Answer from Philippe P:

Dear Souleymane,

To develop the Land Account we have used the European Space Agency Land Cover global maps (2000 and 2010).

To develop the Carbon account, we have used a set of global datasets, including for example FAO data (http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC ). We have used https://www.ntsg.umt.edu/project/modis/mod17.php to assess the global primary production (GPP) https://www.ntsg.umt.edu/project/modis/mod17.php for net primary production (NPP); several layer have been calculated specifically using those kinds of global datasets.

From my experience, national data sets (specifically land use maps) would be more accurate than global datasets. However, mobilizing global datasets available online is easier and quicker.

I will be happy to pursuit the discussion.

Answer from Philippe P:

Dear Johannes,

ENCA and SEEA are clearly not the same approach. They are complementary. ENCA is a quick approach that have several advantages: quick, low cost, easily replicable. ENCA is very operational and can be implemented easily by consultants.

However, ENCA is coherent with the SEEA standard.

Contribution from Bruno (VITO) - project partner with Arsene Sanon: ENCA is aligned with the SEEA-EEA standard (https://seea.un.org/sites/seea.un.org/files/seea_eea_final_en_1.pdf). Based on this standard several experiments have been developed by Worldbank, UNSD, UNEP and the UN Convention of Biological Diversity (CDB). The CDB has responded with ENCA, and has been published in 2014. In general two main approaches are presently developed: one targets ecosystem services, their benefits and the monetary value of the natural capital; the other targets the measurement of ecosystem capital degradation in physical terms and ultimately capital depreciation in money. ENCA belongs to the latter category which is a more integrated approach of dealing with NCA. The SEEA-EEA standard is currently in revision, with target to publish a new version of the standard in 2021. We’re investigating which changes are to be done in ENCA to align it with the revised standard.

Answer from Ulrike: I couldn’t agree more that the effects of hydro need to be carefully assessed and monitored in order to be socially beneficially, relevant from a development perspectives and not environmentally harmful. The trade-offs need to be discussed and decided upon in a participatory manner. I personally see a lot of potential in smaller scale, decentralized electricity production which includes different sources of renewable energy. The development of such systems - which are hardly practiced in the global north - requires new ways of thinking, education, governance and more.

Answer from Philippe P:

Dear Bruno,

We started the project with a workshop and interviews with the national administrations in Gabon. We had planned two workshops with the administration to discuss and refine the results. Unfortunately, due to the coronavirus crisis, we were not able to organize these workshops. We are planning to organize online workshops in order to get the buy-in of national actors. This is the key next step of our project.