Search

This report provides a complete methodological description and background information of the Dutch National System for Greenhouse gas reporting of the LULUCF sector. It provides detailed description of the methodologies, activity data and emission factors that were used. Each of the reporting categories Forest Land, Cropland, Grassland, Wetlands, Settlements, Other land and Harvested Wood Products are described in a separate chapter. Additionally it gives a table-by-table elaboration of the choices and motivations for filling the CRF tables for KP-LULUCF Dit rapport geeft de methodologische achtergrondinformatie die gebruikt wordt binnen het nationale systeem om de broeikasgasemissies voor de LULUCF (landgebruik en bosbouw) sector te berekenen zoals die aan de VN Klimaatconventie (UNFCCC) en het Kyoto Protocol (KP) worden gerapporteerd. Het rapport geeft gedetailleerde beschrijvingen van de gehanteerde methodologie, gebruikte activiteitendata en emissiefactoren. De te rapporteren categorieën Bos (Forest land), Bouwland (Cropland), Grasland (Grassland), Wetlands, Bebouwd gebied (Settlements), Ander land, en geoogste houtproducten worden per hoofdstuk beschreven. Daarnaast worden in een apart hoofdstuk de gebruikte aggregatiestappen gegeven om tot de berekeningen voor het Kyoto Protocol te komen en worden voor iedere KP-LULUCF-CRF-tabel de gemaakte keuzes om de tabel te vullen, beschreven en gemotiveerd

11 páginas, 3 figuras, 3 tablas., Central to the EU thematic strategy for soil protection is that areas affected by soil degradation through erosion, soil organic matter (SOM) decline, compaction, salinization and landslides should be identified in a clear and consistent way. However, the current methodologies to achieve this often differ and this can result in different perceptions of risks amongst EU Member States. The aims of this paper are to: (i) assess the current status of assessment methodologies in Europe (EU27) associated with erosion, SOM decline, compaction, salinization and landslides and (ii) discuss the issues associated with harmonization of these methodologies throughout the EU27. The need for harmonization is assessed using the relative share of common elements between different methodologies. The results demonstrate that the need for harmonization in methodology is greatest for erosion and compaction and least for SOM decline and landslides. However, many of the methodologies which were investigated are still incomplete and there are significant differences in terms of: (i) understanding the threats, (ii) methods of data collection, (iii) processing and interpretation and (iv) risk perception. We propose two options for the harmonized assessment of soil threats: (i) a two-tiered approach based on data availability and spatial scale and (ii) a combination of standardization and harmonization for each assessment methodology. Future assessments should focus on the advantages and disadvantages of these options as the current situation will result in endless discussions on differences and the merits of particular methodologies instead of taking appropriate measures to reduce or eliminate the actual threats., This study was part of the RAMSOIL project on harmonization of RAMs for soil threats. The RAMSOIL project was co-funded by the European Commission, DG Research, within the sixth Framework Programme of RTD (Priority 8 – Specific Support to Policies, contract no. 44240). The views and opinions expressed in this publication are purely those of the writers and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.