Please note that this forum is no longer in use and has been replaced by an online contact us form.

Be assured that the information service rendered by the EEA remains similar. Note that the content of this forum will remain publicly available until the end of 2020. After that we will archive it for internal use for a max retention period of 3 years. Any personal data will be deleted after this retention period.

With kind regards,
EEA Enquiry Service

Please login to participate.
CITA Nov 28, 2011 12:03 PM
I'm trying to understand the difference between the LULUCF data reported by the EEA, and that reported by the UNFCCC website. For example, the former reports a net carbon sink from Spanish Forestry of -49Gg of CO2, whilst the latter reports -29Gg. There must be a key accounting difference but I can't find any documentation outlining what that might be. Any ideas?
Replies (7)
CITA Nov 28, 2011 12:42 PM
To clarify: Using the online "EEA greenhouse gas data viewer" I get roughly the same values as the UNFCCC website, but when looking at the datasets downloaded here ([…]eenhouse-gas-inventory-2010) the numbers are much bigger. What I would like to understand is the cause of the discrepancy between what is shown online and what is written in the downloadable tables. Thanks.
EEA Nov 30, 2011 03:34 PM
Dear Cita, thank you for your question. You are looking at the GreenHouse Gas inventory on the EEA website of 2010 instead of the GHG inventory of 2011. You can find the right link to this year's GHG here:[…]enhouse-gas-inventory-2011.
CITA Nov 30, 2011 03:40 PM
Thanks very much for your reply. My team had based some work on the 2010 figures, do you have any idea why the number for the net carbon sink was later revised down so significantly? I can't find an explanation in any of the documentation. Many thanks.
EEA Dec 12, 2011 11:52 AM
Dear Cita, countries can revise past data in line with UNFCCC/IPCC Guidelines, but revisions can also be triggered by international reviews under UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. We suggest that you contact JRC with your question, as JRC is formally responsible for the LULUCF sector in the EU’s GHG inventory to UNFCCC. You can pose your question on their forum:
In the meantime, we will also forward your question to them.
EEA Dec 16, 2011 04:39 PM
Dear Cita, in the meantime, I contacted JRC with your question and this is the reply they sent me:
"EU member states recalculate often their GHG inventory following internal checks, EU QA/QC procedures and UNFCCC reviews. Just to mention that errors are possible because of the very complex spread sheets for LULUCF, involving simultaneous estimations for 5 carbon pools (further complicated by pools increase + decrease), as well as several CO2/non-CO2 sources on six land categories (further more complicated by selective accounting of land activities under KP).
Submissions due in 2010 and 2011 were particularly important as the nationals systems had to prove their performance according KP requirements, which are more stringent than reporting the national GHG inventory, so many national systems improved significantly. These improvements resulted in recalculations for many EU member states, including for Spain. In fact Spain identified an error related to biomass change on forestland, whose correction led to halving of the annual sink for the entire time series since 1990. The reason for recalculation is shown in Spain's NIR 2011 (in Spanish), chapter 10, pg. 509."
We hope this answer was helpful to you.
CITA Dec 26, 2011 11:21 PM
Incredibly helpful. Thank you very much for providing help with this issue. A quite remarkable service!
vinesoul9 Mar 02, 2020 10:54 PM
What I would like to apprehend is the cause of the discrepancy among what's proven on-line and what is written within the downloadable tables from .