1 / 37

Module 5.2

Module 5.2. Mitigation Methods and Tools in the Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry Sectors. Baseline and Mitigation Scenario Construction in Forestry. Land Availability Baseline Scenario Current trends for land-use and product consumption

kert
Download Presentation

Module 5.2

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Module 5.2 Mitigation Methods and Tools in the Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry Sectors

  2. Baseline and Mitigation Scenario Construction in Forestry • Land Availability • Baseline Scenario • Current trends for land-use and product consumption • Common models for formulating baselines - FAC, LUCS, GEOMOD, CO2-fix, etc • Mitigation Scenarios • Technical Potential • Programmatic • End-use • Achievable

  3. End-use Driven Scenarios • 1. Simple Projection • Per capita consumption, adjusted for income • 2. Statistical Relationship • Specify a consumption equation with few Independent Variables e.g.Consumption = f (Population, Income, Price) • 3. Econometric Analysis • Specify a system of demand and supply equations for each product, including both endogenous and exogenous variables. • Solve using appropriate technique, including statisticaland/or optimization methods. • In all cases the projected product consumption must be reconciled, in varying degrees of complexity, with forest land required to support the level of consumption

  4. Land Use Distribution: Driving Factors A. Demographic variables • population size, growth rate, rural/urban population and dependence on land resources. B. Economic factors • income level, technological development, dependence on land-based exports, and rates of economic growth. C. Biophysical factors • soil productivity, topography and climate. D. Intensity of Land use • shifting versus permanent agriculture, clear-cutting versus selective harvesting/logging

  5. Land-use Distribution Models • Process Models • EPIC, CENTURY & Forest-BGC • Accounting Models • GLOBC7/8, COPATH • Socio-economic Accounting Models • LUCS, GEOMOD, FAC

  6. GHG Flow Accounting Methods • Ecosystem-wide tools • Large area coverage models • Project/activity methods

  7. Carbon Flows: • Broad Area Carbon Flows • Specific Area Carbon Flows

  8. Types of Forestry Models • Individual Tree Models • Forest Gap Models • Bio-geographical Models • Ecosystem Process Models • Terrestrial C Circulation Models • Land-use Change Models • Spreadsheet Models

  9. 1. Individual Tree Models • Simulate tree growth in tree-soil continuum. • Photosynthesis = f(H2O, light, nutrients, etc ) • No forest stand Dynamics • e.g. TREGRO

  10. 2. Forest Gap Models • Simulates forest succession after a small canopy opening • Based on empirical relationships • Factors: solar radiation, growing degree days, soil nutrients, water, seed dispersal, latitude, competition, etc. • Simulate response to change in the environment • E.g. FORTNITE, FORTNUT, LINKAGES, LOKI, etc • Disadvantages: • requires species specific parameterization

  11. 3. Bio-geographical Models • Regional and Biome-wide models e.g. Holdridge • New generation e.g. BIOME, CCVM, MAPPs, • based on plant physiology responses • Can simulate response to CO2 fertilization • Disadvantages: • Work well for equilibrium conditions, • not well suited for ecosystems in transition.

  12. 4. Ecosystem Process Models • Simulate plant energy dynamics at canopy level • Based on Physiological and Ecosystem processes • E.g. CENTURY, FOREST-BGC, GEM • Disadvantages: • Data intensive.

  13. 5. Terrestrial C Circulation Models • Regional and global • Simulate C dynamics under different climate scenarios • E.g. PULSE, IMAGE • The C-circulation module in IMAGE also simulates changes in land cover in each region • Disadvantages: • Broad coverage, data intensive.

  14. 6. Land-use Change Models • Terrestrial Carbon Dynamic model capable of incorporating land use change. • IMAGE includes socio-economic factors e.g. income & population.

  15. 7. Spreadsheet Models • Accounting models which track carbon flows in forests • Allows for forest type, country, biome or global aggregation • Less data intensive than process models • e.g. COPATH, GLOBC7/8 • Disadvantages: • Can not simulate climate change directly, • Oversimplifies the functioning of the ecosystem

  16. Project/Activity Specific Carbon Accounting • Applicable to specific type of mitigation activities such as conservation projects, bioenergy projects, reforestation / afforestation programs etc • Accounting depends on the intended use of the biomass

  17. Estimating Carbon Storage:Three Major Situations • Standing Forests • Forests Managed in Perpetual Rotations • Vegetation Carbon • Decomposing matter • Soil Carbon • Fate of Forest Products • Conservation Forests

  18. 1. Estimating Carbon Stock for a Standing Forest (tC) Dry Biomass Density (tB/ha) BD = SV*AS*TA*DW*WD; where; BD = Biomass Density • SV = Stemwood Volume (m3/ha) • AS = Ratio of Above-ground to Stemwood Volume • TA = Ratio of Total to Above-ground biomass* • DW = Dry to Wet Biomass Ratio • WD = Wood Density (t/m3) • * Total biomass includes that which is below ground Estimating Carbon Density (tC/ha) Carbon Density = CC * BD where: • CC = Carbon Content of biomass (%)** • ** CC is usually around 50% but varies with species.

  19. 2: Estimating Carbon Stored by Forests Managed in Perpetual Rotations • Total carbon stored = Land carbon + Product carbon • Land Carbon = (Vegetation + soil + decomposing matter) Carbon • Total Carbon storage in forests under perpertual rotations can be summarized as: Carbon Stored per ha = C(v)*T/2 + C(d)*t/2 + C(s)*T+(i_c ){pi}*n_i/2; where: - C(v) = vegetation carbon; C(d) = carbon in detritus; C(s) = soil organic carbon; T = Rotation period in years; i_c = carbon in product i; pi = proportion of biomass in product i; n_i = lifetime of product i in years.

  20. 2a. Vegetation Carbon • For the plantation response option, consider that the plantation is operated in rotations for an indefinite time period. This would ensure that at least 1/2 the carbon sequestered by an individual plot is stored away indefinitely. • The formula for estimating the amount of carbon stored per ha is: Vegetation Carbon Stored per ha = cv*T/2 where: • cv = average annual net carbon sequestered per hectare • T = rotation period* * This formula is identical to the vegetation C components above

  21. 2b. Decomposing Matter • The decomposing biomass on land creates a stock of carbon. • In perpetual rotations it adds to: Decomposed Matter C stored per ha = cd*t/2 where: • cd = average annual C/ha left to decompose • t = decomposition period

  22. 2c. Soil Carbon • Soil Carbon stored per ha = cs*T where: • cs = Increase in soil carbon/ha • T = Rotation period

  23. 2d. Fate of Forest Products • If the forest products are renewed continually, they store carbon indefinitely. • Amount stored depends on product life. The amount stored over an infinite horizon will increase with product life according to the formula: • Carbon stored in products per ha = sum  (cpi)*n_i Where: • cpi = amount of C stored/ha in product i • ni = life of product i • Assumes instantaneous decomposition or disposal at the end of its use.

  24. 3. Carbon Stored by Conservation Forests • Total Stored Carbon = Vegetation Carbon + Soil Carbon • where: • Vegetation carbon = cv * T ; T = Forest Biological Maturity • Soil carbon = cs * t ; t = period for soil carbon equilibrium

  25. Review of Framework and Conclusion • COMAP Approach Revisited • Cost Benefit Analysis • Example of Mitigation Assessment • Issues, short comings, and suggestions

  26. COMAP • Mitigation Assessment Framework • Objective: To identify the least expensive way of providing forest products and services to the country, while reducing the most amount of GHGs emitted or increasing carbon sequestered in the land use change and forestry sector

  27. COMAP Flow Chart

  28. Cost-Benefit Analysis • Unit Costs and Benefits • Monetary, non-monetary and intangible • Critical Issues • Discount rates • Opportunity Cost • Multiplier effects (including leakage)

  29. Cost-Effectiveness Indicators • Initial Cost per ha & per tC • Present value of cost per ha & per tC • Net Present Value (NPV) per ha & per tC. • Benefit of Reducing Atmospheric Carbon (BRAC)* * The indicator refers to net benefits

  30. Cost-Effectiveness Indicators:1. Initial Cost per ha & per tC • Includes initial costs only. • Does not include future discounted investments needed during the rotation period. • Can provide useful information on the amount of resources required at the beginning to establish the project.

  31. Cost-Effectiveness Indicators:2. Present value of cost per ha & per tC • The sum of initial cost and the discounted value of all future investment and recurring costs during the lifetime of the project. • For rotation projects, it is assumed that the costs of second and subsequent rotations would be paid for by revenues from preceding rotations. • Also referred to as endowment cost because it provides an estimate of present value of resources necessary to maintain the project for its duration.

  32. Cost-Effectiveness Indicators:3. Net Present Value (NPV) per ha & per tC • Provides the net discounted value of non-carbon benefits to be obtained from the project. • For most plantation and managed forests this should be positive at a reasonable discount rate. • For options such as forest protection, the NPV indicator is also positive if indirect benefits and forest value are included, both of which are subject to controversial evaluation. • Different computations are necessary depending on scheme of project implementation.

  33. Cost-Effectiveness Indicators:4. Benefit of Reducing Atmospheric Carbon (BRAC) • This indicator is an estimate of the net benefit of reducing atmospheric carbon instead of reducing net emissions. • It expresses the NPV of a project in terms of the amount of atmospheric carbon reduced, taking into account the timing of emission reduction and the atmospheric residence of the emitted carbon. • The formulation of the indicator varies with the rate at which economic damage might increase.

  34. Macroeconomic Implications 1. Direct Effects: • Resource Reallocation (local, national, international). • Changed Output eg timber, beef etc • Effect on the price vector 2. Indirect Effects • Forward and Backward Linkages • Factor employment, multiplier effects 3. External Impacts • Imports and Exports • balance of payments, etc.

  35. Implementation Policies 1. Forestry Policies • Forest Protection and Conservation Policies • Shared responsibilities and control of resources • Timber Harvesting Concessions • Tax rebates and incentives for adopting efficiency improvements • Aggressive afforestation and reforestation policies • Others policies 2. Non-Forest Policies • Land tenure: private vs. public ownerships • Agricultural and rural development • Infrastructural development policies eq. hydro, roads, • General Taxes, credits, and pricing policies • Other policies

  36. 1. Technical and Personnel Barriers Availability of data Skills 2. Financial and Resource Barriers Competition for funding among sectors competition for resources e.g. land Identification of beneficiaries, cost bearer, etc 3. Institutional and Policy Barriers Land tenure and law Central, regional and local institutions Marketing, pricing, tariffs, quotas, etc Barriers and Incentives for Implementation

  37. COMAP Shortcomings • The framework is static • Inter-sectoral interactions are not explicitly accounted for • Focuses on point estimates instead of a range • Does not cover the change in ranking of Mitigation options at different levels of implementation

More Related