this emission were not included in the FREL. The main reason for such
exclusion has been the lack of sufficient reliable data to integrate them into the
FREL/FRL, or even to determine their significance.
Transparency Comparability
Consistency Completeness Accuracy

12. Examples (5)
• The countries should include the reasons for omitting a pool and/or activity
from the construction of FREL/FRL.
• Establishment of justification of the omitted activities.
• Include, subject to its capabilities and national circumstances, emissions
from deforestation and forest degradation, if any, in future FREL
submissions.
Transparency Comparability
Consistency Completeness Accuracy
Forest fire emissions represent the 23% of the AFOLU sector for the Country X in the
GHGI, this emission were not included in the FREL. The main reason for such
exclusion has been the lack of sufficient reliable data to integrate them into the
FREL/FRL, or even to determine their significance.

13. Indonesian FREL
• Data and information are transparent and complete.
• Natural forests in the entire national territory.
• The FREL covers the activities:
• Reducing emissions from deforestation.
• Reducing emissions from forest degradation.
• FREL based on average historical emissions from 1990 to 2012.
• Pools:
• AB is included for all strata.
• SOC is included only for deforestation and forest degradation occurring
on peatlands.
• BB, DW and SOC could not be included in calculations because the
necessary data were unavailable.

14. Areas of technical improvement
• The use of emission factors from the Wetlands Supplement are intended to
be applied only to “drained organic soils”, the FREL does not distinguish areas
with and without drainage.
Good practice to document the process and the reason we decide to take this
approach as our best.
Good practice to recognize the lack of data, nevertheless, we can include a
description of the activities that we want to develop to improve the next
FREL/BUR.
• Activity data covers time periods of up to six years. The emission factors from
the Wetlands Supplement describe annual emissions for land use types.
It is important to use the same units in this case to have the EF and the AD in
an annual basis to reduce the bias.

15. Areas of technical improvement
• Forest definition
• FREL: six natural forest classes
• GHGI: includes information about plantation forests
In case that we are going to use a different definition of forest, it is a good
practice to document the new definition and explain why we are using different
definitions.
In case it is possible, the challenge would be to use the same forest definition,
this is important in terms of consistency.

16. Areas of technical improvement
• Broadening of the scope of the uncertainty analysis to cover further potential
sources of error and differentiating between land-cover classes with regard
to emission factors and activity data.
It is a good practice to estimate the uncertainties for each of the different
elements that we use for the GHG estimations, this mean: activity data,
emission factors, etc.…
The scope of the uncertainty analysis should cover all potential sources of
error and differentiating between land-cover classes with regard to emission
factors and activity data, as an area for technical improvement.

17. Areas of technical improvement
• The carbon pools included in the FREL are aboveground biomass and soil
organic carbon.
• Aboveground biomass is included for all strata,
• Soil organic carbon is included only for deforestation or forest degradation occurring on
peatlands.
• Belowground biomass, litter and deadwood are not included.
• Soil organic carbon is only included on peatlands.
According to decision 12/CP.17, annex, subparagraph (c), reasons for omitting a
pool and/or activity from the construction of the FREL should be provided,
noting that significant pools and/or activities should not be excluded.
It possible to use default IPCC data base when the national parameters are not
available or underdevelopment.

18. Concluding Remarks
Conclusions
It is important to document all the information
Justifications
Assumptions
Improvement plans
Reasons for including or not information.
Work with the best available information
Default IPCC data
High uncertainties.
Include all sources, sinks and pools.
Identify the next steps to improve
continuous improvement cycle.

19. Thank you
PhD. Zuelclady Araujo
Zuelclady.Araujo@idom.com
www.idom.com