terrestrial carbon sequestration adrian martin
DESCRIPTION
Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration Adrian Martin. Global terrestrial C budgets Historical C emissions from land use change Global potential for LULUCF sequestration Reforestation Managing agricultural lands Institutional framework: Kyoto and CDM Social issues. IIED (2002). - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Terrestrial Carbon SequestrationTerrestrial Carbon SequestrationAdrian MartinAdrian Martin
Global terrestrial C budgetsGlobal terrestrial C budgets Historical C emissions from land use changeHistorical C emissions from land use change Global potential for LULUCF sequestrationGlobal potential for LULUCF sequestration ReforestationReforestation Managing agricultural landsManaging agricultural lands Institutional framework: Kyoto and CDMInstitutional framework: Kyoto and CDM Social issuesSocial issues
IIED (2002)
Carbon cycling on landCarbon cycling on land
270 PgC/yr dissolved in leaf water ~ 1/3 atmospheric C
120PgC/yr fixed through Photosynthesis
= Gross Primary Productivity
60Pg/yr plant growth= Net Primary Productivity
>½ directly released to atmosphere
60Pg/yr Respired by plants
60Pg/yr Net Primary Productivity
Net Ecosystem Productivity
Heterotrophic respirationBacteria, fungi
Herbivores
Net Biome Production
Releases through fire,harvests, soil erosion, …
Net Ecosystem ProductivityNet Ecosystem Productivity
Tropical Forests: 0.7- 5.9 MgC/ha/yrTropical Forests: 0.7- 5.9 MgC/ha/yr Temperate forests: 0.8 – 7.0 MgC/ha/yrTemperate forests: 0.8 – 7.0 MgC/ha/yr Boreal forests: (<0?) – 2.5 MgC/ha/yrBoreal forests: (<0?) – 2.5 MgC/ha/yr
(IPCC 2001)(IPCC 2001)
Global C02 Budgets (PgC/yr)Global C02 Budgets (PgC/yr)1980s1980s 1990s1990s
Atmosphere IncreaseAtmosphere Increase 3.3 3.3 ± 0.1± 0.1 3.2 3.2 ± 0.1± 0.1
Emissions (fossil fuel, cement)Emissions (fossil fuel, cement) 5.4 5.4 ± 0.3± 0.3 6.3 6.3 ± 0.4± 0.4
Ocean-atmosphere fluxOcean-atmosphere flux - 1.9 - 1.9 ± 0.6± 0.6 -1.7 -1.7 ± 0.5± 0.5
Land-atmosphere fluxLand-atmosphere flux
(net biome production)(net biome production)
-0.2 -0.2 ± 0.7± 0.7 -1.4 -1.4 ±0.7±0.7
- Land use change- Land use change 1.71.7
- Residual terrestrial sink- Residual terrestrial sink -1.9-1.9
Historical Losses of Terrestrial CarbonHistorical Losses of Terrestrial Carbon through through Land Use ChangeLand Use Change
Houghton (1990) estimates 121PgC lost 1850 – 1990Houghton (1990) estimates 121PgC lost 1850 – 1990 De Fries et al (1999) further 60PgC lost prior to 1850De Fries et al (1999) further 60PgC lost prior to 1850
Total 180PgC (280 from fossil fuels)Total 180PgC (280 from fossil fuels) Approx 40% of this in atmosphereApprox 40% of this in atmosphere Substantial (but ultimately limited) opportunities for Substantial (but ultimately limited) opportunities for
modifying above and below ground carbon storagemodifying above and below ground carbon storage
Deforestation (cont.)Deforestation (cont.)
Deforestation responsible for estimated 90% Deforestation responsible for estimated 90% of land use change emissions since 1850of land use change emissions since 1850
FAO (2001) Global Forest Resources FAO (2001) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000:Assessment 2000:
Gross annual loss 1990-2000: 14.6 million ha.Gross annual loss 1990-2000: 14.6 million ha. Net annual loss 1990-2000: 9.4million ha.Net annual loss 1990-2000: 9.4million ha.
Forest Area Changes 1990-2000Forest Area Changes 1990-2000
TropicalTropical Non-tropicalNon-tropical
19901990 20002000 19901990 20002000
Natural Forest Natural Forest (Million Ha)(Million Ha)
19451945 18031803 18631863 18791879
Plantation Forest Plantation Forest (Million Ha)(Million Ha)
4848 6868 107107 119119
Source: FAO 2001
Main cause of loss in tropical areas: conversion to agriculture
Global Potential: LULUCFGlobal Potential: LULUCF
IPCC (1996 SAR) slowing deforestation and promoting IPCC (1996 SAR) slowing deforestation and promoting reforestation could increase carbon stocks by 60-87PgC 1995-reforestation could increase carbon stocks by 60-87PgC 1995-20502050
IPCC (2000 SRLULUCF) various management options could IPCC (2000 SRLULUCF) various management options could lead to global land-atmosphere flux of -1.3PgC/yr in 2010 and lead to global land-atmosphere flux of -1.3PgC/yr in 2010 and -2.5PgC/yr in 2040-2.5PgC/yr in 2040
Plantations: Plantations: Coniferous AUS & NZ: 10 t/ha/yrConiferous AUS & NZ: 10 t/ha/yr
Coniferous EUR & US: 1.5 - 4.5 t/ha/yrConiferous EUR & US: 1.5 - 4.5 t/ha/yr
Canada and former SU: 0.9 –1.2 t/ha/yrCanada and former SU: 0.9 –1.2 t/ha/yr
Tropical: 6.4 – 10 t/ha/yrTropical: 6.4 – 10 t/ha/yr
BiomassBiomass Litter/woody Litter/woody debrisdebris
Soil Soil Organic Organic MatterMatter
Wood Wood Products Products & & LandfillLandfill
Above Above GroundGround
Below Below GroundGround
Short Short TermTerm
Long Long TermTerm
Cultivated Cultivated landland→ Forest→ Forest
↑↑ ↑↑ -- ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑
Non-cultivated Non-cultivated landland→ Forest→ Forest ↑↑ ↑↑ -- ↑↑ ?? ↑↑
IPCC 2000 SRLULUCF, Table 3-6
Repositories for extra carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystemsRepositories for extra carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems
RepositoryRepository FractionFraction ExamplesExamples Mean Residence Mean Residence Time (MRT)Time (MRT)
BiomassBiomass WoodyWoody
Non-woodyNon-woody
Tree bolesTree boles
Crops/leavesCrops/leaves
Decades to centuriesDecades to centuries
Months to yearsMonths to years
Soil organic Soil organic mattermatter
LitterLitter
Active Active
Stable Stable
Surface litter, crop residuesSurface litter, crop residues
Partially decomposed litter; Partially decomposed litter; carbon in macro-aggregatescarbon in macro-aggregates
Stabilised by clay; Stabilised by clay; chemically recalcitrant chemically recalcitrant carbon; charcoalcarbon; charcoal
Months to yearsMonths to years
Years to decadesYears to decades
Centuries to Centuries to millenniummillennium
ProductsProducts WoodWood
Paper, clothPaper, cloth
grainsgrains
wastewaste
Structural, furnitureStructural, furniture
Paper products, clothingPaper products, clothing
Food and feed grainFood and feed grain
landfilllandfill
Decades to centuriesDecades to centuries
Months to decadesMonths to decades
Weeks to yearsWeeks to years
Months to decadesMonths to decades
Predicted responses to different pools of soil organic matter for Predicted responses to different pools of soil organic matter for agricultural land converted to forest in northeastern United States of agricultural land converted to forest in northeastern United States of
America (Gaudinski et al. 2000, in SRLULUCF)America (Gaudinski et al. 2000, in SRLULUCF)
Carbon sequestration through reforestation Carbon sequestration through reforestation in the tropicsin the tropics
80 year average:
2.36Mg/ha/yr
First 20 years:
6.17 Mg/ha/yr
Silver et al (2000)
Silver et al (2000)
100 year average:
0.41 Mg/ha/yr
First 20 years:
1.30 Mg/ha/yr
Silver et al (2000)
Can sequestration continue beyond 80 years?Can sequestration continue beyond 80 years? One way is to harvest biomass for energyOne way is to harvest biomass for energy The other is to ensure wood products have a long residence timeThe other is to ensure wood products have a long residence time
Paper products like Paper products like packaging, newspapers, packaging, newspapers, magazinesmagazines
0.50.5
Paper products like booksPaper products like books 1515
FurnitureFurniture 2020
Fences, garden products etcFences, garden products etc 2020
Railway sleepers, Railway sleepers, transmission polestransmission poles
4040
Timber in buildingsTimber in buildings 7575
Average estimated lifetime of wooden products [Germany]
Fruewald & Scharai-Rad (2000)
NB The fate of stored carbon in wood products is poorly known
Changing agricultural practices for Changing agricultural practices for below ground carbon storagebelow ground carbon storage
Historical loss of soil C through oxidation~ 50 PgCHistorical loss of soil C through oxidation~ 50 PgC
(Ingram & Fernandes, 2001)(Ingram & Fernandes, 2001)
Average loss of carbon from top 100 cm of soil following conversion to Average loss of carbon from top 100 cm of soil following conversion to agriculture = 15-40%agriculture = 15-40%
Restoration possible through land use change and land managementRestoration possible through land use change and land management
Global potential for C sequestration in agricultural soils 20-30 PgC over 50-Global potential for C sequestration in agricultural soils 20-30 PgC over 50-100 years. (Paustian et al, 1997, cited in Ingram & Fernandes)100 years. (Paustian et al, 1997, cited in Ingram & Fernandes)
Global sequestration from improved management of degraded lands 0.6 – 2 Global sequestration from improved management of degraded lands 0.6 – 2 PgC/yr (Batjes, 1999, cited in Olsson & Ardo, 2002) PgC/yr (Batjes, 1999, cited in Olsson & Ardo, 2002)
Carbon sequestration situation against soil organic carbon level. Source: Ingram & Fernandes (2001)
Main Issues Management OptionsMain Issues Management Options
Soil erosion (especially Soil erosion (especially loss of clay content)loss of clay content)
Oxidation of carbonOxidation of carbon TillageTillage Temperature (e.g. Temperature (e.g.
reduced canopy)reduced canopy) Removal of organic Removal of organic
residuesresidues Drainage (aeration)Drainage (aeration)
No tillage No tillage Change of crops (raise Change of crops (raise
NPP)NPP) FertiliserFertiliser Land use change – Land use change –
agroforestry, grasslandagroforestry, grassland Fallow with Fallow with
grasses/legumesgrasses/legumes Grazing of rangelands (see Grazing of rangelands (see
Schuman et al, 2002)Schuman et al, 2002)
Olsson & Ardo (2002) case study from SudanOlsson & Ardo (2002) case study from Sudan
Modelling of 6 different management systems in Modelling of 6 different management systems in Sudanese cropland Sudanese cropland
SystemSystem Soil carbon in 2100 Soil carbon in 2100 (gC m(gC m-2-2))
No changeNo change 7070
5:6 crop: fallow5:6 crop: fallow 115115
5:10 crop: fallow5:10 crop: fallow 128128
5:15 crop: fallow5:15 crop: fallow 163163
5:20 crop: fallow5:20 crop: fallow 170170
Grazing onlyGrazing only 245245
Institutional BasisInstitutional Basis Kyoto article 3 “removals by sinks resulting from direct human-induced Kyoto article 3 “removals by sinks resulting from direct human-induced
land-use change and forestry activities, limited to afforestation, land-use change and forestry activities, limited to afforestation, reforestation and deforestation since 1990, measured as verifiable changes reforestation and deforestation since 1990, measured as verifiable changes in carbon stocks in each commitment period, shall be used to meet the in carbon stocks in each commitment period, shall be used to meet the commitments under this Article….”commitments under this Article….”
Other sinks (such as agricultural soils may be included in the future)Other sinks (such as agricultural soils may be included in the future) 66thth COP (resumed July 2001) agreement that reforestation and afforestation COP (resumed July 2001) agreement that reforestation and afforestation
allowed under Clean Development Mechanism.allowed under Clean Development Mechanism. CDM – allows developed countries to meet their own commitments by CDM – allows developed countries to meet their own commitments by
funding emission reduction or carbon sequestration projects in developing funding emission reduction or carbon sequestration projects in developing countries.countries.
Limited to 1% of a country’s baseline emissions (i.e. can meet about 20% Limited to 1% of a country’s baseline emissions (i.e. can meet about 20% of their reduction through CDM forestry projects).of their reduction through CDM forestry projects).
Eligible Land Use Activities in the CDM. Source: IIED 2002
Sequestration: a few concernsSequestration: a few concerns
Verification issues and transaction costsVerification issues and transaction costs What kind of forestry?What kind of forestry?
Large-scale?Large-scale? MonoculturesMonocultures Fast-growing exotics?Fast-growing exotics?
Whose development priorities?Whose development priorities? Will sinks solve the problem?Will sinks solve the problem? Global feedbacksGlobal feedbacks
FAO (2001) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000, FAO (2001) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000, www.fao.org/forestry/fo/fra/main/index.jspwww.fao.org/forestry/fo/fra/main/index.jsp Fruehwald, A. & Scharai-Rad (2000) Wood products as carbon sinks: a methodological approach,Fruehwald, A. & Scharai-Rad (2000) Wood products as carbon sinks: a methodological approach,
www.bib.fsagx.ac.be/coste21/ftp/2001-04-26/sharai-rad-sum.pdfwww.bib.fsagx.ac.be/coste21/ftp/2001-04-26/sharai-rad-sum.pdf IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: the scientific basis. IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: the scientific basis. www.grida.no/climate/ipccwww.grida.no/climate/ipcc IPCC (2000) Special Report on Land Use, Land Use Change and ForestryIPCC (2000) Special Report on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry IPCC (2001) IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: MitigationClimate Change 2001: Mitigation. Section 4. Technological and Economic Potential of . Section 4. Technological and Economic Potential of
Options to Enhance, Maintain, and Manage Biological Carbon Reservoirs and Geo-engineering.Options to Enhance, Maintain, and Manage Biological Carbon Reservoirs and Geo-engineering. IIED (2002) IIED (2002) Laying the Foundations for Clean Development: preparing the land use sector: a quick Laying the Foundations for Clean Development: preparing the land use sector: a quick
guide to the Clean Development Mechanismguide to the Clean Development Mechanism, London: International Institute for Environment and , London: International Institute for Environment and Development, Development, www.cdmcapacity.orgwww.cdmcapacity.org
Ingram, J. & Fernandes, E. (2001) Managing carbon sequestration in soils: concepts and terminology, Ingram, J. & Fernandes, E. (2001) Managing carbon sequestration in soils: concepts and terminology, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 87, 111-117.87, 111-117.
Schuman, G., Janzen, H. & Herrick, J. (2002) Soil carbon dynamics and potential carbon sequestration Schuman, G., Janzen, H. & Herrick, J. (2002) Soil carbon dynamics and potential carbon sequestration by rangelands, by rangelands, Environmental PollutionEnvironmental Pollution, 116, 391-396, 116, 391-396
Silver, W., Ostertag, R. & Lugo, A. (2000) The potential for carbon sequestration through reforestation Silver, W., Ostertag, R. & Lugo, A. (2000) The potential for carbon sequestration through reforestation of abandoned tropical agricultural and pasture lands, of abandoned tropical agricultural and pasture lands, restoration Ecology, restoration Ecology, 8 (4), 394-407.8 (4), 394-407.
Olsson, L. & Ardo, J. (2002) Soil carbon sequestration in degraded semiarid agro-ecosystems – perils Olsson, L. & Ardo, J. (2002) Soil carbon sequestration in degraded semiarid agro-ecosystems – perils and potentials, and potentials, Ambio Ambio 30 (6), 471-477.30 (6), 471-477.
Seely, B., Welham, C., Kimmins, H. (2002) ‘Carbon sequestration in a boreal forest ecosystem: results Seely, B., Welham, C., Kimmins, H. (2002) ‘Carbon sequestration in a boreal forest ecosystem: results from the ecosystem simulation model, FORECAST’, from the ecosystem simulation model, FORECAST’, Forest Ecology and Management Forest Ecology and Management 169, 123-135169, 123-135
Ridgwell, A., Maslin, M. & Watson, A. (2002) Reduced effectiveness of terrestrial carbon Ridgwell, A., Maslin, M. & Watson, A. (2002) Reduced effectiveness of terrestrial carbon sequestration due to an antagonistic response of ocean productivity, sequestration due to an antagonistic response of ocean productivity, Geophysical Research LettersGeophysical Research Letters, 29 , 29 (6), 19(6), 19