Incorporating Natural Vegetation into the LUC Project Framework

A detailed description of the incorporation of natural vegetation within the larger LUC model framework is given. The approach focuses on first adapting and then coupling three existing vegetation models: BIOME3 (Haxeltine et al., 1996), BIOMEl (Prentice I.C. et al., 1992) and the CBM (Kurz W.A. et al., 1992). Section 1 concentrates on a description of the adaptations made to BIOME3 and BIOMEl and a comparison of the results obtained from a present climate run for Russia, Mongolia and China with the existing LUC natural vegetation data set. The three way model coupling methodology and usage within the larger LUC model framework is given in Section 2

A Land-Cover Classification for Modeling Natural Land Cover within the IIASA LUC Project

Natural forces have always shaped the global land cover, however resulting in mainly gradual changes. More recently anthropogenic impacts have resulted in fast changes and which dominate the natural impacts in many areas. Many studies to understand these changes and their consequences have been started. One common point of interest is the behavior and classification of the land cover. This kind of information is for example required within modeling activities, that intent to evaluate (for example climate change) impacts on land cover, scale independent. As result of the studies land cover information exists at different places around the world. However, although vegetation and land cover classifications exist already some time large differences have been found and no general accepted way of classification exists, e.g. in the level of detail. The land-cover datasets and the large number of classification systems/map legends differ in spatial resolution, definition, purposes, and outcome. For example the classifications use three different main bases: Eco-physiognomy (=relation between plant structure and its environment), environmental conditions (especially climate) and floristics. Coming up with a consistent classification is a common wish of many modelers. Therefore studies to harmonize the existing classifications have just recently started. Although they yet didn't have come up with the ultimate classification they recommended to start with coming up with a set of important attributes, and define these for the different classes. This is in agreement with other studies, which for example want to derive land cover from satellite data. The following step should be to develop a methodology through which the different classifications could be linked, by using these attributes. We are involved within the project "Modeling land-use/land-cover changes in Europe and Northern-Asia". Although is has not been our purpose to come up with a new land-cover classification, we developed a new list to integrate the land-cover diversity within the large region with small scale information as derived from e.g. case studies activities. In this paper we want describe how the land-cover classification for the modeling part of the project has been set up. First we give a short description of the project. Secondly, we come up with our definition of land cover, we indicate the requirements of a good classification and describe the attributes which are important within the classification. These attributes can be classified into internal, eco-physiognomic attributes, such as leaf phenology, and into environmental attributes. We agree with the UNEP harmonization project that such physiognomic attributes should be used for the basic definition of the classes, but it is our believe that for the evaluation of environmental impacts and for mapping purposes environmental attributes are also required

The terrestrial carbon cycle on the regional and global scale : modeling, uncertainties and policy relevance

Contains the chapters: The importance of three centuries of climate and land-use change for the global and regional terrestrial carbon cycle; and The terrestrial C cycle and its role in the climate change polic

Climate effects of wood used for bioenergy : PBL Alterra Note

In most cases, when using wood from final felling directly for energy production, payback times could be many decades to more than a century, with substantial increases in net CO2 emissions, in the meantime. This is especially the case for many forests in Europe, because they are currently an effective carbon sink. Additional felling reduces average growth rates in these forests and thus the sequestration of carbon. The same is likely to be true for managed forests in other temperate regions. If wood from additional felling is used, it would be most effective to use it in products that stay in circulation for a long time, only to be used for energy at the end of its service life. An increase in wood demand may lead to an intensification of forest management, which may temporarily increase carbon sequestration rates and biomass yields. This would eventually reduce the payback times. However, it must be noted that it would still take a substantial amount of time for the intensification of forest management to become effective, especially when it includes drastic measures, such as converting natural forests into plantations

Climate effects of wood used for bioenergy : PBL Alterra Note

In most cases, when using wood from final felling directly for energy production, payback times could be many decades to more than a century, with substantial increases in net CO2 emissions, in the meantime. This is especially the case for many forests in Europe, because they are currently an effective carbon sink. Additional felling reduces average growth rates in these forests and thus the sequestration of carbon. The same is likely to be true for managed forests in other temperate regions. If wood from additional felling is used, it would be most effective to use it in products that stay in circulation for a long time, only to be used for energy at the end of its service life. An increase in wood demand may lead to an intensification of forest management, which may temporarily increase carbon sequestration rates and biomass yields. This would eventually reduce the payback times. However, it must be noted that it would still take a substantial amount of time for the intensification of forest management to become effective, especially when it includes drastic measures, such as converting natural forests into plantations

Climate impact response functions as impact tools in the tolerable windows approach

A critical issue for policymakers in defining mitigation strategies for climate change is the availability of appropriate evaluation tools. The development of climate impact response functions (CIRFs) is our reaction to this challenge. CIRFs depict the response of selected climate-sensitive impact sectors across a wide range of plausible futures. They consist of a limited number of climate-change-related dimensions and sensitivities of sector-specific impact models. The concept of CIRFs is defined and the procedure to develop them is presented. The use of climate change scenarios derived from various GCM experiments and the adopted impact assessment models are explained. The CIRFs presented here consider climate change impacts on natural vegetation, crop production, and water availability. They are part of the ICLIPS integrated assessment framework based on the tolerable windows approach. CIRFs can be applied both in 'forward' and in 'inverse' mode. In the latter, they help to translate thresholds for climate impacts perceived by stakeholders (so-called impact guardrails) into constraints for climate variables (so-called climate windows). This enables the results of detailed impact models to be incorporated into intertemporally optimizing integrated assessment models, such as the ICLIPS model

How climate proof is the European Union’s biodiversity policy?

In the European Union’s (EU) targets for the year 2020, climate change is recognised as a key challenge for biodiversity conservation. Meeting this challenge requires insight at three levels: the climate change impacts on biodiversity in the EU; the adaptation options put forward to alleviate these impacts; and how current EU policy can accommodate the adaptation options. These three topics have all been discussed in the peer-reviewed literature, but typically in isolation and with potential bias in attention for specific aspects such as species distribution shifts and network connectivity. Here, we bring these three levels together to identify matches and gaps between them, to guide policy development. In particular, we assess key concerns on the degree to which EU biodiversity policy facilitates climate change adaptation. Our findings indicate that, firstly, available adaptation options do not cover all impacts of climate change. Options are biased towards shifts and contractions in species distributions, while, e.g., disruption of species interactions is not addressed yet. Second, proposed adaptation options are often generic and lack spatial specificity, revealing an urgent need for guidance on identifying appropriate, albeit adaptive responses to the range of climate change impacts. Third, while EU biodiversity policy requires and supports adaptation in several ways, its narrow interpretation hinders its potential to conserve biodiversity under climate change. Remaining policy gaps include: (1) conservation targets need to better match conservation needs; (2) targets need to be set in a spatially coherent manner across national scales; (3) current monitoring appears insufficient to address these gaps