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

Contents

1. Introduction

2. 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

Brazilian Proposal - MATCH Project

1997As 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.

House et al. [2003]

Global Estimates of Carbon Emissions From Land-Use Change

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.

Contents

1. Introduction

2. 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

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

Comparison Analysis of Land-Use Change Emissions

Contents

1. Introduction

2. 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

Global land-use change areas (102 km2 yr-1) in forests

SAGE

HYDE

SAGE

HYDE

SAGE

Cropland

Pastureland

Afforestation (+)

deforestation (-)

HYDE; Klein Goldewijk, 2001, SAGE; Ramankutty and Foley, 1998, 1999

Brazil

Contents

1. Introduction

2. 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

Global Carbon Pools (PgC) in 1990s

SOC: Soil organic carbon + litterVC: Vegetation carbon

USA

Contents

1. Introduction

2. 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

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

1. Carbon pool2. LUCF + environmental factors

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

Each LUCF + environmental factors

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

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

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

LUCF

ENV

Contents

1. Introduction

2. 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

Carbon Pools (PgC) for USA in 1990s

SOC + LIT

VC

LIT

USA Carbon Stock Change (TgC yr-1) in 1990s

SOC + LIT

VC

LIT

USA Carbon Fluxes (TgC yr-1) in 1990s

Inverse estimate [Baker et al., 2006]: −1100 ± 230 TgC yr‑1Other sinks [Pacala et al., 2001]: −40 to −170 TgC yr‑1

Brazil LUC (102 km2 yr-1) in forests

Cropland

Pastureland

Brazil Carbon Fluxes (TgC yr-1) in 1990s

LUC

ENV

Pasture conversion

Inter-annual variability for Latin America in 1990s

EMI5

EMI6

EMI8

EMI1

EMI7

Inverse estimate [Baker et al., 2006]: 0.43 ± 0.86 PgC yr‑1

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.