the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The LULUCF Data Hub: translating global land use emissions estimates into the national GHG inventory framework
Abstract. Global estimates of anthropogenic land use CO2 fluxes from bookkeeping models and dynamic global vegetation models, as well as those derived from Earth observations (EO), can differ widely from those obtained by aggregation of national GHG inventories (NGHGI). These discrepancies are mostly due to conceptual differences, reflecting varying definitions (or system boundaries) of anthropogenic CO2 fluxes, particularly on the forest carbon sink. This study presents a new online platform ‒ the "LULUCF Data Hub" ‒ which compiles various datasets of country-level CO2 emissions and removals from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF). Through a multi-disciplinary collaboration, results from two key global initiatives ‒ one based on carbon cycle modelling (Global Carbon Budget, GCB 2024) and one on Earth Observations (Global Forest Watch, GFW 2024) ‒ are "translated" to conceptually align with NGHGI definitions. We compared these global approaches to the 2024 NGHGI data submitted to the UNFCCC under the Paris Agreement reporting rules (cut-off date April 2025). The aim is to enhance comparability and foster consensus on anthropogenic land-use CO2 flux estimates. Translating definitions between datasets considerably improves the match in land use CO2 flux estimates, both globally and for most countries. At the global level, NGHGI indicate that LULUCF is a net sink of -3.4 Gt CO2 yr-1 (2001–2023 average; 2023 estimate is an extrapolation for all NGHGI), whereas GCB reports a net source of +4.7 Gt CO2 yr-1. This +8.1 Gt CO2 yr-1 discrepancy drops to +1.8 Gt CO2 yr-1 when GCB fluxes are translated to NGHGI definitions. When the global net forest-related flux of -5.8 Gt CO2 yr-1 estimated by the GFW model (sum of fluxes from Forest and Deforestation including organic soils) is limited to a proxy of managed forest area, the sink declines to -3.5 Gt CO2 yr-1, closely aligning with NGHGI (-3.2 Gt CO2 yr-1 for forest-related flux only, including Forest, Deforestation, and organic soils in Indonesia). Despite improved alignment in magnitude after translation, some differences persist in global CO2 flux trends: in the last two decades, forests (including re/afforestation) have remained a roughly constant net sink in NGHGI and GCB but are a declining net sink in GFW; deforestation emissions are stable or slightly declining in NGHGI and GCB but increase in GFW. For other land uses, NGHGI globally reports a greater sink than GCB (the GFW model does not include other land uses). At the country-level, we identify both convergences and divergences in CO2 flux estimates between NGHGI and the translated datasets – in sign, magnitude and trend. Notably, after translation, estimates of both GCB and GFW still differ from individual NGHGI values in 19 countries by more than ±0.1 Gt CO2 yr-1 on average (2001–2023), highlighting areas that deserve further investigation.
The LULUCF Data Hub was first presented in July 2024 during the IPCC Expert Meeting on Reconciling Anthropogenic Land Use Emissions, showing preliminary data. In November 2024 version 1.0 (with NGHGI pre-Paris reporting, GCB 2024 data and GFW 2024 data) was launched. Our study shows results from version 2.0, corresponding to 2024 data from all datasets: i) NGHGI data from the first Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs) submitted under the Paris Agreement (cut-off date April 2025), complemented by previous reports (from version 1.0) for countries with no BTR submission, ii) data from GCB 2024 and iii) data from the GFW carbon flux model 2024. Data from all versions, including future annual updates, can be visualized and downloaded from the LULUCF Data Hub hosted by the European Union Forest Observatory (European Commission Joint Research Centre, 2025) and from the online repository (Melo et al., 2025; available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17140775).
- Preprint
(4121 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-631', Francesco N. Tubiello, 25 Mar 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2025-631/essd-2025-631-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/essd-2025-631-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2025-631', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Sep 2026
In the manuscript The LULUCF Data Hub: translating global land use emissions estimates into the national GHG inventory framework, the authors present a translation framework that changes land use, land-use change, and forestry flux estimates from Global Carbon Budget and Global Forest Watch into an assessment boundary more comparable to that of national greenhouse gas inventories. They apply this framework in each country and show that the global gap between the translated estimates and NGHGI is substantially reduced after translation.
Overall, I found the paper to be an important contribution to the carbon cycle community. But I have several concerns regarding methodological transparency, the quantification of uncertainty, and the interpretation of the results that I think should be addressed before the paper is recommended for publication.
General comments
- The authors claim that discrepancies are mostly due to conceptual differences, but the remaining differences after translation suggest that other factors may also have some influence. These should be discussed.
- The uncertainty from reallocation, alignment, and gap-filling hasn’t been discussed or quantified.
- Managed land is the basis of translation; the authors should discuss how different definitions and thresholds of managed land may affect the translated fluxes.
- The translation changes GCB and GFW estimates within an assessment boundary closer to NGHGI, but NGHGI should not be treated as a true value, and the remaining differences should not be conflated with error/inaccuracy/bias. The manuscript should make this distinction more clearly, particularly in the Results and Conclusions sections.
- The improvement in global-level agreement may partly result from the cancellation of positive and negative regional differences rather than genuine convergence across countries. The regional results presented in the manuscript are not always consistent with the claim that discrepancies are mostly due to conceptual differences. The translation does not resolve the discrepancy in all regions, and this inconsistency should be acknowledged.
- The reallocation and alignment steps would be better expressed as explicit equations, which would allow readers to understand and evaluate them.
- The Results section is too long and contains many numerical values and country examples, which makes the main findings difficult to identify and follow. This section should focus on the major patterns and use tables or figures to present detailed country-level results.
- The Conclusions list too many numerical results and regions. Conclusions do not typically cite literature to discuss research background, but should present the key scientific findings of the paper.
Specific comments
- Line 84: "the definition and boundaries of managed land is left" should be "the definition and boundaries of managed land are left”.
- Line 136: The cut-off date stated here as May 2025 is inconsistent with the cut-off date of April 2025 given earlier in the manuscript. Please check.
- Lines 352–355 and 409–411: The forest threshold definitions used in these two sections are inconsistent. The authors must clarify why different thresholds are applied and assess what may be introduced into the estimates. Report how many forest areas are classified as managed land.
- Lines 568–570: Please give the percentage reduction in the original discrepancy achieved by the translation, so readers can see the improvement in comparability directly. In addition to differences in annual averages, time-series agreement should be evaluated using metrics such as RMSE.
- Lines 611–616: Trends are described only qualitatively as increasing, decreasing, or stable. Quantitative trend estimates should be provided.
- Section 2.6 and Results: The uncertainty ranges derived from Section 2.6 are not used anywhere in the reported results. They should be incorporated into the figures and numerical comparisons in the Results section.
- Line 704: Change "the translation achieves excellent global agreement" to a more appropriate description.
- Line 727–729: The sentence "the higher net emissions or lower net removals in GCB-original/reclassified compared to NGHGI are partially compensated by the higher net removals of lower net emissions" is very difficult to follow.
- Line 768: Please remove the word “obviously”.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-631-RC2
Data sets
The LULUCF Data Hub: translating global land use emissions estimates into the national GHG inventory framework (Version 2.0, 2024 NGHGI release) J. Melo et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17151515
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,123 | 815 | 132 | 2,070 | 205 | 170 |
- HTML: 1,123
- PDF: 815
- XML: 132
- Total: 2,070
- BibTeX: 205
- EndNote: 170
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1