Brazilian Proposal - MATCH Project Terrestrial Carbon Fluxes From

1. Brazilian Proposal - MATCH Project Terrestrial Carbon Fluxes From Land-Use Change and Forestry in the 1990s: A Multi-Model Study ○ Akinori Ito, Joyce Penner, Michael Prather, Christiano Pires de Campos, Richard Houghton, Tomomichi Kato, Atul Jain, Xiaojuan Yang, George Hurtt, Steve Frolking, Matthew Fearon, Loiuse Parsons Chini, Audrey Wang, and David Price Kteam1 meeting 12/04/2007

2. Contents • 1. Introduction • Methods • 3. Results • 3.1. Land cover change area • 3.2. Carbon pools • 3.3. Carbon fluxes • 3.4. Country analysis • 3.5. Global and regional analysis for 1990s • 3.6. Historical analysis • 4. Summary and conclusion

3. Brazilian Proposal - MATCH Project 1997 As part of the negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol, the delegation of Brazil made a proposal, to set differentiated emissions reduction targets for Annex I Parties of the UNFCCC according to the impact of their historic emissions on temperature rise. 2002  After two expert meetings held under the auspices of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA), the SBSTA agreed that the work should be continued by the scientific community. Subsequently, further expert meetings were held on the initiative of the governments of UK, Brazil and Germany for the now called “Ad-hoc group for the modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change (MATCH)”. 2007 “In-session special side event” at SBSTA 27, the presentation of MATCH papers is delivered to UNFCCC delegations in Indonesia.

4. Global Estimates of Carbon Emissions From Land-Use Change House et al. [2003]

5. Purpose Compare estimates of C fluxes due to LUCF. Identify the reasons for differences in estimates. Focus on land-use change activities and carbon pools over the 1990s.

6. Contents • 1. Introduction • Methods • 3. Results • 3.1. Land cover change area • 3.2. Carbon pools • 3.3. Carbon fluxes • 3.4. Country analysis • 3.5. Global and regional analysis for 1990s • 3.6. Historical analysis • 4. Summary and conclusion

7. Land-Use Change Areas Data Sets Name Study Resolution Data source LUC1 Houghton, 2006 Region/country FAO LUC2 De Campos et al., 2006 Country HYDE/FAOSAT LUC3 Kato et al., 2007 T42 (2.8°) SAGE/HYDE LUC4 Hurtt et al., 2006 1° HYDE/FAOSTAT LUC5 Hurtt et al., 2006 1° SAGE/LUC4 LUC6 Wang et al., 2006 0.5° SAGE/GLC2000

8. Comparison Analysis of Land-Use Change Emissions Net CO2 emissions 1. Inventory approach United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) 2. Forward model Book-keeping models and Ecosystem models 3. Inverse model

9. LUCF Carbon Pool and Flux Data Name Study Resolution Method Land use data EMI1 Houghton, 2006 Region/Country Book-keeping LUC1 EMI2 UNFCCC, 2000 Country Inventory National inventory EMI3 Olivier and Berdowski, 2001 Country Inventory FAO EMI4 Hurtt et al., 2006/2002(USA) Country/1°(USA) Inventory/process National statistics EMI5 De Campos et al., 2006 Country Book-keeping LUC2 EMI6 Kato et al., 2007 T42 (2.8°) Process model LUC3 EMI7 Jain and Yang, 2005 0.5° Process model SAGE

10. Reconciled Estimates in 10 regions (EMI4 for USA) Type of Land Use EMI1 EMI4 EMI5 EMI6 EMI7 (1) CO2/climate change N.A. N.A. N.A. Data6.1 Data7.1 (2) Crop conversion Data1.1 Data4.1 Data5.1 Data6.2 Data7.2 (3) Pasture conversion Data1.2 Data4.1 Data5.1 Data6.2 N.A. (4) Shifting cultivation Data1.3 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. (5) Harvest of wood Data1.4 Data4.1 N.A. N.A. N.A. (6) Afforestation Data1.5 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. (7) Fire suppression Data1.6 Data4.2 N.A. N.A. N.A. (8) Soils Data1.7 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.

11. Contents • 1. Introduction • Methods • 3. Results • 3.1. Land cover change area • 3.2. Carbon pools • 3.3. Carbon fluxes • 3.4. Country analysis • 3.5. Global and regional analysis for 1990s • 3.6. Historical analysis • 4. Summary and conclusion

12. Global land-use change areas (102 km2 yr-1) in forests SAGE Afforestation (+) SAGE SAGE Brazil HYDE HYDE Cropland Pastureland deforestation (-) HYDE; Klein Goldewijk, 2001, SAGE; Ramankutty and Foley, 1998, 1999

13. Contents • 1. Introduction • Methods • 3. Results • 3.1. Land cover change area • 3.2. Carbon pools • 3.3. Carbon fluxes • 3.4. Country analysis • 3.5. Global and regional analysis for 1990s • 3.6. Historical analysis • 4. Summary and conclusion

14. Global Carbon Pools (PgC) in 1990s SOC: Soil organic carbon + litter VC: Vegetation carbon USA

15. Contents • 1. Introduction • Methods • 3. Results • 3.1. Land cover change area • 3.2. Carbon pools • 3.3. Carbon fluxes • 3.4. Country analysis • 3.5. Global and regional analysis for 1990s • 3.6. Historical analysis • 4. Summary and conclusion

16. Global LUCF Fluxes (TgC yr-1) in 1990s • Carbon pool • LUCF + environmental factors

17. Global LUCF Fluxes (TgC yr-1) in 1990s Each LUCF + environmental factors

18. Global Carbon stock changes (TgC yr-1) in 1990s

19. Global Carbon stock changes (TgC yr-1) in 1990s

20. Global LUCF Fluxes (TgC yr-1) in 1990s LUCF ENV

21. Contents • 1. Introduction • Methods • 3. Results • 3.1. Land cover change area • 3.2. Carbon pools • 3.3. Carbon fluxes • 3.4. Country analysis • 3.5. Global and regional analysis for 1990s • 3.6. Historical analysis • 4. Summary and conclusion

22. Carbon Pools (PgC) for USA in 1990s VC SOC + LIT LIT

23. USA Carbon Stock Change (TgC yr-1) in 1990s SOC + LIT LIT VC

24. USA Carbon Fluxes (TgC yr-1) in 1990s Inverse estimate [Baker et al., 2006]: −1100 ± 230 TgC yr‑1 Other sinks [Pacala et al., 2001]:−40 to −170 TgC yr‑1

25. Brazil LUC (102 km2 yr-1) in forests Pastureland Cropland

26. Brazil Carbon Fluxes (TgC yr-1) in 1990s Pasture conversion LUC ENV

27. Inter-annual variability for Latin America in 1990s EMI1 EMI5 EMI8 EMI7 EMI6 Inverse estimate [Baker et al., 2006]: 0.43 ± 0.86 PgC yr‑1

28. Take Home Messages • There are large differences between LUCF estimates at the regional level due to different reasons in different countries. Clearly, further work is required to reduce the differences between these estimates. • Our consolidated estimate of the global terrestrial carbon flux (–0.4 PgC/yr) is within the uncertainty range given in the AR4 assessment (which was derived from a combination of inverse models and observations) (–1.0 ± 0.6 PgC/yr). • Our consolidated estimate of terrestrial carbon flux yields a rather low result for Latin America (−0.17 PgC/yr) in 1990s but within the uncertainty range of inversion estimates (0.43 ± 0.86 PgC/yr) [Baker et al., 2006]. However, our consolidated estimate shows smaller interannual variability for Latin America and a weaker uptake than the inverse estimates for Temperate North America. The differences between the net fluxes estimated by the emissions models and by the atmospheric inversions can be caused by large uncertainties in LIT and SOC sinks for the USA and by significant uncertainties in short-term fluxes for Latin America, as well as by different responses to LUCF and ENV.