Global forestry emission projections and abatement costs

Global forestry emission projections Global forestry emission projections y p j

d b t t t

and abatement costs and abatement costs

Hannes Böttcher ^1* , Mykola Gusti ¹ , Petr Havlik ¹ , Aline Mosnier ¹ , Michael Obersteiner ¹

1

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria

* C @

* Corresponding 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 cost E

Background and research question Results 2: Effect of integrated abatement cost curves in Annex I countries

E

missions 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

curves in Annex I countries

Avoided While the AR potential is negligible in Annex 1 The integrated

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2010 (1,2). This LUC includes emissions from the 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 and

deforestation (D) leads to more

g mitigation potential for single

While the AR potential is negligible in Annex 1 countries because of a rather high baseline

d ti l til th f t t t t

establishment of new forests (afforestation). Not included in the balance are emissions and

removals from existing forests that contributed in 2000-2007 to a

global net forest sink of

harvest in existing forests (FM).

Th dditi l

activities (here D) is smaller (cf Fig.

and a time lag until the new forests start to grow faster, there is more potential for FM and

4.4 Gt CO

₂ including management of exiting forests (FM), afforestation (AR) and

deforestation (D) (3) An important question for an assessment of global climate change

These additional emissions (compared to

3a and b) since negative impacts

th ti iti

g p

avoided D (cf Fig. 3b).

Competition for land and the shift of wood deforestation (D) (3). An important question for an assessment of global climate change

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

(compared to baseline) need to

be included

on other activities (here FM) are accounted for

Competition for land and the shift of wood supply from deforestation to managed forests

d h i l

manipulated and managed through forestry activities and changes of management practices.

How much can forestry emissions be reduced and forest sinks be enhanced?

be included. reduce the potential. accounted for.

A ti f AR D l Accounting for AR D and FM

How much can forestry emissions be reduced and forest sinks be enhanced?

An active change of forest management change, a reduction of deforestation rates and ^{3a 120 3b 120}

Accounting for AR, D only Accounting for AR, D and FM

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 forestry

100 100 t C]Another important question is therefore

at what costs

mitigation potentials in the forestry

sector could be realized. ^{80 80}

USD/t

A 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 IIASA

60 60

price [

for a limited land resource and have common drivers (e.g. wood demand). We use IIASA 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 alternatives

40 40

arbon p

costs. The model is spatially explicit and compares the NPV of management alternatives. ₂₀

Ca 20

Results 1: Baseline of global forestry emissions

-0.1 ⁰0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0

-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Global deforestation (D) drops from 8

Mitigation potential in Gt CO₂ Mitigation potential in Gt CO₂.

about 4Gt CO₂ (12 Mha) in 2005 to

below 3Gt CO₂ (10 Mha) after 2015 ⁶

Afforestation Deforestation Forest management

Fig 3. Comparison of mitigation potential when AR and D are estimated separately (a) or integrated including FM (b)

O2/yr]

below 3Gt CO₂ (10 Mha) after 2015 and reaches less than 2 Gt CO₂ (5

Mh ) i 2050 Aff t ti (AR) ²

4 estimated separately (a) or integrated including FM (b). Forest management

[GtCO

Mha) in 2050. Afforestation (AR)

rates remain fairly constant (2 Gt ⁰

2

Conclusions

ovals [

y (

CO₂ or 7 Mha).

Alth h b t

-2 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

• The forestry climate change mitigation potential of single activities (enhanced afforestation,

d remo

Although we observe a net 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 on

ns and

g

2015 net emissions from

deforestation and afforestation are ^-8

-6 avoided deforestation reduces potential for afforestation and increases also pressure on

remaining forests with implications for the C balance.

missio

deforestation and afforestation are

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 account

Em

afforested areas accumulate carbon rather slowly

net LUC AR D FM total

Fi 1 F t bi b li i i i Gt CO2

therefore too high. We present integrated mitigation potentials and cost curves that account for competition for land and other common drivers.

rather slowly. Fig 1. Forest biomass baseline emissions in Gt CO2.

• There is a need for taking an integrated view on mitigation potentials to account for leakage across activities sectors and countries

Comparison of baseline to historic estimates

across activities, sectors, and countries.

• Risks that further lower the realizable potential are policy inefficiency, additional costs Our results can be compared with historic data (based Land use change

p p y y

(monitoring, transaction), and natural disturbances that have not been taken into account.

2a

on inventories) for an overlapping period of 1990-2010.

We systematically underestimate the gross forest sink ^{0 0 1990-1999 2000-2007}

Land use change

Results 3: Mitigation potential and costs of

We systematically underestimate the gross forest sink 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

0.0

forestry activities

Fig 4. Cost curve for mitigation measures in the

f t t f diff t f t i

effects (CO₂ fertilization, N deposition, etc.). This leads

to a considerable underestimation of the net forest sink ^-0.8

120

Figure 4 shows the additional CO₂ storage in comparison to the baseline at different

forestry sector for different groups of countries.

(Figure 2c). But uncertainties of the historic estimate are

high (about 70%) ^{1 6}

-1.2

in comparison to the baseline at different 120

carbon price levels. The carbon price high (about 70%).

-2.0 -1.6

Gl b l t f t i k

2 ₁₀₀

C]

leads to a change in the behavior of land owners They increase afforestation avoid

Forest sink

1.4

Global net forest sink

C]

2c

2b 80

[USD/t

owners. They increase afforestation, avoid deforestation and improve forest

2 5 3.0 1 0

1.2 1.4

s [PgC 2b

60

n price [

management.

Annex 1 countries have naturally a lower

2.0 2.5 0 6

0.8 1.0

Pan et al. 2011 Science Express

ssions

40

Carbon

Annex 1 countries have naturally a lower potential because of the smaller area and

0.4 1.5

0.6 Express

G4M baseline 2011

al emis

20 Clower deforestation rates in the baseline

that could potentially be avoided, but also

0 5 1.0 0.0

0.2

1990 1999 2000 2007

Globa

0

0 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5

that could potentially be avoided, but also because of higher costs. Large potentials

i N A 1 t i l b

0.0 1990-1999 2000-2007 0.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Mitigation potential [Gt CO₂]

in Non-Annex 1 countries can only be

realized at higher C prices (above 25 USD

1990-1999 2000-2007 Fig 2a-c. Comparison of baseline to historic estimates.

Forestry Non-Annex 1 Forestry Annex 1 Forestry Global

g p (

per tC).

Map of baseline deforestation in 2030

^y

Map of baseline deforestation in 2030

The map in Figure 5 shows the baseline deforestation in 2030 The map in Figure 5 shows the baseline deforestation in 2030.

The spatial dynamics of where deforestation takes place are model internally driven by land productivity (NPV of

forestry compared to NPV of agriculture) and past deforestation forestry compared to NPV of agriculture) and past deforestation rates in that grid cell. To improve the geographical accuracy of the

j ti l t i l d f i f t t j t i th

projection we plan to include maps of infrastructure projects in the

future and to calibrate the model to historic maps of forest area changep g from satellite products that have recently become available.

References

1. Peters, G. P., G. Marland, C. Le Quéré, T. Boden, J. G. Canadell and M. R. Raupach: Rapid growth in CO 2

References

1. 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 change2:2-4 (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. Biogeosciences9:1845-1871 (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

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

world's forests. Science 333: 988-993 (2011) . Fig 5. Map of baseline deforestation

area in 2030 in ha per grid cell.