As the focus of climate policy shifts from pledges to implementation, there is a growing need to track progress on climate change mitigation at the country level, particularly for the land-use sector. Despite new tools and models providing unprecedented monitoring opportunities, striking differences remain in estimations of anthropogenic land-use CO₂ fluxes between, on the one hand, the national greenhouse gas inventories (NGHGIs) used to assess compliance with national climate targets under the Paris Agreement and, on the other hand, the Global Carbon Budget and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports, both based on global bookkeeping models (BMs). Recent studies have shown that these differences are mainly due to inconsistent definitions of anthropogenic CO₂ fluxes in managed forests. Countries assume larger areas of forest to be managed than BMs do, due to a broader definition of managed land in NGHGIs. Additionally, the fraction of the land sink caused by indirect effects of human-induced environmental change (e.g. fertilisation effect on vegetation growth due to increased atmospheric CO₂ concentration) on managed lands is treated as non-anthropogenic by BMs but as anthropogenic in most NGHGIs. We implement an approach that adds the CO₂ sink caused by environmental change in countries' managed forests (estimated by 16 dynamic global vegetation models, DGVMs) to the land-use fluxes from three BMs. This sum is conceptually more comparable to NGHGIs and is thus expected to be quantitatively more similar. Our analysis uses updated and more comprehensive data from NGHGIs than previous studies and provides model results at a greater level of disaggregation in terms of regions, countries and land categories (i.e. forest land, deforestation, organic soils, other land uses). Our results confirm a large difference (6.7 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹) in global land-use CO₂ fluxes between the ensemble mean of the BMs, which estimate a source of 4.8 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ for the period 2000–2020, and NGHGIs, which estimate a sink of −1.9 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ in the same period. Most of the gap is found on forest land (3.5 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹), with differences also for deforestation (2.4 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹), for fluxes from other land uses (1.0 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹) and to a lesser extent for fluxes from organic soils (0.2 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹). By adding the DGVM ensemble mean sink arising from environmental change in managed forests (−6.4 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹) to BM estimates, the gap between BMs and NGHGIs becomes substantially smaller both globally (residual gap: 0.3 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹) and in most regions and countries. However, some discrepancies remain and deserve further investigation. For example, the BMs generally provide higher emissions from deforestation than NGHGIs and, when adjusted with the sink in managed forests estimated by DGVMs, yield a sink that is often greater than NGHGIs. In summary, this study provides a blueprint for harmonising the estimations of anthropogenic land-use fluxes, allowing for detailed comparisons between global models and national inventories at global, regional and country levels. This is crucial to increase confidence in land-use emissions estimates, support investments in land-based mitigation strategies and assess the countries' collective progress under the Global Stocktake of the Paris Agreement. Data from this study are openly available online via the Zenodo portal (Grassi et al., 2023) at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7650360.

Despite an increasing attention on the role of land in meeting countries' climate pledges under the Paris Agreement, the range of estimates of carbon fluxes from land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) in available databases is very large. A good understanding of the LULUCF data reported by countries under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – and of the differences with other datasets based on country-reported data – is crucial to increase confidence in land-based climate change mitigation efforts. Here we present a new data compilation of LULUCF fluxes of carbon dioxide (CO₂) on managed land, aiming at providing a consolidated view on the subject. Our database builds on a detailed analysis of data from national greenhouse gas inventories (NGHGIs) communicated via a range of country reports to the UNFCCC, which report anthropogenic emissions and removals based on the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) methodology. Specifically, for Annex I countries, data are sourced from annual GHG inventories. For non-Annex I countries, we compiled the most recent and complete information from different sources, including national communications, biennial update reports, submissions to the REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) framework, and nationally determined contributions. The data are disaggregated into fluxes from forest land, deforestation, organic soils, and other sources (including non-forest land uses). The CO₂ flux database is complemented by information on managed and unmanaged forest area as available in NGHGIs. To ensure completeness of time series, we filled the gaps without altering the levels and trends of the country reported data. Expert judgement was applied in a few cases when data inconsistencies existed. Results indicate a mean net global sink of −1.6 Gt CO₂ yr⁻¹ over the period 2000–2020, largely determined by a sink on forest land (−6.4 Gt CO₂ yr⁻¹), followed by source from deforestation (+4.4 Gt CO₂ yr⁻¹), with smaller fluxes from organic soils (+0.9 Gt CO₂ yr⁻¹) and other land uses (−0.6 Gt CO₂ yr⁻¹). Furthermore, we compare our NGHGI database with two other sets of country-based data: those included in the UNFCCC GHG data interface, and those based on forest resources data reported by countries to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and used as inputs into estimates of GHG emissions in FAOSTAT. The first dataset, once gap filled as in our study, results in a net global LULUCF sink of −5.4 Gt CO₂ yr⁻¹. The difference with the NGHGI database is in this case mostly explained by more updated and comprehensive data in our compilation for non-Annex I countries. The FAOSTAT GHG dataset instead estimates a net global LULUCF source of +1.1 Gt CO₂ yr⁻¹. In this case, most of the difference to our results is due to a much greater forest sink for non-Annex I countries in the NGHGI database than in FAOSTAT. The difference between these datasets can be mostly explained by a more complete coverage in the NGHGI database, including for non-biomass carbon pools and non-forest land uses, and by different underlying data on forest land. The latter reflects the different scopes of the country reporting to FAO, which focuses on area and biomass, and to UNFCCC, which explicitly focuses on carbon fluxes. Bearing in mind the respective strengths and weaknesses, both our NGHGI database and FAO offer a fundamental, yet incomplete, source of information on carbon-related variables for the scientific and policy communities, including under the Global stocktake. Overall, while the quality and quantity of the LULUCF data submitted by countries to the UNFCCC significantly improved in recent years, important gaps still remain. Most developing countries still do not explicitly separate managed vs. unmanaged forest land, a few report implausibly high forest sinks, and several report incomplete estimates. With these limits in mind, the NGHGI database presented here represents the most up-to-date and complete compilation of LULUCF data based on country submissions to UNFCCC. Data from this study are openly available via the Zenodo portal (Grassi et al., 2022), at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7190601.

The quantification of forest above-ground biomass (AGB) is important for such broader applications as decision making, forest management, carbon (C) stock change assessment and scientific applications, such as C cycle modeling. However, there is a great uncertainty related to the estimation of forest AGB, especially in the tropics. The main goal of this study was to test a combination of field data and Advanced Land Observing Satellite (ALOS) Phased Array L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar (PALSAR) backscatter intensity data to reduce the uncertainty in the estimation of forest AGB in the Miombo savanna woodlands of Mozambique (East Africa). A machine learning algorithm, based on bagging stochastic gradient boosting (BagSGB), was used to model forest AGB as a function of ALOS PALSAR Fine Beam Dual (FBD) backscatter intensity metrics. The application of this method resulted in a coefficient of correlation (R) between observed and predicted (10-fold cross-validation) forest AGB values of 0.95 and a root mean square error of 5.03 Mg·ha⁻¹. However, as a consequence of using bootstrap samples in combination with a cross validation procedure, some bias may have been introduced, and the reported cross validation statistics could be overoptimistic. Therefore and as a consequence of the BagSGB model, a measure of prediction variability (coefficient of variation) on a pixel-by-pixel basis was also produced, with values ranging from 10 to 119% (mean = 25%) across the study area. It provides additional and complementary information regarding the spatial distribution of the error resulting from the application of the fitted model to new observations.

Earth Observation data are uniquely positioned to estimate forest aboveground biomass density (AGBD) in accordance with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) principles of ‘transparency, accuracy, completeness, consistency and comparability’. However, the use of space-based AGBD maps for national-level reporting to the UNFCCC is nearly non-existent as of 2023, the end of the first global stocktake (GST). We conduct an evidence-based comparison of AGBD estimates from the NASA Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation and ESA Climate Change Initiative, describing differences between the products and National Forest Inventories (NFIs), and suggesting how science teams must align efforts to inform the next GST. Between the products, in the tropics, the largest differences in estimated AGBD are primarily in the Congolese lowlands and east/southeast Asia. Where NFI data were acquired (Peru, Mexico, Lao PDR and 30 regions of Spain), both products show strong correlation to NFI-estimated AGBD, with no systematic deviations. The AGBD-richest stratum of these, the Peruvian Amazon, is accurately estimated in both. These results are remarkably promising, and to support the operational use of AGB map products for policy reporting, we describe targeted ways to align products with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines. We recommend moving towards consistent statistical terminology, and aligning on a rigorous framework for uncertainty estimation, supported by the provision of open-science codes for large-area assessments that comprehensively report uncertainty. Further, we suggest the provision of objective and open-source guidance to integrate NFIs with multiple AGBD products, aiming to enhance the precision of national estimates. Finally, we describe and encourage the release of user-friendly product documentation, with tools that produce AGBD estimates directly applicable to the IPCC guideline methodologies. With these steps, space agencies can convey a comparable, reliable and consistent message on global biomass estimates to have actionable policy impact.

Forests are widely recognized as critical to combating climate change due to their ability to sequester and store carbon in the form of biomass. In recent years, the combined use of data from ground-based forest inventories and remotely sensed data from light detection and ranging (lidar) has proven useful for large-scale assessment of forest biomass, but airborne lidar is expensive and data acquisition is infeasible for many countries. By contrast, the spaceborne Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) lidar instrument has collected freely available data for most of the world’s temperate and tropical forests since 2019. GEDI’s biomass products rely on models calibrated with a global network of field plots paired with GEDI waveforms simulated from airborne lidar to predict biomass. While this calibration strategy minimizes spatial and temporal offsets between field measurements and corresponding lidar returns, calibration data are sparse in many regions. Paraguay’s forests are known to be poorly represented in GEDI’s current calibration dataset, and here we demonstrate that local models calibrated opportunistically with on-orbit GEDI data and field surveys from Paraguay’s national forest inventory can be used with GEDI’s statistical estimators of aboveground biomass density (AGBD). We specify a protocol for opportunistically matching GEDI observations with field plots to calibrate a field-to-GEDI biomass model for use in GEDI’s hybrid statistical framework. Country-specific calibration using on-orbit data resulted in relatively accurate and unbiased predictions of footprint-level biomass, and importantly, supported the assumption underlying model-based inference that the model must ‘apply’ to the area of interest. Using a locally calibrated biomass model, we estimate that the mean AGBD in Paraguay is 65.55 Mg ha⁻¹, which coincides well with the design-based approach employed by the national forest inventory. The GEDI estimates for individual forest strata range from 52.34 Mg ha⁻¹ to 103.88 Mg ha⁻¹. On average, the standard errors are 47% lower for estimates based on GEDI than the forest inventory, representing a significant gain in precision. Our research demonstrates that GEDI can be used by national forest inventories in countries that seek reliable estimates of AGBD, and that local calibration using existing field plots may be more appropriate in some applications than using GEDI global models, especially in regions where those models are sparsely calibrated.

The Earth observation (EO) community is coordinating a range of activities in support of the Global Stocktake. One objective is to enhance the uptake of satellite-based global-scale maps (hereafter ‘EO products’) in national greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). To measure progress towards this objective, we compile information on the use of EO products on land cover, fire, and above-ground biomass to derive carbon flux estimates in forest reference levels from 56 tropical countries submitted to the UNFCCC between 2014–2022. The global forest change (GFC) was the only EO product used to measure land extent and change, and was used by almost half the countries. Only two countries used existing EO products for fire mapping. Four countries used biomass maps, although only indirectly, such as for comparing with biomass estimates from field plot measurements or with IPCC defaults. The uptake is limited but improved the measurement, reporting and verification capacity of 22 countries. The relatively high uptake of the GFC demonstrates the importance of meeting essential conditions in the IPCC guidance when developing EO products, including conditions on spatial and temporal resolution, temporal coverage and consistency, and the flexibility to adapt to biophysical thresholds in national definitions. The limited use of other global land EO products underlines the need for developers of EO products to interact with groups responsible for GHG inventories and experts familiar with IPCC guidance so that their products are suitable for national reporting, and thus contribute to more complete aggregated estimates in the Global Stocktake.