Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (Chapter 7)

The Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector encompasses managed ecosystems and offers significant mitigation opportunities while delivering food, wood and other renewable resources as well as biodiversity conservation, provided the sector adapts to climate change. Land-based mitigation measures represent some of the most important options currently available. They can both deliver carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and substitute for fossil fuels, thereby enabling emissions reductions in other sectors. The rapid deployment of AFOLU measures is essential in all pathways staying within the limits of the remaining budget for a 1.5°C target (high confidence). Where carefully and appropriately implemented, AFOLU mitigation measures are uniquely positioned to deliver substantial co-benefits and help address many of the wider challenges associated with land management. If AFOLU measures are deployed badly then, when taken together with the increasing need to produce sufficient food, feed, fuel and wood, they may exacerbate trade-offs with the conservation of habitats, adaptation, biodiversity and other services. At the same time the capacity of the land to support these functions may be threatened by climate change itself (high confidence)

Quantifying the effectiveness of climate change mitigation through forest plantations and carbon sequestration with an integrated land-use model

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Carbon plantations are introduced in climate change policy as an option to slow the build-up of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentrations. Here we present a methodology to evaluate the potential effectiveness of carbon plantations. The methodology explicitly considers future long-term land-use change around the world and all relevant carbon (C) fluxes, including all natural fluxes. Both issues have generally been ignored in earlier studies.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Two different baseline scenarios up to 2100 indicate that uncertainties in future land-use change lead to a near 100% difference in estimates of carbon sequestration potentials. Moreover, social, economic and institutional barriers preventing carbon plantations in natural vegetation areas decrease the physical potential by 75–80% or more.</p> <p>Nevertheless, carbon plantations can still considerably contribute to slowing the increase in the atmospheric CO₂concentration but only in the long term. The most conservative set of assumptions lowers the increase of the atmospheric CO₂concentration in 2100 by a 27 ppm and compensates for 5–7% of the total energy-related CO₂emissions. The net sequestration up to 2020 is limited, given the short-term increased need for agricultural land in most regions and the long period needed to compensate for emissions through the establishment of the plantations. The potential is highest in the tropics, despite projections that most of the agricultural expansion will be in these regions. Plantations in high latitudes as Northern Europe and Northern Russia should only be established if the objective to sequester carbon is combined with other activities.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Carbon sequestration in plantations can play an important role in mitigating the build-up of atmospheric CO₂. The actual magnitude depends on natural and management factors, social barriers, and the time frame considered. In addition, there are a number of ancillary benefits for local communities and the environment. Carbon plantations are, however, particularly effective in the long term. Furthermore, plantations do not offer the ultimate solution towards stabilizing CO₂concentrations but should be part of a broader package of options with clear energy emission reduction measures.</p

Setting priorities for land management to mitigate climate change

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>No consensus has been reached how to measure the effectiveness of climate change mitigation in the land-use sector and how to prioritize land use accordingly. We used the long-term cumulative and average sectorial C stocks in biomass, soil and products, C stock changes, the substitution of fossil energy and of energy-intensive products, and net present value (NPV) as evaluation criteria for the effectiveness of a hectare of productive land to mitigate climate change and produce economic returns. We evaluated land management options using real-life data of Thuringia, a region representative for central-western European conditions, and input from life cycle assessment, with a carbon-tracking model. We focused on solid biomass use for energy production.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In forestry, the traditional timber production was most economically viable and most climate-friendly due to an assumed recycling rate of 80% of wood products for bioenergy. Intensification towards "pure bioenergy production" would reduce the average sectorial C stocks and the C substitution and would turn NPV negative. In the forest conservation (non-use) option, the sectorial C stocks increased by 52% against timber production, which was not compensated by foregone wood products and C substitution. Among the cropland options wheat for food with straw use for energy, whole cereals for energy, and short rotation coppice for bioenergy the latter was most climate-friendly. However, specific subsidies or incentives for perennials would be needed to favour this option.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>When using the harvested products as materials prior to energy use there is no climate argument to support intensification by switching from sawn-wood timber production towards energy-wood in forestry systems. A legal framework would be needed to ensure that harvested products are first used for raw materials prior to energy use. Only an effective recycling of biomaterials frees land for long-term sustained C sequestration by conservation. Reuse cascades avoid additional emissions from shifting production or intensification.</p

Forest carbon sequestration:the impact of forest management

In this chapter, we describe alternative ways in which forests and forestry can help to mítigate climate change, along with the potential impact of these activities. The three carbon storage compartments should be considered inall impact estimates. Carbon content in living biomass is easily estimated via species-specific equations or by applying factors to oven-dry biomass weights (e.g.,lbañez et al.,2002, Herrero et al.,2011,Castaño and Bravo, 2012).Litter carbon content has been analysed in many studies on primary forest productivity, though information regarding the influence of forest management on litter carbon content is less abundant (Blanco et al., 2006). In the last decade,efforts have been made to assess soil carbon in forests, but studies on the effect of forest management on soils show discrepancies (Lindner and Karjalainen,2007).Hoover (2011), for example,found no difference in forest floor carbon stocks among stands subjected to partial or complete harvest treatments in the United States.Instituto Universitario de Gestión Forestal Sostenibl