Böttcher, H.

Gusti, M.

Havlik, P.

Mosnier, A.

Obersteiner, M.

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

Global forestry emission projections   d b t t tan a a emen cos s  Hannes Böttcher1*, Mykola Gusti1, Petr Havlik1, Aline Mosnier1, Michael Obersteiner11International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria* C @ orresponding author: Tel: +43 2236 807 538, Fax: +43 2236 807 299, E-mail: bottcher iiasa.ac.at Background and research question Results 2: Effect of integrated abatement costE          curves in Annex I countriesmissions from land use change (LUC) contributed about 3.3 Gt CO2 (or 9%) to total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2010 (1 2) This LUC includes emissions from the    Avoided The integrated While the AR potential is negligible in Annex 1      , .       conversion of forests to other land uses (deforestation) but also CO2 removals  through the establishment of new forests (afforestation) Not included in the balance are emissions anddeforestation (D) leads to more mitigation potential for single          countries because of a rather high baseline d ti l til th f t t t t    .         removals from existing forests that contributed in 2000-2007 to a global net forest sink of harvest in existing forests (FM). Th dditi lactivities (here D) is smaller (cf Fig. an  a me ag un  e new ores s s ar  o grow faster, there is more potential for FM and 4.4 Gt CO2 including management of exiting forests (FM), afforestation (AR) and deforestation (D) (3) An important question for an assessment of global climate changeese a ona  emissions (compared to3a and b)  since negative impacts th ti itiavoided D (cf Fig. 3b).Competition for land and the shift of wood  .           mitigation options in the land use sector is how much of these global fluxes can be i l t d d d th h f t ti iti d h f t ti  baseline) need to be includedon o er ac v es (here FM) are accounted for        supply from deforestation to managed forests d h i lman pu a e  an  manage  roug  ores ry ac v es an  c anges o  managemen  prac ces. How much can forestry emissions be reduced and forest sinks be enhanced? .  .re uce t e potent a .A ti f AR D l Accounting for AR D and FM           An active change of forest management change, a reduction of deforestation rates and 1201203a 3bccoun ng or ,  on y   ,  increased afforestation efforts are likely to impact wood supply and revenues from forestry. Another important question is therefore at what costs mitigation potentials in the forestry100100t C]             sector could be realized. 8080USD/tA challenge is to include indirect effects between single activities as they compete for a limited land resource and have common drivers (e.g. wood demand). We use IIASA6060price [               ESM’s Global Forestry Model (G4M) to assess the forestry mitigation potential and estimate costs The model is spatially explicit and compares the NPV of management alternatives4040arbon p.            .2020CaResults 1: Baseline of global forestry emissions 0-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.30-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3Global deforestation (D) drops from 8Mitigation potential in Gt CO2 Mitigation potential in Gt CO2.about 4Gt CO2 (12 Mha) in 2005 to below 3Gt CO2 (10 Mha) after 20156 Afforestation DeforestationForest managementFig 3. Comparison of mitigation potential when AR and D are estimated separately (a) or integrated including FM (b)O2/yr]      and reaches less than 2 Gt CO2 (5 Mh ) i 2050 Aff t ti (AR) 24        .[GtCOa  n . ores a on  rates remain fairly constant (2 Gt 0 Conclusionsovals [CO2 or 7 Mha).Alth h b t-21990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050• The forestry climate change mitigation potential of single activities (enhanced afforestation, d remooug  we o serve a ne  area increase of global forest area after 6-4 avoided deforestation, improved management) are not independent of each other. E.g. more avoided deforestation reduces potential for afforestation and increases also pressure onns and2015 net emissions from deforestation and afforestation are -8-            remaining forests with implications for the C balance.missio    positive until 2045 as the newly -10• Many potential estimates disregard such indirect effects and dependencies and are therefore too high We present integrated mitigation potentials and cost curves that accountEmafforested areas accumulate carbon rather slowlynet LUC AR D FM totalFi 1 F t bi b li i i i Gt CO2  .           for competition for land and other common drivers. . g . ores  omass ase ne em ss ons n .• There is a need for taking an integrated view on mitigation potentials to account for leakage across activities sectors and countriesComparison of baseline to historic estimates  , ,  .• Risks that further lower the realizable potential are policy inefficiency, additional costs Our results can be compared with historic data (based Land use change(monitoring, transaction), and natural disturbances that have not been taken into account.2aon inventories) for an overlapping period of 1990-2010. We systematically underestimate the gross forest sink 0 01990-1999 2000-2007  Results 3: Mitigation potential and costs of        due to the fact that we do not consider additional growth ff t (CO f tili ti N d iti t ) Thi l d-0.4.forestry activities Fig 4. Cost curve for mitigation measures in  the f t t f diff t f t ie ec s 2 er za on,  epos on, e c. . s ea s to a considerable underestimation of the net forest sink -0.8120Figure 4 shows the additional CO2 storage in comparison to the baseline at differentores ry sec or or eren  groups o  coun r es.(Figure 2c). But uncertainties of the historic estimate are high (about 70%) 1 6-1.2       carbon price levels. The carbon price   .-2.0- .Gl b l t f t i k2 100C]leads to a change in the behavior of land owners They increase afforestation avoidForest sink1.4o a  ne  ores  s nC]c2b80[USD/t .   ,  deforestation and improve  forest 2 53.01 01.2s [PgC60n price [management.Annex 1 countries have naturally a lower2.0.0 60.8.Pan et al. 2011 Science Expressssions40Carbon       potential because of the smaller area and 1.50.4.G4M baseline 2011al emis20Clower deforestation rates in the baseline that could potentially be avoided, but also0 51.00.00.21990 1999 2000 2007Globa00 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5       because of higher costs. Large potentials i N A 1 t i l b0.0.- -. . . . . .Mitigation potential [Gt CO2]n on- nnex  coun r es can on y e realized at higher C prices (above 25 USD 1990-1999 2000-2007Fig 2a-c. Comparison of baseline to historic estimates.Forestry Non-Annex 1 Forestry Annex 1Forestry Globalper tC).Map of baseline deforestation in 2030     The map in Figure 5 shows the baseline deforestation in 2030          .The spatial dynamics of where deforestation  takes placeare model internally driven by land productivity (NPV offorestry compared to NPV of agriculture) and past deforestation        rates in that grid cell. To improve the geographical accuracy of thej ti l t i l d f i f t t j t i thpro ec on we p an o nc u e maps o  n ras ruc ure pro ec s n efuture and to calibrate the model to historic maps of forest area changefrom satellite products that have recently become available.References1. Peters, G. P., G. Marland, C. Le Quéré, T. Boden, J. G. Canadell and M. R. Raupach: Rapid growth in CO 2                     emissions after the 2008-2009 global financial crisis. nature climate change 2: 2-4 (2012).2. Andres, R. J., T. A. Boden, F. M. Bréon, P. Ciais, S. Davis, D. Erickson, J. S. Gregg, A. Jacobson, G. Marland, J. Miller, T. Oda, J. G. J. Olivier, M. R. Raupach, P. Rayner and K. Treanton: A synthesis of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion. Biogeosciences 9: 1845-1871 (2012).3 Pan Y R A Birdsey J Fang R Houghton P E Kauppi W A Kurz et al : A large and persistent carbon sink in the Fig 5 Map of baseline deforestation. , ., . . , . , . , . . , . . ,  .          world's forests. Science 333: 988-993 (2011) . .     area in 2030 in ha per grid cell.

Global forestry emission projections and abatement costs

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)