Upload
samantha-nicholson
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
WP2 Update June 2010
Meine van Noordwijk,
Sonya Dewi , Andree
Ekadinata, Atiek
Widayati, Valentina Robiglio
Co-funding/Building blocksGlobally: OpCost (FCPF)
Indonesia: Allreddi+ Realu+various site-level studies
Vietnam: Realu
Cameroon: Realu
Peru: Realu
Deforestation is often measured in ‘football fields per hour’; is football compatible with
avoided deforestation?For example, “Amazon destruction has accelerated to record le-vels, according to figures released by the Brazilian government. The annual rate has reached 26,130 square km, the second highest ever - an area equivalent to about six football fields a minute are destroyed.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/amazon-destruction
Is the goal achievable?
Is the playing field level?
Are the lines clearly marked?
What is the ball?
Is one tree + 30% grass enough to qualify as forest?
The white-man referee in the shade?
Who is watching on the sideline?
Who are the defenders?
Made from cer-tified wood?
Who is at play?
Multiple-goal planning on uneven playing fields with trees and avoided
deforestation
CG Centers
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61
Country rank
Cu
mu
lati
ve f
ore
st C
sto
ck (
%)
Lowest
Highest
Brasil + DR Congo + Indonesia contain 50% of
total forest C stock, 10 countries contain 2/3
Emissions from deforestationIndonesia +
Brasil + Malaysia cause 2/3 of REDD domain
emissions
WP 2. Quanti-fying and Monito-ring Landuse Change
ICRAF,IITA, CIAT, ISRI, RCFEE, IRAD, INIA
D.2.1. Publication and policy brief on quantification of aboveground C stock loss due to land use change in the bench-mark area, and analysis of the area change (‘deforestation’) and C stock density change (‘degrada-tion’) in the benchmark areas
Octo-ber 2010
WP Detail
Partici-pants
Deliverables Date-line
Status
D.2.2. Publication and policy briefs on the abatement cost curves relating past GHG emissions to the economic gains they allowed
April 2011
D.2.3. Recommendations on the design of national monitoring systems (at IPCC AFOLU Tier 2+ or Tier 3) that relate the costs of monitoring to the expected benefits of higher quality of data
April 2012
On track for IndonesiaVietnam (?)Cameroon (?)Peru (??)
On track for IndonesiaVietnam (?)Cameroon (?)Peru (??)
Aboveground C-stock Aboveground C-stock maps of Indonesia in 1990, maps of Indonesia in 1990,
2000 & 20052000 & 2005
Results of ALLREDDI Results of ALLREDDI analysisanalysis
Net Emissions: 0.6 Gt year-1
19902000
2005
v
Indonesia forest ~5.4% of global total emissions
National sovereignty, responsibility, pride and good name
Guidelines for sustainable & legal production
Reducing Emis-sions from Defor-estation and De-gradation below agrees refer-ence emission levels
Locally Appropriate Adaptation and Mitigation Actions
Self-regulation of business entities and voluntary action of global citizens
Agreements between all countries of the world, seeking consensus
Sustainable Forest Management
Climate variability, water flows & PFES
NAMA• Nationally Appropriate Mitigation
Actions (2007 Bali Roadmap UNFCCC)
-26%-15%
Indonesia cari NAMA yang baik di dunia
Our data…
Globally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (GAMA)
Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA)
Locally Appropriate Adaptation & Mitigation Actions
(LAAMA)
Landscape approaches to adaptation +
mitigation
Ahead of COP15 negotiations, Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has committed cuts of up to 26 percent by 2020, or 41 percent with funding and technological support from developed countries.
2005
Jambi province – among last candidates for Norway-Indonesia
REDD+
Lamandau Ex-Mega Rice Project
BerauHeart of Borneo
Tripa, Batang
Toru
Deg
rada
tion
Def
ores
tatio
n
Re/A
gro-
fore
stati
on
C st
ocks
, Mg
ha-1
Forest & tree cover transition
Natural forest
Logged-over forest
Shrub (young secondary
forest)
Mixed-tree systems & (’agroforest’)
100%
10
1
0.1 10 100 1000 km-2
Tree crop monocultures
Cropland
Human population density
Fra
ctio
n o
f la
nd
u
se/c
ove
r
SPACE ≈ TIME
EFFICIENT
FAIR
FAIR, EFFICENTJambi
Co-benefitBiodiversity
Jambi
200520001990
Aboveground C-stock Aboveground C-stock maps of Indonesia in maps of Indonesia in
1990, 2000 & 20051990, 2000 & 2005
Results of ALLREDDI Results of ALLREDDI analysisanalysis
Net Emissions: 0.6 Gt year-1
FOREST COVER CHANGE VS FOREST ALLOCATION
Annual emissions per ha within each land use allocation across 3 periods
REDD+• Institutiuonal forest vs ‘Other Land Use’Area 2/3 1/3 of IndonesiaEmission 2/3 1/3C-stock 4/5 1/5
Average emission for Indonesia 3.38 t ha-1 yr-1
JAMBI LAND COVER MAP 1990s
JAMBI LAND COVER MAP 2000s
JAMBI LAND COVER MAP 2005
JAMBI LAND COVER CHANGE 1990-2005
Merangin, Bungo,
Sarolangun
Muarojambi. TanjungJabungBarat
Batahnghari
Cref_LU Equation:logCorg = 1.333 - 0.014 depth +
0.00994*** Clay% + 0.00699** Silt% - 0.156** pH + 0.000427*Altitide - 0.00264** Slope+0 (if soil is Oxi- or Ultisol)+ 0.011NS (if soil is Incepti+sol)+ 0.834** (if soil is Andisol)+0.363** (if soil is fluvic or Aquic suborder)+ 0 (if LU is Swamp forest) -0.335* (if LU is Sedge) -0.433* (if LU is Sawah)+
-0.077NS (if LU is Primary forest) -0.082NS (if LU is Secondary forest) )-0.288* (if LU is Shrub) -0.267* (if LU is Perennial crops) -0.169NS (if LU is Upland crop)-0.245* (if LU is Alang-alang)
y = 39.657ln(x) - 46.683R² = 0.5614
-200
-175
-150
-125
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
0 5 10
Depth,
cm
Corg, %
-200
-175
-150
-125
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Depth,
cm
Corg, %
Mineral soilsWetland
Jambi soil data:We updated the depth factor in Cref and found no evidence that LU-impacts on soil C depend on depth
Remaining uncer-tainty:‘Wetland’ vs ‘normal’ and ‘peat’ vs’ ‘mine-ral’ soil’ classifica-tions have fuzzy boundaries
WHERE WERE THE EMISSION HAPPENED?
Lampung
Emissions counted (annual cummulative emissions in t CO2-eq/(ha y))
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
log
$/t
CO
2_
eq
1e-3
1e-2
1e-1
1e+0
1e+1
1e+2
1e+3
RED_ARED_BRED_CREDD_ABREDD_CREDD+_ABREALU$ 5
Jambi
Emissions counted (annual cummulative emissions in t CO2-eq/(ha y))
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0
log
$/t C
O2_
eq
1e-3
1e-2
1e-1
1e+0
1e+1
1e+2
1e+3
RED_ARED_BRED_CREDD_ABREDD_CREDD+_ABREDD+_CREALU$ 5
Kalimantan Timur
Emissions counted (annual cummulative emissions in t CO2-eq/(ha y))
2 4 6 8 10 12
log
$/t C
O2_
eq
1e-3
1e-2
1e-1
1e+0
1e+1
1e+2
1e+3
RED_A
RED_B
RED_C
RED_D
RED_E
REDD_AB
REDD_C
REDD_D
REDD_E
REDD+_AB
REDD+_C
REDD+_D
REALU
$ 5
Oil palm – one of the most productive tree crops of the world, at the basis of many food products, and also a potential biofuel, potentially replacing fossil fuel dieselbut…Converting forests or peatland to oil palm leaves a negative ‘footprint’. EU importers now require data on this footprint.
A. Carbon debt from land use change history: I.Quantify, II. Attribute
Natural forest logging cycles Imperata Oil palm
Drought year
1st logging
2nd logging Clear
felling, fire
Annual grass fire
Land clearing
End of 1st oil palm rotation
Car
bon
stoc
k, M
g C
/ha
Full responsibility oil palm producers
Responsibility of entity issuing permits and/or not monitoring implementation
Method:
1. Interpret remote sensing imagery for reconstruction of LU history, combined with field interviews of local history
2. C-stock estimated of land cover types
3. Attribution rules to be negotiated
WP 2. Quanti-fying and Monito-ring Landuse Change
ICRAF,IITA, CIAT, ISRI, RCFEE, IRAD, INIA
D.2.1. Publication and policy brief on quantification of aboveground C stock loss due to land use change in the bench-mark area, and analysis of the area change (‘deforestation’) and C stock density change (‘degrada-tion’) in the benchmark areas
Octo-ber 2010
WP Detail
Partici-pants
Deliverables Date-line
Status
D.2.2. Publication and policy briefs on the abatement cost curves relating past GHG emissions to the economic gains they allowed
April 2011
D.2.3. Recommendations on the design of national monitoring systems (at IPCC AFOLU Tier 2+ or Tier 3) that relate the costs of monitoring to the expected benefits of higher quality of data
April 2012
On track for IndonesiaVietnam (?)Cameroon (?)Peru (??)
On track for IndonesiaVietnam (?)Cameroon (?)Peru (??)
WP 6. Development of REDD negotiation support system (RTD)
ICRAF,MLURI, IVM, CIFOR, IITA, CIAT, ISRI, RCFEE, IRAD, INIA
D.6.1. Publication and policy briefs on the way local perspectives on REDD can be compared with those at the international negotiation table and used in quantitative scenario models
April 2011
D.6.2. Publication and policy briefs on the stakeholder perspectives on ‘fair and efficient’ benefit distribution along the CREDD value chain
April 2011
D.6.3. Publication(s) on participatory scenario analysis of plausible REDD mechanisms in benchmarks in Asia, Africa and Latin America
April 2012
Hutan Desa an alysis: manuscript under review + W.Paper
Manuscript in prep on results of similation game with villagers ~ CES/COS/CIS motivational analysis
Vietnam – manuscript in prep. On C. Highlands OpCost + local perspectives
FERVA: OIdonesia + Peru results, manuscript in prep.
WP 5. Integra-tion and model-ling (RTD)
MLURI,UCL, UGOE, ICRAF, CIFOR, IITA, CIAT, ISRI, RCFEE, IRAD, INIA
D.5.1. Simple robust model for IPCC AFOLU Tier 3 national accounting of at least two of the study countries
April 2010
D.5.2. CHE model tested for historical changes, and able to respond to climate change, REDD policy levels, and shifts in global food crop vs. bio-energy demand
October 2011
D.5.3. Emission reduction estimates for 2020 under various scenarios for at least two of the study countries
October 2011
D.5.4. Recommendations to policy, land-managers, and other stakeholders regarding deforestation: how to develop policies, management tools and livelihood strategies that take GHG emissions into account
April 2012
D.5.5. Popularized publication in stakeholder literature and in media directed at the general public
April 2012.
D.5.6. Scientific papers submitted to peer-reviewed journals
April 2012
Manuscript submitted by Grace c.s. on agent based modelling aproaches
Herri c.s. provin-cial scale agent-based model
Fallow vs Agent-based model comparison in progress Grace/Betha
1
10
100
1 100 10000
Loss of forest cover, ha/yr
Nu
mb
er
of
RE
DD
pilo
ts
1
10
100
100 1,000 10,000 100,000
National forest C stock
Nu
mb
er
of
RE
DD
pilo
ts
000,National Forest C stock Loss of forest cover, ha/year
Indonesia
DR Congo
Brasil
Ecuador
PNG
Indonesia
Brasil
EcuadorDR Congo
y = 0.09x0.42
R2 = 0.40y = 0.37x0.42
R2 = 0.48
Current REDD pilots relate to stock and
threat, but have strong ‘fairness’
aspect (scale 0.42)
Vietnam
Vietnam: increase in forest area
1. Changes in land cover C-stock classes C = iCi,t+1 - iCi,t = jfj,t+1Cj,t+1 - jfj,tCj,t
C-stock, Ci
Frequency, f
i
C-stock, Ci
Frequency, f
i
t + 1 minus t
C-stock, Ci
Frequency, f
i
gain
loss
C =jfj,t+1Cj,t+1 - jfj,tCj,t
= j (fj,t+1 - fj,t ) Cj,t+1 + jfj,t ( Cj,t+1 - Cj,t )
Area change for each class j of C stock densities
Change in mean C stock density for each class j
Rather than measuring C stock in each pixel, we may first class them by land cover type
This works if C stock can be correctly identified based on land cover
C =jfj,t+1Cj,t+1 - jfj,tCj,t
= j (fj,t+1 - fj,t ) Cj,t+1 + jfj,t ( Cj,t+1 - Cj,t )
Area change for each class j of C stock densities
Change in mean C stock density for each class j
Weaknesses of the approach derive from:
1.Errors in classification of the pixels into cover classes error in the fj
2.Uncertainty on the average C stock values per class error in Cj
3.Changes in Cj over time
Remedies:
\
Use classes with narrow C stock ranges
Approach 2. Using gain & loss data: C=i
(Ci,t+1 – Ci,t) = iGaini - iLossi
• In many land use types, small annual gains in C stocks are balanced by fewer but larger removals. If good data on both gains and removals exist, this can be used for deriving net change.
• The annual gain of C stocks in any parcel of land can be estimated from the growth rate of trees (in line with forestry research traditions) in combination with changes in the stocking rate and soil C models.
• Removals for timber, firewood, fodder, forest litter or other use may be available from existing statistics.
• Losses by fire may be estimated from remote sensing data in combination with ground truthing.
Weaknesses of the approach derive from:
1.Errors in assigning overall trade and use statistics to specific land cover classes
2.Uncertainty on interaction between changes in stocking and growth rates
Remedies:
Adjust the clas-sification to the scales and systems at which use data are available
C =jfj,t+1Cj,t+1 - jfj,tCj,t
= j (fj,t+1 - fj,t ) Cj,t+1 + jfj,t ( Cj,t+1 - Cj,t )
Area change for each class j of C stock densities
Change in mean C stock density for each class j
3. Land use classes: Changes in land use using typical C-stock classes + shifts in average age
C-stock, Ci
Fre
q.
C =kfk,t+1Ck,t+1 - kfk,tCk,t
= k (fk,t+1 - fk,t ) Ck,t+1 + kfk,t ( Ck,t+1 - Ck,t )
Area change for each LU class k of C stock densities
Change in mean C stock density for each LU class k: below or above average age
Open field agricultureAgroforestryTree crop plantationsPlantation forestryAgroforestLogged forestNatural forest Time
C-s
tock FN
FLLogged forest
Natural forest
FP
Plantation forestry
Time-aver-aged C-stocks
Ai
Open-field agriculture
Weaknesses of the approach derive from:
1.Errors in spatial classification by land use types, combining ‘land cover phases’ with on-the-ground charac-teristics and management styles
2.Uncertainty on shifts in time-averaged C stocks within the LU categories
Remedies:
Combine the approach with models that link to ‘drivers’: material flows, labour, rights
C =kfk,t+1Ck,t+1 - kfk,tCk,t
= k (fk,t+1 - fk,t ) Ck,t+1 + kfk,t ( Ck,t+1 - Ck,t )
Area change for each class j of C stock densities
Change in mean C stock density for each class j
C = iCi,t+1 - iCi,t
C-stock, Ci
Frequency, f
i
C-stock, Ci
Frequency, f
i
t + 1 minus t
C-stock, Ci
Frequency, f
igain
loss
Approaches:
1. Land cover classes
2. Using gain & loss data
3. Land use classes
Uncertainty, bias and its consequences in C accounting
Tree: size (diameter, height,…)
shape (allometrics)
wood density C-concentration
Species ID &lookup tables
Forest/Ag patch: frequency distribution . of trees of various types
Land area: mosaic of Forest/Ag patches
Time series: temporal change in mosaics
Mg C / year
Mg C
Mg C / ha
Mg C / tree
Trees / ha =
x
=
xha / LUtype
=
d /dt
Drivers State Consequences
DemographyLivelihood
Trade & in- deficit &Vestment Environmen-
tal deficitClimate change
Stakeholders G o v e r n a n c e d e f i c i t
Actual forest &
tree cover
Mosaic landscape with agroforestry, plantations, crop fields, woodlots
Core Logged Secondary&forest over Agro-forest forest
Annual Grasscrops land
Deg
rada
tion
Def
ores
tatio
n
Re/A
gro-
fore
stati
on
C st
ocks
, Mg
ha-1
Forest & tree cover transition
The efficiency versus fairness challenge
Emissions not covered by
mechanisms discussed, e.g.
peatland Sinks not covered by current mechanisms
C-stocks
t/ha
Time, national land-use-change trajectories
Fairness criterion: reward conservation ethic
Efficiency criterion: focus on verifiable emission reduction
Depends on definitions used
Conservation Production Conversion
forest forest forest
Forest without
trees
Non-forest without trees
Trees outside forest
Forest with trees
Forest definition based on insti-tutions & intent
Forest definition based on X% canopy cover
Including e.g. agroforests, oil palm plantation
Clearfelling/ re-plant is accep-
ted as forest; no time-limit on
‘replant’
Annex-I Emissions all sectors
Non-Annex-I CDM
REDD and SFM
PEAT SLM Agricult. intensi-fication
Alleviating rural poverty
Biofuel, agrocommoditiesExport of woodNon-accountable footprint
A/R
Day Year Plant life cycle Ecosystem succession GeomorphologicalTime scales
Background soilrespiration
Rhizosphere-induced soilrespiration
Episodic droughts fire & respiration
Respiration linked to shifts in regional hydrologyRoot + rhizosphere-
respiration of recent photosynthates
Surface litter respiration
Surface woody residue respiration
Incorporation of aboveground residue & structural root turnover, followed by respiration
CO2CO2
CH2OCH4
or CO2
CO2
CH4
or CO2
CH4
or CO2
CO2CO2
Root and stem aerenchyma based gas
emissions from root and rhizosphere respiration
(bypassing aerobic zones)
Organic acids and particulate leachates
Tradeoffs in lowland Sumatra/Kalimantan without ‘intermediate intensity rubber agroforestry
Opportunities for C offset incentives
Tradeoffs in lowland Sumatra/Kalimantan with new ‘intermediate intensity’ rubber agroforestry
An economic development success story
Keeping far-mers on-site
Destroying options for C-offsets
Reducing landscape C
stocks