Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Technical resources for implementing the measurement, reporting and verification arrangements under the Convention and the enhanced transparency framework under the Paris Agreement.




Section of Uncertainty Chapter in the 2006 Guidelines addresses this question. See below. Note that Approach 1 refers to propagation of error and Approach 2 refers to Monte Carlo.

“Where the conditions for applicability are met (relatively low uncertainty, no correlation between sources except those dealt with explicitly by Approach 1), Approach 1 and Approach 2 will give identical results. However, and perhaps paradoxically, these conditions are most likely to be satisfied where Tier 2 and Tier 3 methods are widely used and properly applied in the inventory, because these methods should give the most accurate and perhaps also the most precise results. There is therefore no direct theoretical connection between choice of Approach and choice of Tier. In practice, when Tier 1 methods are applied, Approach 1 will usually be used while the ability to apply Approach 2 is more likely where Tier 2 and 3 methods are being used, moreover for quantifying the uncertainty of emissions/removal estimates of complex systems such as in the AFOLU Sector.

When Approach 2 is selected, as part of QA/QC activities inventory agencies also are encouraged to apply Approach 1 because of the insights it provides and because it will not require a significant amount of additional work. Where Approach 2 is used, its estimates of overall uncertainty are to be preferred when reporting uncertainties (see Section”
(Anna McMurray, Winrock International)


Some are saying Monte Carlo Approach should use for Tier 2. Is that correct?


Created at 29/05/2018 16:37 by Novita Syaputri
Last modified at 29/05/2018 16:37 by Novita Syaputri