RESULTS: Between 2001 and 2020, the EO-derived estimates of all forest-related emissions and removals indicate that Brazil was a net sink of carbon (- 0.2 GtCO2yr-1), while Brazil's NGHGI reported a net carbon source (+ 0.8 GtCO2yr-1). After adjusting the EO estimate to use the Brazilian NGHGI definition of managed forest and other assumptions used in the inventory's methodology, the EO net flux became a source of + 0.6 GtCO2yr-1, comparable to the NGHGI. Remaining discrepancies are due largely to differing carbon removal factors and forest types applied in the two datasets. In Indonesia, the EO and NGHGI net flux estimates were similar (+ 0.6 GtCO2 yr-1), but in Malaysia, they differed in both magnitude and sign (NGHGI: -0.2 GtCO2 yr-1; Global EO: + 0.2 GtCO2 yr-1). Spatially explicit datasets on forest types were not publicly available for analysis from either NGHGI, limiting the possibility of detailed adjustments.
CONCLUSIONS: By adjusting the EO dataset to improve comparability with carbon fluxes estimated for managed forests in the Brazilian NGHGI, initially diverging estimates were largely reconciled and remaining differences can be explained. Despite limited spatial data available for Indonesia and Malaysia, our comparison indicated specific aspects where differing approaches may explain divergence, including uncertainties and inaccuracies. Our study highlights the importance of enhanced transparency, as set out by the Paris Agreement, to enable alignment between different approaches for independent measuring and verification.