You are on page 1of 122


Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Hands-on Training Workshop


 Introduction
 IPCC 1996GL (Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories) and GPG2000 (Good Practice
Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories)
 Reporting framework
 Key source category analysis and decision trees
 Tier structure, selection and criteria
 Review of problems
 Methodological issues
 Activity data
 Emission factors
 IPCC 1996GL category-wise assessment and GPG2000 options
 Examination and assessment of activity data and emission
factors: data status and options
 Uncertainty estimation and reduction

 COP2 adopted guidelines for preparation of initial national
communications (decision 10/CP.2)
 IPCC guidelines used by 106 NAI Parties to prepare national
 New UNFCCC guidelines adopted at COP8 (decision 17/CP.8)
provided improved guidelines for preparing GHG inventory
 UNFCCC User Manual for guidelines on national communications
to assist NAI Parties in using latest UNFCCC guidelines
 Review and synthesis reports of NAI inventories highlighted
several difficulties and limitations of using IPCC 1996GL
 GPG2000 addressed some of the limitations and provided
guidelines in order to reduce uncertainties

Purpose of this Handbook
 GHG inventories are mostly biological sectors, such as Waste,
and characterized by:
 methodological limitations

 lack of data or low reliability of existing data

 high uncertainty

 This handbook aims at assisting NAI Parties in preparing GHG

inventories using the IPCC 1996GL, particularly in the context
of UNFCCC decision 17/CP.8, focusing on:
 the need to shift to GPG2000 and higher tiers/methods to
reduce uncertainty
 complete overview of the tools and methods

 use of IPCC inventory software and EFDB

 review of AD and EF and options to reduce uncertainty

 use of key sources, methodologies and decision trees

Target groups

 NAI inventory experts

 National GHG inventory focal points

NAI country examples
 Review of national communications: Argentina,
Colombia, Chile , Cuba and Panama
 GHG inventories show that the Waste sector
may be significant in NAI countries
 Commonly a significant source of CH4
 In some cases a significant source of N2O
 Solid waste disposal sites (SWDS) frequently a
key source of CH4 emissions

 Waste emissions – Includes GHG emissions
resulting from waste management activities
(solid and liquid waste management,
excepting CO2 from organic matter
incinerated and/or used for energy
 Source – Any process or activity that
releases a GHG (such as CO2, N2O, CH4)
into the atmosphere.

Definitions (2)
 Activity Data – Data on the magnitude of human
activity, resulting in emissions during a given
period of time (e.g. data on waste quantity,
management systems and incinerated waste).
 Emission Factor – A coefficient that relates
activity data to the amount of chemical
compound that is the source of later emissions.
Emission factors are often based on a sample of
measurement data, averaged to develop a
representative rate of emission for a given
activity level under a given set of operating
IPCC 1996GL and

Approach and steps

Emissions from waste
 Decomposition of organic matter in wastes
(carbon and nitrogen)
 Waste incineration (these emissions are not
reported when waste is used to generate

Decomposition of waste
 Anaerobic decomposition of man-made waste by
methanogenic bacteria
 Solid waste
 Land disposal sites
 Liquid waste
 Human sewage
 Industrial waste water
 Nitrous oxide emissions from waste water are
also produced from protein decomposition

Land disposal sites
 Major form of solid waste disposal in
developed world
 Produces mainly methane at a diminishing
rate taking many years for waste to
decompose completely
 Also carbon dioxide and volatile organic
compounds produced
 Carbon dioxide from biomass not accounted
or reported elsewhere

Decomposition process
 Organic matter into small soluble molecules
(including sugars)
 Broken down to hydrogen, carbon dioxide
and different acids
 Acids are converted to acetic acid
 Acetic acid with hydrogen and carbon
dioxide are substrate for methanogenic

Methane from land
 Volumes
 Estimates from landfills: 20–70 Tg/yr
 Total human methane emissions: 360 Tg/yr
 From 6% to 20% of total
 Other impacts
 Vegetation damage
 Odours
 May form explosive mixtures

Characteristics of the
methanogenic process

 Highly heterogeneous
 However, relevant factors to consider:
 Waste management practices
 Waste composition
 Physical factors

Waste management
 Aerobic waste treatment
 Produces compost that may increase soil carbon
 No methane
 Open dumping
 Common in developing regions
 Shallow, open piles, loosely compacted
 No control for pollutants, scavenging frequent
 Anecdotal evidence of methane production
 An arbitrary factor, 50% of sanitary land filling, is

Waste management
practices (II)

 Sanitary landfills
 Specially designed
 Gas and leakage control

 Scale economy

 Continued methane production

Waste composition
 Degradable organic matter can vary
 Highly putrescible in developing countries
 In developed countries, due to higher paper
and card content, less putrescible
 This affects stabilization and methane
 Developing countries: 10–15 years
 Developed countries: more than 20 years

Physical factors
 Moisture essential for bacterial metabolism
 Factors: initial moisture content, infiltration
from surface and groundwater, as well as
decomposition processes
 Temperature: 25–40°C required for a good
methane production

Physical factors (II)
 Chemical conditions
 Optimal pH for methane production: 6.8 to 7.2
 Sharp decrease of methane production below 6.5 pH
 Acidity may delay the onset of methane production
 Conclusion
 Data availability is too poor to use these factors for
national or global methane emissions estimates

Methane emissions

 Depend on several factors

 Open dumps require other approaches
 Availability and quality of relevant data

Waste-water treatment

 Produces methane, nitrous oxide and non-

methane volatile organic compounds
 May lead to storage of carbon through

Methane emissions from
waste-water treatment
 From anaerobic processes without methane
 Volumes
 30–40 Tg/yr
 About 8%–11% of anthropogenic methane
 Industrial emissions estimated at 26–40 Tg/yr
 Domestic and commercial estimated at 2 Tg/yr

Factors for methane
 Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) (+/+)
 Temperature ( >15°C)
 Retention time
 Lagoon maintenance
 Depth of lagoon ( >2.5 m, pure anaerobic; less
than 1 m, not expected to be significant, most
common facultative 1.2 to 2.5 m – 20% to 30%
BOD anaerobically)

Biochemical oxygen
 Is the organic content of waste water
 Represents O consumed by waste water
during decomposition (expressed in mg/l)
 Standardized measurement is the “5-day
test” denoted as BOD5
 Examples of BOD5:
 Municipal waste water 110–400 mg/l
 Food processing 10 000–100 000 mg/l

Main industrial sources

 Food processing:
 Processing plants (fruit, sugar, meat, etc.)
 Creameries
 Breweries
 Others
 Pulp and paper

Waste incineration
 Waste incineration can produce:
 Carbon dioxide, methane, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, nitrous oxides
and non-methane volatile organic
 Nevertheless, it accounts for a small
percentage of GHG output from the waste

Emissions from waste
 Only the fossil-based portion of waste to
be considered for carbon dioxide
 Other gases difficult to estimate
 Nitrous oxide mainly from sludge

 Basis of inventory methodology for waste sector
 Organic matter decomposition
 Incineration of fossil origin organic material
 Does not include concrete calculations for the
 Organic matter decomposition covers:
 Methane from organic matter in both liquid and
solid wastes
 Nitrous oxide from protein in human sewage
 Emissions of non-methane volatile organic
compounds are not covered
IPCC default categories
 Methane Emissions from Solid Waste Disposal
 Methane Emissions from Wastewater treatment
 Domestic and Commercial Wastewater
 Industrial Wastewater and Sludge Streams
 Nitrous oxide from Human Sewage

Inventory preparation using
 Step 1: Conduct key source category analysis for Waste
sector where:
 Sector is compared to other source sectors such as Energy,
Agriculture, LUCF, etc.
 Estimate Waste sector’s share of national GHG inventory
 Key source sector identification adopted by Parties that
have already prepared an initial national communication,
have inventory estimates
 Parties that have not prepared an initial national
communication can use inventories prepared under other
 Parties that have not prepared any inventory, may not be
able to carry out the key source sector analysis
 Step 2: Select the categories

Inventory preparation using
IPCC 1996GL (2)
 Step 3: Assemble required activity data depending on tier
selected from local, regional, national and global databases,
including EFDB
 Step 4: Collect emission/removal factors depending on tier level
selected from local/regional/national/global databases, including
 Step 5: Select method of estimation based on tier level and
quantify emissions/removals for each category
 Step 6: Estimate uncertainty involved
 Step 7: Adopt quality assurance/control procedures and report
 Step 8: Report GHG emissions
 Step 9: Report all procedures, equations and sources of data
adopted for GHG inventory estimation

Calculation of methane
from solid waste disposal
 For sanitary landfills there are several methods:
 Mass balance and theoretical gas yield
 Theoretical first order kinetics methodologies
 Regression approach
 Complex models not applicable for regions or
 Open dumps considered to emit 50%, but should
be reported separately

Mass balance and
theoretical gas yield
 No time factors
 Immediate release of methane
 Produces reasonable estimates if amount
and composition of waste have been
constant or slowly varying, otherwise
biased trends
 How to calculate:
 Using empirical formulae
 Using degradable organic content

Empirical formulae
 Assumes 53% of carbon content is
converted to methane
 If microbial biomass is discounted it
reduces the amount emitted
 234 m3 of methane per tonne of wet
municipal solid waste

Using degradable organic
content (Base of Tier 1)
 Calculated from the weighted average of the
carbon content of various components of the
waste stream
 Requires knowledge of:
 Carbon content of the fractions
 Composition of the fractions in the waste
 This method is the basis for the Tier I
calculation approach

 Methane emission =
Total municipal solid waste (MSW) generated
(Gg/yr) x
Fraction landfilled x
Fraction degradable organic carbon (DOC) in MSW
Fraction dissimilated DOC x
0.5 g C as CH4/g C as biogas x
Conversion ratio (16/12) ) – Recovered CH4

 Only urban populations in developing countries
need be considered; rural areas produce no
significant amount of emissions
 Fraction dissimilated was assumed from a
theoretical model that varies with temperature:
0.014T + 0.28, considering a constant 35°C for
the anaerobic zone of a landfill, this gives 0.77
dissimilated DOC
 No oxidation or aerobic process included

 Waste generated 235 Gg/yr
 % landfilled 80
 % DOC 21
 % DOC dissimilated 77
 Recovered 1.5 Gg/yr
 Methane =
(235*0.80*0.21*0.77*0.5*16/12) – 1.5 =19 Gg/yr

 Main:
 No time factor
 No oxidation considered
 DOC dissimilated too high
 Delayed release of methane under increasing waste
landfilled conditions leads to significant
overestimations of emissions
 Oxidation factor may reach up to 50% according to
some authors, a 10% reduction is to be accounted

Default method – Tier 1
 Includes a methane correction factor according to the
type of site (waste management correction factor).
Default values range from 0.4 for shallow unmanaged
disposal sites (> 5m) to 0.8 for deep (<5m)
unmanaged sites; and 1 for managed sites.
Uncategorized sites given a correction factor of 0.6
 The former DOC dissimilated was reduced from 0.77
to 0.5 - 0.6, due to the presence of lignin

Default method – Tier 1
 The fraction of methane in landfill gas was
changed from 0.5 to a range between 0.4 and
0.6, to account for several factors, including
waste composition
 Includes an oxidation factor. Default value of 0.1
is suitable for well managed landfills
 It is important to remember to subtract
recovered methane before applying an
oxidation factor

Default method – Tier 1
Good Practice
 Emissions of methane (Gg/yr) =
[(MSWT*MSWF*L0) -R]*(1-OX) where
MSWT= Total municipal solid waste
MSWF= Fraction disposed at SWDS
L0 = Methane generation potential
R = Recovered methane (Gg/yr)
OX = Oxidation factor (fraction)

Methane generation
L0 = (MCF*DOC*DOCF*F*16/12 (GgCH4/Gg
MCF = Methane correction factor (fraction)
DOC = Degradable organic carbon
DOCF = Fraction of DOC dissimilated
F = Fraction by volume of methane in
landfilled gas
16/12 = Conversion from C to CH4

Other approaches
 Include a fraction of dry refuse in the
 Consider a waste generation rate (1 kg
per capita per day for developed
countries, half of that for developing
 Use gross domestic product as an
indicator of waste production rates

GPG2000 Approach

Theoretical first order kinetics
methodologies (Tier 2)

 Tier 2 considers the long period of time involved in

the organic matter decomposition and methane
 Main factors:
 Waste generation and composition
 Environmental variables (moisture content, pH,
temperature and available nutrients)
 Age, type and time since closure of landfill

Base equation
 QCH4 = L0R(e-kc - e-kt)
QCH4 = methane generation rate at year t (m3/yr)
L0 = degradable organic carbon available for
methane generation (m3/tonne of waste)
R = quantity of waste landfilled (tonnes)
k = methane generation rate constant (yr-1)
c = time since landfill closure (yr)
t = time since initial refuse placement (yr)

Good practice equation
 Time t is replaced by t-x, normalization factor
that corrects for the fact that the evaluation
for a single year is a discrete time rather than
a continuous time estimate
 Methane generated in year t (Gg/yr) =
Sx [(A*k*MSWT(x)*MSWF(x)*L0(x)) * e-k(t-x) ]
for x = initial year to t
 Sum the obtained results for all years (x)

Good practice equation
 Where:
t = year of inventory
x = years for which input should be added
A = (1-e-k)/k; normalisation factor which corrects the
k = Methane generation rate constant
MSWT (x)= Total municipal solid waste generated in
year x (Proportional to total or urban population if
no rural waste collection)
L0(x) = Methane generation potential

Methane generation rate
 The methane generation rate constant k is the
time taken for the DOC in waste to decay to half
its initial mass (half-life)
 k = ln2/t½
 This requires historical data. Data for 3 to 5 half
lives in order to achieve an acceptable result.
Changes in management should be taken into

Methane generation rate
 Is determined by type of waste and conditions
 Measurements go from 0.03 to 0.2 per year,
equivalent to half lives from 23 to 3 years
 More degradable material and humidity lower
half life
 Default value: 0.05 per year, or a half life of 14

Methane generation
L0(x) = (MCF(x)*DOC(x)*DOCF*F*16/12 (GgCH4/Gg
MCF(x) = Methane correction factor in year x (fraction)
DOC (x) = Degradable organic carbon in year x
DOCF = Fraction of DOC dissimilated
F = Fraction by volume of methane in gas generated
from landfill
16/12 = Conversion from C to CH4

Methane emitted
 Methane generated minus methane recovered
and not oxidized
 Equation:
Methane emitted in year t (Gg/yr) = (Methane
generated in year t (Gg/yr) - R(t))*(1 - Ox)
R(t) = Methane recovered in year t (Gg/yr)
Ox = Oxidation factor (fraction)

Practical applications
 Base for Tier 2 approach
 Applied earlier in:
 United Kingdom
 The Netherlands
 Canada

Regression approach
 From empirical models
 Statistical and regressional analysis applied

Uncertainties in
 Methane actually produced
 Are old landfills covered?
 Quantity and composition of landfilled
 Is there historical data on waste
 Methane actually produced
 Are landfill and waste management
practices well known?
Calculations of emissions from
waste-water treatment

 Calculations for industrial and domestic and

commercial waste water are based on
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) loading
 Standard methane conversion factor 0.22 Gg
CH4/Gg BOD is recommended
 For nitrous oxide and methane it is possible to
base calculation on total volatile solids and apply
the simple method used in the agriculture sector

Methane from domestic and
commercial waste water

 Simplified approach
 Data:
 BOD in Gg per 1000 persons (default values)
 Country population in thousands
 Fraction of total waste water treated anaerobically
(0.1–0.15 as default)
 Methane emission factor
(default 0.22 Gg CH4/Gg BOD
 Subtract recovered methane

 Methane emission =
Population (103) x
Gg BOD5/1000 persons x
Fraction anaerobically treated x
0.22 Gg CH4/Gg BOD –
Methane recovered

GPG 2000 Approach

Good practice guidance –
Check method
 WM = P*D*SBF*EF*FTA*365*10-12 , where:
WM = country’s annual methane emissions from domestic
waste water
P = population (total or urban in developing countries)
D = organic load (default 60 g BOD/person/day)
SBF = fraction of BOD that readily settles, default = 0.5
EF = emission factor (g CH4/ g BOD), default =
0.6 or 0.25 g CH4/ g COD (chemical oxygen demand)
when using COD
FTA = part of BOD anaerobically degraded, default = 0.8

Check method rationale
 SBF is related to BOD from non-dissolved solids,
which account for more than 50% of BOD.
Settling tanks remove 33% and other methods
 Fraction of BOD in sludge that degrades
anaerobically (FTA) is related to the processes,
aerobic or anaerobic. Aerobic processes and
sludge non-methane producing procedures may
lead to FTA = 0

Check method rationale
 Emission factor is expressed in BOD, however COD
is used in many places
 COD is 2 to 2.5 times higher than BOD, so the
default values are 0.6 g CH4/ g BOD or 0.25 g CH4/ g
 Emission factor is calculated from the methane
producing factor stated above and the weighted
average of methane conversion factor (MCF)

Methane conversion
 IPCC guidelines recommends to separate
calculations for waste water and sludge.
This influences the detailed approach
 Excepting sludge sent to landfills or for
agriculture, this is not necessary
 If no data are available, expert judgement
of sanitation engineers may be
incorporated: Weighted MCF = Fraction of
BOD anaerobically degrades
Detailed approach
 Considers two additional factors:
 Different treatment methods used and total
waste water treated using each method
 MCF for each treatment
 The final result is the sum of the fractions
calculated by the simplified approach, less
the recovered methane


 Domestic and commercial waste-water

emissions =
(Si Methane calculated by simplified approach x
Fraction waste water treated using method i x
MCF for method i) - methane recovered

Methane emissions from
industrial waste water
 Industrial waste water may be treated in domestic
sewer systems or on site
 Only on-site calculations are covered in this section,
the rest should be added to domestic waste-water
 Most estimates used are for point sources
 Focus on key industries is required and default
values are provided

Emissions from industrial
waste-water treatment
 Simplified approach:
 Determine relevant industries (wine, beer, food,
paper, etc.)
 Estimate waste-water outflow (per tonne of product,
or default)
 Estimate BOD5 concentration (or default)
 Estimate the fraction treated
 Estimate methane emission factor (default 0.22 Gg
CH4/Gg BOD )
 Subtract any methane recovered

 Industrial waste-water emissions =
(Si waste-water outflow by industry (Ml/yr) x
kg BOD5/I x
Fraction waste water treated anaerobically
x 0.22) - Methane recovered

Detailed approach
 Similar to the used for estimating methane
emissions from domestic and commercial waste
 Requires knowledge of:
 Specific waste-water treatments
 MCF for each factor

 Industrial waste-water Emissions =
(Si Waste-water outflow by industry (Ml/yr) x
kg BOD5/l x
Fraction waste water treated using method i x MCF
for method i) - Methane recovered

Uncertainties in
 Lack of information about volumes, treatments and
 Discharge into surface waters:
 Not anaerobic (default 0%)

 Anaerobic (default 50%)

 Septic tanks (long retention times: more than 6

 Long retention of solids (default 50%)

 Short retention of solids (default 10%)

 Open pits and latrines (default 20%)

 Other limitations: BOD, temperature, pH and retention
GPG2000 Approach

Emissions from waste
 For carbon dioxide, only fossil fraction counts not
 Only accounted under waste sector when no
energy is recovered
 IPCC guidelines include a simple method
 It is good practice to disaggregate waste into waste
types and take into account burn-out efficiency of

Equation for carbon
CO2 emission (Gg/yr) = Si(IWi*CCWi*FCFi*Efi*44/12)
where i = MSW, HW, CW, SS
MSW municipal solid waste, HW hazardous waste,
CW clinical waste and SS sewage sludge
IWi = Amount of incinerated waste type i
CCWi = Fraction of C content in waste type i
FCFi = Fraction of fossil C in waste type i
EF = Burn-out efficiency of combustion of
incinerators for waste type i (fraction)
44/12 = Conversion from C to CO2

Equation for nitrous oxide
N2O emission (Gg/yr) = Si(IWi*Efi)*10-6 where
IWi = Amount of incinerated waste type i (Gg/yr)
EFi = Aggregate emission factor for waste type i
(kg N2O/Gg) or

N2O emission (Gg/yr) = Si(IWi*ECi*FGVi)*10-9

IWi = Amount of incinerated waste type i (Gg/yr)
ECi = N2O emission concentration in flue gas
from waste of type i (mg N2O /Mg)
FGVi = Flue gas volume by amount of
incinerated waste type i (m3/Mg)

Emission factors and activity data for
carbon dioxide

 C content varies: sewage sludge, 30%; municipal

solid waste, 40%; hazardous waste, 50%; and
clinical waste, 60%.
 It is assumed that there is very little <<virtually
no>> fossil carbon in sewage sludge, 0%; high
content in clinical and municipal, 40%; and very
high content in hazardous waste, 90%
 The efficiency of combustion is 95% for all waste
streams, except hazardous, which is 99.5%

Emission factors and activity data
for nitrous oxide

 Emission factors differ with facility type and

type of waste
 Default factors can be used
 Consistency and comparability are difficult
due to heterogeneous waste types across

Reporting framework

General reporting
 It is good practice to document and archive
all information required to produce the
national inventory estimates
 See GPG2000, Chapter 8, Quality
Assurance and Quality Control, Section
8.10.1, Internal Documentation and Archiving
 Transparency in activity data and the
possibility to retrace calculations are

Report quality
assurance/quality control
 Transparency can be improved through clear
documentation and explanations
 Estimate using different approaches
 Cross check emission factors
 Check default values, survey data and
secondary data preparation for activity data
 Cross check with other countries

 Involve industry and government experts in

review processes

Reporting for methane from solid
waste disposal sites

 If Tier 2 is applied, historical data and k

values should be documented, and closed
landfills should be accounted for
 Distribution of waste (managed and
unmanaged) for MCF should be
 Comprehensive landfill coverage,
including industrial, sludge disposal,
construction and demolition waste sites is

Reporting for methane from solid waste
disposal sites

 If methane recovery is reported an inventory is

desirable. Flaring and energy recovery should be
documented separately
 Changes in parameters should be explained and
 Time series should apply the same methodology; if
there are changes it is required to recalculate the
entire time series to achieve consistency in trends
(See GPG2000, Chapter 7,, Alternative
recalculation techniques)

Reporting for methane from
domestic waste-water handling

 Function of human population and waste

generation per person, expressed as
biochemical oxygen demand
 If in rural areas, only aerobical disposal; only
urban population is accounted for
 COD*2.5 = BOD
 Recalculate whole time series
 Calculations need to be retraced, particularly
if there are changes to MCFs

Reporting for methane from
industrial waste-water handling

 Industrial estimates are accepted if they are

transparent and consistent with QA/QC
 Recalculations need to be consistent over
 Default data for industrial waste water is in
GPG2000, Chapter 5, Table 5.4
 Sectoral tables and a detailed inventory
report are necessary to provide

Reporting nitrous oxide
emissions from waste water

 Based on IPCC Guidelines, Chapter

4, Agriculture, Section 4.8, Indirect
N2O emissions from nitrogen used in
 Future work on data, approaches and
calculations is needed

Reporting for waste
 All waste incineration is to be included
 Avoid double counting with energy recovery, even
when waste is used as a substitute fuel (e.g.
cement and brick production)
 Default ranges for emission estimates are
provided in GPG2000, Chapter 5, Tables 5.6 and
 Support fuel, generally little, shall be reported in
Energy sector; maybe important for hazardous

Key source category
analysis and decision


Comparison between
IPCC 1996GL and GPG2000
GPG2000 IPCC 1996GL - default approach
First Order Decay Method for Solid Waste Based on last year’s waste entering the
Disposal Sites based on real- world disposal sites. Good approximation only for
conditions of decomposition long-term stable conditions. First Order Decay
is mentioned without specific calculations
Includes a “check method” for countries Keeps a separation between:
with difficulties to calculate the emissions  Domestic waste water
from domestic waste-water handling  Industrial waste water
Human sewage is indicated as an area for Calculation made on the basis of an
further development and no improvement approximation developed for the Agriculture
over IPCC 1996GL is presented sector (see chapter on Agriculture sector)
New section including emissions from waste Contains no detailed methodologies
incineration covers: <<correct?>>
 CO2 emissions
 N2O emissions

Key activity data required for
GPG2000 and IPCC 1996GL
GPG2000 IPCC 1996GL

 Disposal activity for solid waste for several  Disposal activity for current year,
years default values or a per capita
 Less requirements with the check method approach
for CH4 emissions from domestic waste  Waste-water flows and waste-water
water treatment data required
 Top-down modification of IPCC 1996GL  Very detailed, industry specific data
recommended due to high costs required
 Incineration amounts, composition (carbon  No specific methodology
content and fossil fraction) required for CO2
 Emission measurements recommended for

Key emission factors required
for IPCC 1996GL and GPG2000
 Most emission factors are common to
 Methane generation potential for SWDS
 Human sewage conversion factor
 Methane conversion factor
 New emission factors related to:
 Tier 2 for SWDS, particularly k value
 Waste incineration (lack of some default

Link between IPCC 1996GL and

 GPG2000 uses the same tables as

were provided in IPCC 1996GL, based
on the same categories

List of problems

Problems addressed
 Problems found by NAI experts in using IPCC
 Problems categorized into:
 Methodological issues
 Activity data (AD)
 Emission factors (EF)
 GPG2000 addresses some deficiencies found in
 Strategies for improvement in methodology, AD and EF
 Strategy for AD and EF – tier approach
 Points to sources of data for AD and EF, including EFDB
Methodological issues
 Methodologies that are not covered :
 Sludge spreading and composting,
 Use of burning under conditions not reflected
properly in the waste incineration section
 Tropical conditions of many NAI Parties vis-à-vis
methane generation
 Use of open dumps instead of landfills
 Lack of a proper calculation method for human
sewage in the case of island countries or countries
with prevailing coastal populations, and complexity
of the methodology.
Lack of waste methodologies that
reflect national circumstances

GPG2000 approach Improvement suggested

- The GPG2000 does not cover - Initiate field studies to generate

composting and sludge spreading, methodologies, or use
which are common practices in NAI approaches proposed by Annex
countries 1 countries for these categories.
- Burning and open dump processes are - Expand the proper sections to
not well covered by GPG2000 and are reflect the conditions prevailing
frequent practices in NAI countries. in many NAI countries.

More deficiencies in the
GPG2000 approach Improvement suggested

- The GPG2000 does not cover conditions for - Initiate field studies to expand the
tropical countries and management practices for methodology
both solid wastes and waste waters - Adopt the proposed methodologies
- The approximation used in GPG2000 to calculate covered in the Agriculture chapter
nitrous oxide from human sewage (the same differentiating according to
approximation as in IPCC 1996GL) does not reflect geographical reality
properly the situation of coastal/island areas

Complexity of methodology
GPG2000 approach Improvement suggested

- The methodologies presented for Solid - Methods similar to the Check method for
Waste Disposal Sites and Waste waste water should be provided to enhance
Incineration require data that are not completeness of reporting
commonly available in NAI countries

Activity data problems
Lack of data on generated solid waste
Lack of time-series data for waste generation
Lack of availability of disaggregated data
Lack of data on composition of solid waste
Lack of data on oxidation conditions
Extrapolations based on past data used to apply Tier 2 for Solid
Waste Disposal Sites CH4 generation
Low reliability and high uncertainty of data

Emission factor problems
Inappropriate default values given in IPCC 1996GL

Default data not suitable for national circumstances

Lack of emission factors at disaggregated level

Lack of availability of methane conversion factors for certain NAI

Low reliability and high uncertainty of data

Lack of emission factors in IPCC 1996GL for waste incineration

(covered by GPG 2000)

Default data commonly provides upper value, leading to overestimation

List of problems
(Category wise)

CH4 Emissions from Solid
Waste Disposal Sites
Table 6.A

Methodological issues

 Use of open dumps or open incineration

 Recycling, commonly of wood and paper
but even of organic waste

Activity data and emission
 Lack of activity data, both for the present and the
required time series, for the waste flows and their
 Default activity data for only 10 NAI countries
 Values reflected for k parameter for the application
of the First Order Decay method do not reflect
tropical conditions of temperature and humidity.
The higher k value in GPG2000 is 0.2 and the one
in IPCC 1996GL is 0.4
 The proposed Methane Correction Factor, even
using the lesser value, 0.4, may lead to
overestimations, due to shallowness and the
frequent practice of burning as a pretreatment at
disposal sites
Emissions from
Wastewater Handling
Table 6.B

Methodological issues
 For CH4 emissions from domestic waste-water handling,
GPG2000 presents a simplified method called the “check
method” avoiding the complexities in IPCC 1996GL
 In NAI countries, national methods or parameters, or even
activity data, may by available only infrequently
 For CH4 emissions from industrial waste-water handling,
GPG2000 presents a “best practice” for cases where these
emissions represent a key source, recommending the selection
of 3 or 4 key industries
 For emissions of N2O from human sewage, no improvements
were made in GPG2000 over IPPC 1996 GL. This methodology
has several limitations that have caused several NAI countries to
declare it “inapplicable”

Activity data and emission
 Availability of activity data and emission factors is
uncommon in NAI countries for CH4 emissions
from domestic waste water, and the “check
method” may help to overcome this issue. In any
case, GPG 2000 is an improvement in that it
identifies potential CH4 emissions
 For CH4 emissions from industrial waste water, in
cases where it is a key source, it is feasible to
work only with the largest industries
 For N2O emissions from human sewage, the
activity data needed are relatively simple and
easy to obtain
Emissions from Waste
Table 6.C

Methodological issues
 This source category was only briefly introduced in
the IPCC 1996GL, but is fully developed in the
 In NAI countries, incineration of waste (other than
clinical waste) is uncommon due to high costs
 Differentiation is made between CO2 and N2O
because the former is calculated with a mass
balance approach and the latter depends on
operating conditions

Activity data and emission
 GPG2000 recognizes the difficulties in
finding activity data to differentiate the four
proposed categories (municipal, hazardous,
clinical and sewage sludge)
 Do not request differentiation if data are
not available when it is not a key source

Review and assessment
of activity data and
emission factors: data
status and options

Status of EFDB for the
Waste sector
 EFDB is an emerging database
 All experts are expected to contribute to EFDB.
 Currently it contains only limited information on
Waste sector emission factors
 In future, with contributions from experts around
the world, EFDB should become a reliable
source of data for emission factors for GHG

EFDB – Waste sector status
IPCC 1996GL category Emission factor records

Solid Waste Disposal on Land (6A) 115

Wastewater Handling (6B) 191

Waste Incineration (6C) 47

Other (6D) 0

Total (as at October 2004) 353

Uncertainty estimation
and reduction

Uncertainty estimation and reduction

 The good practice approach requires that

estimates of GHG inventories be accurate
 they should neither be over- nor underestimated
as far as can be judged
 Causes of uncertainty could include:
 unidentified sources
 lack of data
 quality of data
 lack of transparency

Reporting uncertainties from solid waste
disposal sites

 Main uncertainty sources:

 Activity data (total municipal waste MSWT and
fraction sent to disposal sites MSWF)
 Emission factors (methane generation rate
 Other factors listed in GPG2000, Table 5.2:
 Degradable organic carbon, fraction of
degradable organic carbon, methane correction
factor, fraction of methane in landfill gas
 Possibly also methane recovery and oxidation
Reporting uncertainties from
domestic waste-water handling

 Uncertainties are related to BOD/person,

maximum methane producing capacity and
fraction treated anaerobically (data for
population has little uncertainty (+5%))
 Default ranges are:
 BOD/person and maximum methane
producing capacity (+ 30%)
 For fraction treated anaerobically use expert

Reporting uncertainties from
industrial waste-water treatment

 Uncertainties are related to industrial production,

COD/unit waste water (from -50% to +100%),
maximum methane producing capacity and fraction
treated anaerobically
 Default ranges are:
 industrial production (+ 25%)
 maximum methane producing capacity (+ 30%)
 For fraction treated anaerobically use expert

Reporting uncertainties from waste

 Activity data uncertainty on amount of

incinerated waste assumed to be low (+5%) in
developed countries. Some wastes, such as
clinical waste, may be higher
 Major uncertainty for CO2 is fossil carbon fraction
 For N2O default values, uncertainty is as high as