productive and sustainable coconut farming ecosystems as potential carbon...

Productive and Sustainable Coconut Farming Ecosystems as Potential

Carbon “Sinks” in Climate-Change Minimization: (A Review and Advisory Notes) a

Severino S. Magat, PhD Scientist IV and Department Manager III, R & D, and Extension Branch Philippine Coconut Authority, Elliptical Rd, Diliman Quezon City 1101

[email protected] INTRODUCTION AND SIGNIFICANCE 1. “Climate-Change” as defined in RA 9729 known as the Philippine Climate-Change Act of 2009 refers to a change in climate that can be identified by changes in the mean and/or variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. Generally, it is widely claimed to result in global warming, and unpredictable rainfall patterns, floods and droughts impacts on food security and agricultural productivity as climate affects the capacity of a country to feed its people and generate adequate quantity and acceptable quality of crops in a sustained way (Goh 2009; Donovan 2008 ). 2. As agriculture is both a cause and victim of climate-change, the solution of climate-change caused by agriculture depends on selecting the best agriculture or farming practices to provide the cost-effective agricultural production system with minimum adverse effects on the environment, particularly its resultant climate. Coconut farming and/or coconut agro-ecosystem is one of the major agricultural sectors/systems in the country since the post-Spanish regime. Also, the landscape of the Philippines from the seacoast to elevated uplands and low mountains had been devoted to coconut farming and coconut agro-ecosystem as one of the major cropping/system in the country had been dominated by rice lands, corn lands and coconut lands with around 3.3 million (M) ha for decades already. Our natural and managed (plantations) forest lands had been reduced from over 10 M ha many decades ago to a low of at least 1 M ha today. 3. Global warming, or climate-change in general, and its consequences are among the pressing issues today. In recent years, many believe that climate changes have been strongly attributed to greenhouse gasses (GHGs) in the earth’s atmosphere like carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (NO2), and fluorocarbons (FCs). These GHGs absorb the thermal radiation emitted by the earth’s surface, thus rising concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere could lead to a change in energy balance and eventually the world’s climate. The CO2 is by far the largest contributor to the man-made enhanced greenhouse effect (IPCC 2007). _________________________________________________________________________________ a Philippine Association of Career Scientists, Inc. 4th Scientific Symposium. “S & T Challenges and

Opportunities in the Midst of Climate-Change”. 01 Dec. 2009, Richmonde Hotel, 21 San Miguel Ave., Ortigas Center. Pasig City, Metro Manila.

of 24

mailto:[email protected]

4. Forest ecosystems play a significant mitigating role in climate-change because they can both be sources and “sinks” of CO2 (Trexler and Haugen 1995 cited by Lasco et al 1998). The net ecosystem exchange of CO2 between coconut and the atmosphere is the difference between CO2 uptake via photosynthesis and CO2 emission through ecosystem respiration (release or loss of CO2) by plant leaves and soil roots and plant litters (Roupsard et al 2008). 5. As to the net ecosystem carbon production (NEP) or carbon sequestration (CS) by the carbon stock method (CSM), accounted are the variations of C stocks in the soil + biomass + necro-mass (litters). This assessment method could be acceptable on the long term, but for C stocks for a short term (a day or few years, no accurate method is yet available (Roupsard et al 2008). In coconut plantations with intercropping or under-storey cropping, the applicability of the CSM (C storage or sink) assessment requires more studies to have an objective, location-specific and highly acceptable quantification of carbon inputs and balance, eventually for C credits and carbon stock marketing. 6. The Philippines is one of the tropical countries that have a high potential to mitigate global warming, specifically carbon emissions. Like forest lands, the country’s extensive coconut lands of about 3.2 M ha with at least 325 M coconut fruit-bearing trees could be developed for income generating carbon sequestration projects and carbon credit market. 7. Earlier, workers (Lales et al 2001) in the country studied the C storage capacities (CSC) of agricultural and grassland ecosystems in Leyte, Philippines. CSC is a function (based) on the annual total above ground biomass (dry matter mass) multiplied by the average C content (e.g. 44.7% C, coconut trunks, leaves without nuts). They found that among the crops studied, banana and coconut had an average C storage of 5.7 t C/ha and 24.1 t C ha per year, respectively. Coconut farming and coconut agro-ecosystem is one of the major cropping systems in the country). And among the four crops studied (wetland rice, banana, sugar cane and coconut), coconut was also found to have the most stable C storage, being a perennial crop with almost nil burning of crop residues in place at the farm ( compared to that in rice and sugar cane farming). The same workers did not mention the levels of C sequestration in the soil. On net ecosystem production or NEP, an actual ecosystem C balance value of 4.7 to 8.1 t C/ha per year was reported recently (Roupsard et al 2008) from a three years work (2001-2003) in the South Pacific (Vanuatu). If coconut meat (1.3 t copra/ha) is transported from the field, the corrected NEP decreases to 3.4 – 6.8 t C/ha per year. These positive values of actual ecosystem C balance indicates that C (CO2) is sequestered from the atmosphere and stored in the plantation. It appears, the C sequestered in the soil was not included. This variability in findings indicates more refinements of methodologies and collaborative works are essential to provide accurate and objective information and data for a carbon credit/ market generated in coconut-based agro-ecosystems. 8. Under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which is an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate-Change (UNFCCC), industrialized countries have committed to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other green house gases (e.g. methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride) or engage on emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of their gases. In the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of this protocol, they can meet part of their target in reducing CO2 emission to the 1990 levels over a five-year period (i.e.,2008-2012) by purchasing emission reduction credits from developing countries like the Philippines in the form of planted forest which is achievable in the Philippines due to its vast tracts of open land for the establishments of plantations like yemane (Gmelina arborea Roxb.(Tandug 2006).

of 24

Due to the apparent complexity and involvement or interactions of many aspects of our land resources, biological diversity, crop diversity, environment and man’s practices and interventions in response to his social and economic needs, this review paper should be significant in deciding our best individual, community, sector, and country’s option in facing or dealing with the climate change impacts today and the years ahead.

Typical coconut plantings in sloping and hilly areas which conserve coconut land resources, and could minimize climate-change

SIGNIFICANT GLOBAL FACTS, OBSERVATIONS AND MAIN STRATEGIES

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most significant and reference “green house” gas (GHG) among GHGs produced by human activities, primarily through the combustion of fossil fuels. The earth’s atmosphere has risen by more than 30% since industrial revolution (1744 -2005). From 275 ppm (0.0275%) to 380 ppm (0.038%), the trend is an exponential one during the past 800,000 years (Reay and Pidwirny 2006). The current rate of increase is estimated at 2 ppm annually.

Mankind and ecological systems rely on the soil for the provision of water and nutrients for plant growth, the regulation of the water cycle, and the storage of carbon. Climate change (CC) and its impacts -

of 24

--------- e.g., increases in temperature (heat), changing rainfall patterns, floods, droughts ------ will not only affect us but may also affect how soil provides services. It is well known that it has highest C pool/supply, after the ocean and sea (European Environment Agency (2009). 1. Climate Changes (CC): 1) Earth’s mean temperature: projected to increase by 1.5 - 5.8oC during the 21st century (IPCC 2001); at the rate of increase since 1975 = 0.15oC per decade (10 years). 2) Sea level rise (20th century): 15 - 23 cm (IPCC 2007). 3) Notable shifts in land use and ecosystems, worldwide (Greene & Pershing 2007 cited by Lal 2007). 4) Higher Frequency of occurrence and higher intensity of wild fires (Running 2006; Westerling et al 2006 cited by Lal 2008). 5) Annual temperature trend of the Philippines has been decreasing at 0.20 oC/decade from 1901 to 2000 (IPCC 2002) cited by Fuentes and Ling (2009); a decrease of 10 – 20% of precipitation (rainfall) for the past century.

Moreover, the IPCC mentioned that It will be “very likely” that the higher maximum and minimum temperatures will lead to more hot days in almost land masses; also “very likely” the amplitude and frequency of extreme rainfall are to increase over many years. Hence, It was predicted that a combination of increased temperature and potential water evaporation that is not balanced by increases in rainfall can lead to an increase in summer droughts. 2. Reported causes of CC: 1) the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) mainly as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4 ) and nitrous oxide (N2O) gases , at dangerous levels through---------anthropogenic interference (man-made) with the climate system as follows: a) land use change (cropping systems); b) deforestation; c) biomass burning; d) draining of wet lands; e) soil cultivation ( destructive and inefficient farming practices) 3. Strong global interest in stabilizing abundance of CO2 and other GHGs to mitigate the risks of global warming (Kerr 2007; Kluger 2007; Wlash 2007 cited by Lal 2007), and in this regard identified key mitigating strategies are indicated below: 4. Three Strategies of lowering Carbon Dioxide Gas Emissions (Lal 2007): 1) reducing the global energy use; 2) developing low or carbonless fuel; and 3) sequestering CO2 from point source or atmosphere through natural and engineering techniques

of 24

5. The Carbon Cycle

5.1 There is a biological side to global warming (one of major the outcomes of and the carbon cycle . Carbon is a main component or ingredient of all life, and of its remains (Donovan 2008). It was mentioned that while planting trees is a way to reduce atmospheric CO2, we could increase soil organic matter (i.e., 58% C by dry weight), rapidly and cheaply. This will pull the excess Cout of the atmospheric (CO2 emission), while also enhancing soil fertility, water quality, food quality and human health, likewise, minimizing floods, droughts and agriculture’s dependence on fossil fuels and farm chemicals.

5.2 How it works? Through the biological processes such photosynthesis and respiration, about 99% of the C cycle is driven. There is more C in stored in the soil than in the vegetation (plants) and atmosphere combined. And soil C can be stable than plant C as the former is less subject to oxidation or burning, thus a good topsoil. It is characterized with the combined components of different levels of solid mineral matter, air, water, living organisms in the soil and organic matter.

5.3 Respiration, both on land and in the sea is the key component of the global carbon cycle. On land, the estimated terrestrial emission by autotrophic respiration: 60 billion (B) t (Pg) C per year; heterotrophic respiration: 55 B t C/yr (Reay and Pidwirny 2006). While in the sea: autotrophic respiration: 58 B t C/yr and heterotrophic respiration: 34 B t C/yr. The land use-changes in the tropics is currently 1.7 B t C/yr, mainly due to deforestation. Stationary energy sources (coal-fired) had CO2 emissions of 6.5 B t C/yr.

5.4 When C inputs from organic fertilizers are ignored, all the C inputs come from the gross primary production (GPP: the sum of the photosynthesis of plants of the ecosystem). A significant part of the C uptake is lost through autotrophic respiration (plant respiration) with two components: (1) respiration from above ground (stem, branches, leaves); and (2) root respiration. The fraction of GPP that is not lost through plant respiration is used to produce new biomass, thus contributing to the Net Primary Production (NPP: sum of visible growth + litter production).

5.5 The total respiratory C loss by the ecosystem (Re: ecosystem respiration results from the plant respiration (Ra) and respiration of soil and litter decomposers (Rh). The net ecosystem exchange of CO2 between the forest/tree crops and the atmosphere (NEE) = to the difference between CO2 uptake/fixation through photosynthesis, and CO2 emission through ecosystem respiration.

This review paper (also intended to serve as a technology-Advisory Notes) mainly deals with the third strategy (section 4 mentioned above) with focus or emphasis on understanding the current knowledge and indicative future studies (still needed) in the utilization of the potential and/or natural capability of coconut to sequester the CO2 of the environment and store it in the plant-soil system, meaning in its total ecosystem. Moreover, in relation to climate change and carbon credits (trading), the social, ecological and economic benefits of carbon sequestration in coconut farming will be covered to limited extent as appropriate.

of 24

6. Biofuels 6.1 Converting biomass-derived sugars to ethanol and plant oils and fats into bio-diesel is a viable strategy to reduce use of fossil fuels and develop alternate and sustainable sources of energy (Himmel et al 2007; Stephanopoulos 2007 and Wald 2007). Of the renewable sources, 2.48% was contributed by traditional bio-fuels (e.g. animal dung, crop residues, wood products, and 1.91% by modern bio-fuels. 6,2 Bio-fuels, recently have been high on the political and scientific agenda. Why? It is associated with C sequestration in two distinct but interrelated concerns (Lal 2007, in Royal Society 2007: (i) soil C sequestration through restoration of the depleted soil organic carbon (SOC) pool, particularly when agriculturally degraded/marginal soils are converted to energy plantations; and (ii) recycling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) into biomass-based bio-fuels. With choice of the appropriate species and prudent management, bio-fuels produced from energy plantations established by dedicated crops (as coconut, sugar cane and selected cereal crops in the tropics) can sequester or store C in the soil (as C “natural sink”), offset fossil fuel emissions and reduce the rate of abundance of atmospheric CO2 and other GHGs. 6.3 Nevertheless, against the beneficial impacts of bio-fuels, some people have argued that there could be an increase in competition for land and water in establishing energy tree plantations aimed for carbon farming.

6.4 Coconut Biodiesel Fuel Initiatives in the Phillipines

An extensive study and cross-checking of the properties and performance of coconut oil-based methyl ester (CME) was done in the country and in some concerned and interested countries. With very positive results favoring CME as a coconut oil-derived bio-fuel, a law was enacted in the country now called RA 9367, the bio-fuels law of 2006, enforced as a law effective February 6, 2007. It shall support the government’s objectives and goal of reducing the dependence of the country and fossil oil users on imported fuels. Moreover, among the many other socio-economic beneficial concerns are: the protection of pubic health against hazardous air pollution; the conservation of sustainable environment and natural resources; and utilization of the coconut crop as a renewable bio-fuel source (Ables 2009).

In more specific terms for diesel- fed mobile and stationary engines, the bio-fuels act mandates the blending at least 1 % CME in the coconut bio-diesel fuel, starting May 2007, followed by 2% blending with CME Based on the country’s compliance monitoring on RA 9367 managed by the government through the joint efforts of Department of Energy (DOE), and the National Bio-diesel Board (NBB), Table 1 shows the important indicative coconut bio-diesel early growth indices from 2007- 2009.

of 24

Table 1. Important milestones and growth indices on the utilization of coconut oil as bio-fuel in the Philippines (2007 – 2009)

Date/Year Total Quantity of Coconut Bio-diesel

Sold in the market Remarks/Notes

May to end 2007 44.46 million (M) liters Initial year of implementation. Sold

to/or bought by various sectors/users

First semester (Jan –June) 2008 32.50 M liters -ditto- End 2008 64.48 M liters Still at 1% CME blend End of 2009 133.68 M liters (forecast by DOE and

NBB) At 2% CME blend starting February 2009; Note: combine capacity of 10 bio-diesel plants = 323.620 M liters

Source: Ables, R.C. (2009) 7. Carbon Farming and Trading of Carbon Credits Carbon sequestered or stored in soils and trees can be traded, just as any farm produce (crops, meat, fish, milk, etc). Trading C credits is a rapidly growing industry (Gressel 2007; McGowan 2007 cited by Lal 2007). The market is now well established in Europe (Johnson & Heinen 2004; Brahic 2006, as cited by Lal 2007 ) and the USA through Chicago Climate Exchange (Breslau 2006). The ‘cap and trade’ movement is gaining momentum in the USA (Schlesinger 2006 and McGowan 2007), with attention focused on policy options fro slowing emissions of GHGs (cited by Lal 2007, Koferr 2007 and Kintisch 2007b). Lai (2007) mentioned the following options: (i) imposing tax on C emissions called C tax; (ii) providing government subsidies; and (iii) trading C credits (net C). As stressed by Lai (2007), while the market for trading C sequestered in soils and biota (trees and other living organisms) is being developed in North America and Europe, the strategy will likely be beneficial to the resource-poor and small landholders (as coconut farmers) of developing countries of Asia and Africa. This is significant as trading C credits generated by these countries can provide a much needed income for the farmer, and serves as an essential incentive to invest in soil restoration (e.g. erosion control, fertilizers, irrigation and other farm improvements), breaking the agrarian stagnation and advancing food security. Productivity and carbon balance of each type of land use or ecosystem are key issues for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), particularly in the tropics. In addition, the impact of crop management or practices on the GHG emissions is likely to become a significant concern and consideration under the second phase (period) of the commitment under the global Kyoto Protocol in the coming 2012 and onwards. As a reference, Roupsard et al (2008), mentioned significant indices: (i) ecosystem productivity is referred to as the Net Primary Productivity (NPP: the sum of crop annual growth and mortality); (ii) Gross Primary Productivity (GPP: CO2 entry in the ecosystem via photosynthesis; and Net Ecosystem Productivity (NEP: CO2 balance of the ecosystem, or it means the proxy for C sequestration, covering all emission sources of the soil-plant-atmosphere interface).

of 24

REVIEW OF FAST AND CURRENT WORKS AND FURTHER ACTIONS NEEDED

To understand climate change (CC), carbon sequestration, agricultural productivity and environmental productivity responses, it is important know well the key plant physiological processes, especially, photosynthesis and metabolic respiration which involves, respectively, the CO2 plant intake from and CO2 release to the atmosphere. Generally, the balance of the two biological processes is considered as the net photosynthetic assimilation rate (indicated or measured by biomass density index through the dry matter mass/yield). With the aid of a formula or equation, these are shown as : A. Plant Photosynthesis – the basic process of natural food manufacture in plants of which carbohydrates are produced and with the combination with mineral/inorganic materials and substances, other foods are made (proteins, fats and oils) The basic photosynthetic reaction: light

12 H2O + 6 CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> C6H12O6 + 6 O2 + 6 H2O chlorophyll

Consider that:

1) The first part of the total photosynthetic reaction is essentially light-driven (light absorption), water-splitting (with aid of Cl ions) to generate hydrogen ions for the production of energy-rich compounds (ATP and TPN.H2), needed by the plant for the next metabolic reaction;

2) The next reaction involves the incorporation of CO2 plus water to produce the basic product glucose carbohydrate):

Like biological reactions in general, the reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) and the production of carbohydrates (CHOs) is a continuing process only as long the favorable plant physiological factors and conditions are met.

Hence, trees naturally take up CO2 from the atmosphere and store the converted carbon (C) in

their biomass through photosynthesis. With the increasing serious concern over the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, the role of trees in the removal of atmospheric CO2 for the build-up pf their biomass should be extremely relevant in environmental management. The planting of trees including palm trees as coconut to sequester atmospheric C has been considered as one of the most cost-effective and long lasting means or significant strategy to mitigate the global problem of increasing excessive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

B. Plant Respiration – a general metabolic term covering varied series of biological phenomena by which the chemical energy of foods is converted to the chemical energy of some compounds, usually the adenosine tri-phosphate (ATP), accompanied by the release of CO2 and water. Cells use ATP to do work, hence, referred to as “the energy currency of cells”.

of 24

The over-all equation of respiration: C6H12O6 + 6 O2 >>>>>>>>>> 6 CO2 + 6 H2O + energy C. Net Assimilation Rate (resultant biomass or Dry Mass/ Matter Yield) In an earlier study on coconut in India reported by Nair (1979) as estimated from the works of Nelliat et al (1974) and Khanna and Nair (1977) as cited by Magat (1990), an indicative value of annual net assimilation rate (NAR) of the coconut crop was reported, indicated in Table 2. This is an important index in the determination of the sequestration of C of the coconut crop. Table 2. Total annual biomass yield (t/ha) at different tree productivity levels

Plant Part Annual Nut Yield (nut/palm) 60 100 250

Whole nut 6.70 11.20 28.00 Spathes and rachis 0.15 0.15 0.15

Leaves 4.60 4.60 4.60 Stem 1.25 1.25 1.25 Roots 1.25 1.25 1.25

Total biomass 14.20 18.70 35.20 Estimated annual

biomass C ( t C/ha)a6.34 8.35 15.73

Equivalent CO2 (t/ha)b 20.58 31.06 58.51 Source: Nair (1979) cited by Magat (1990) a calculated based on the formula: biomass C = (biomass yield x 44 %C) b calculated based on the formula: biomass CO2 sequestered (fixed) = (biomass C x 3.72)

From this data, using an average 44%C content of coconut biomass, it can be noted that the

biomass yield, biomass C generated , and level of atmospheric CO2 sequestered or fixed by bearing coconut increases with increasing yield of the palm, with the whole nut biomass yield as a strong significant factor in the NAR of the coconut. Most of the biomass of the palm is generated by the easily decomposed parts of the palms (whole nut and leaf fronds).

While, in a recent work in India, the biomass production of coconut under a high density multi-species cropping system (HDMSCS) was investigated by the workers of the CPRI (Kasaragod, India), with other crops (banana, pineapple and cloves), as reported by Subramanian et al (2005). Table 3 shows the different annual dry matter yields (t/ha) under different fertilization levels compared to unfertilized condition.

of 24

Table 3. Average total biomass (t/ha)a of coconut and other crops under the HDMSCS in India (CPCRI-Kasaragod, 1998-1999).

Fertilization Level Coconut b Banana

Full of recommended rate (RR) 23.55 1.767 2/3 RR 24.80 1.407 1/3 RR 21.98 1.329 ¼ RR 19.94 1.124 1/5 RR 18.49 0.851

Unfertilized (Control) 17.72 0.716 a18-yr old West Coast Tall, 8 x 8 m square planting (156 trees/ha) b dry matter mass of leaves, inflorescences and nuts (husk, meat and shell).

Table 2 indicates that the annual biomass yield (dry matter yield without the stem) as a measure of the net assimilation rate of the coconut varies with the levels of fertilization. In these two crops, coconut and banana, the annual biomass generated were lowest under unfertilized conditions, but it was highest under 2/3 recommended fertilization rates for coconut, and in contrast to banana crop which was at the full recommended rate. This indicates that coconut’s biomass yield or NAR could be optimized if proper crop nutrition and fertilization management is followed. D. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Storage and Sequestration under Different Land-use Among the anthropogenic green house gases (GHGs), it recognized that CO2 is the most abundant and strongly claimed responsible for more than 50% of the radiation associated with the “green house” effect (Solomon and Srinivasan ( 1996). Tropical forest trees or forest ecosystem through its plant biomass is well known to mitigate the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. While the Philippine forest land cover in the national C budgets had been quantified by workers earlier ( cited by Lasco et al 2000), information on the C stocks and carbon sequestration in other land covers as coconut areas is still unknown in the country, until the current indicative studies presented in the following sections. 1. In the Philippines : 1.1 The carbon dioxide (CO2) storage and sequestration work in Leyte, Philippines of Lasco and co-workers (as reported in Lasco et al 2000) 1) It estimated the existing stored carbon (C) and rate of sequestration by the vegetation (crops) that can potentially serve as sink of the carbon dioxide (CO2) by a geothermal energy plant (640 MW, emitting 644, 389 t CO2/yr) in Leyte Province, covering a watershed area of 20.4 ha;

2) It assumed that the annual C sequestration (ACS) is 27% of total CO2 emission per year , therefore: ACS = total CO2 x 0.272 ( or total ACS x 3.72 = total CO2);

of 24

3) Rate of C sequestration (t C/ha/yr) based on the plant biomass (soil not included) was found: coconut – 4.78 t C/ha/yr (equivalent to 17.54 t CO2); forest plantations - 10.06 t C/ha/yr (36 t CO2); brush-land – 4.29 t C (15.74 t C/ha/yr) . This indices also serves as the CO2 absorption capacity of the vegetative covers, but not covering the soil C sequestration which workers claimed is remarkably higher than the plant biomass. 4) This specific study (conducted with a limited time: April 1998 to June 1999) failed to determined the changes in soil organic carbon (SOC) as an objective assessment requires a long period of time

An objective assessment to include the soil organic matter (SOM) for soil organic C (SOC) as also a significant sink (storage component) in CO2 sequestration is needed in the quantification of the Carbon Balance/Credit Sheet. This limitation of earlier studies reported justifies that further studies soon must look into this aspect to quantify the soil C rate of sequestration and storage, active and passive components over a long period of time, as a total approach to an objective and credible C credit valuation. Eventually, this should be beneficial to all concerned, particularly, the coconut farmers in developing countries producing coconut. 1.2 Carbon Storage Capacity of Agricultural and Grasslands Ecosystems in a Geothermal Area (Lales et al 2001). 1) Applying on coconut, carbon storage capacity is determined or equal to : Total plant matter (TPDW) x % Carbon; while TPDW =TDWtrunk + TDWleaves + TDWnuts. The TDW components are calculated from the formula of Friend and Corley (1994) cited by Lales et al (2001). The dry matter or biomass yield in this study refers to the total dry matter mass of coconut trunk, leaves and nuts as above ground parts of the coconut palm crop. 2) Biomass production and C Storage of bearing coconut palms (20-30 year old): in May 1998 ranged from 40.87 t to 46.87 t/ha and increased to 61.22 t to 67 t/ha in 1999 (Table 4). This corresponds to stored C in May 1998 of 18.27 – 20.67 t C/ha and increased to 27.36 – 30.1 t C/ha in 1999, a year later. This means an average C storage of 24.1 t C/ha. Note that this was based on 7 m x 7 m coconut palm spacing (204 trees/ha); average % C=44.7 [combined trunk, leaves, nuts (excluding the meat)] 3) Biomass production and C Storage of pre-bearing coconut palms:

Also, in Table 4, for pre-bearing palms (juvenile stage), the average biomass yield = 10.44 t/ha (May 1998) and 15.22 t/ha (April 1999), a significant increase of 4.78 t/ha in dry matter mass production), a year after. The palms had an average estimated C storage of 4.66 t C/ha and 6.80 t C/ha, in years May 1998 and April, respectively, or a considerable increase of 2.14 t C/ha after one year.

of 24

Table 4. Coconut biomass (dry matter of trunk, stem, leaves and nuts) and carbon storage capacity in Tongonan, Leyte (Geothermal block, PNOC). Field Site

Crop Stage

Biomass or Dry Matter Weight (t/ha)a Carbon Stored (t/ha)

May 1998 (Start) April 1999 (end of one yr)

May 1998(Start) April 1999 (end of one yr)

1 Bearing 40.88 67.41 18.27 30.13 2 Bearing 46.25 61.22 20.67 27.37 Ave. Bearing 43.57 64.32 19.47 28.75 1 Pre-

bearing 8.97 11.29 4.01 5.05

2 Pre-bearing

11.92 19.17 5.33 8.57

Ave. Pre-bearing

10.45 15.23 4.67 6.81

Source: Lales et al (2001) Field Condition: average palm spacing (7 m x 7m, 204 trees/ha) Carbon Content: 44% (average of trunk/stem, leaves and nuts, excluding the meat) 4) Lales et al (2001) study appeared to have considered the dry matter (biomass) production of bearing palms at low productivity level (estimated by the current review at 48 nuts/palm per year), and for non-bearing palms, with apparently inadequate environmental conditions, such as the shaded conditions and poor faming practices in this coconut area mentioned by the workers. Hence, the low sink capacity is likely a result of nut yield-limiting factors, albeit high photosynthetic activity in the leaves (source) under high levels of atmospheric CO2). 5) Among the crops or ecosystems tested, albeit the low nut yield of coconut, still it being a perennial plant was found to have the most stable C storage. Moreover, field burning (losses of C) of crop residues is seldom practice in coconut farming compared to rice, sugar cane farming and in and grasslands. 1.3 Biomass and Carbon Sequestration of the softwood forest tree Yemane (Gmelina arborea Roxb) (Tandug 2006) Gmelina is a softwood forest tree crop grown as a mono-crop or mixed with other fruit and other industrial tree crops, nationwide. Secretaria and Magat (2005) of the Philippine Coconut Authority reported that planting of gmelina tree (also called yemane), a sun-loving intercrop under a leaf-pruned bearing tall coconuts resulted to improved vegetative growth ( more pruned branches and bigger trunks) and higher lumber yield of this intercrop (50% of original stand at 10 year old trees harvested = 14,335 bd-ft/ha, planted at: two rows of gmelina seedlings planted at 3 m x 3 m in between two rows of coconut trees).

of 24

1) Physiologically, trees that grow faster also sequester C faster from the environment, and yemane or gmelina is one of the fast-growing multipurpose and widely adaptable forest tree species commonly used in the establishment of tree plantations, reforestation and agro-forestry areas in the country (Tandug 2006). Also, its wood is one of the best timbers of the tropics for particle board, plywood core stock, and saw timber for light construction, furniture, general carpentry, wood carvings, musical instruments and many others 2) In yemane trees with age range 2 -12 years grown in seven provinces in Central Luzon, B col and Western Visayas, following are the important attributes: 1) 2.6 - 666.4 kg/tree, oven-dry weight (biomass) of 1.32 - 265 kg/tree, average of 135.16 kg and 57.23 kg/tree, respectively. 3) An analysis of the C content of the biomass components determined by the method automated Carbon Analysis-Mass Spectrometry, continuous flow technique revealed the following table 5. Table 5. Distribution of biomass and Carbon content (%) in different parts of the Yemane tree from sample trees in three regions of the Philippines.

Plant Part Distribution (%) Carbon Content (%) Notes Main stem (trunk) 68.56 46.06 1 kg C = 3.68 kg CO2 Foliage (leaves) 6.45 44.89 Topwood, branches& twigs

24.98 44.47

Average (biomasses combined)

--- 44.73 Per Nat’l Gas inventories, forest biomass = 50% C (Brown 1996; Lasco et al 2001a)

Source: Tandug (2006) 4) A yemane tree with a total biomass (oven-dry) of 265 kg (highest observed) = 118.53 kg stored C (265 kg x 0.4473); therefore, on a per ha basis (625 trees) = 74 t C/ha (265 kg x 625 x 0.4473)= 272.62 t CO2/ha (74 t C x 3.68 kg CO2/kg C) sequestered from the atmosphere 5) For the above ground biomass as evaluated, the monetary benefits was estimated by Tandug (2006):

(a) Using the IPCCC market price of sequestered C = USD 10 – 30/ ton C (Asquith 2000);

(b) At 74 t C /ha @ USD 20/t C = USD 1480 = PHP 76,960/ha ( 1USD = 52 PHP) 6) This study was the first attempt in the Philippines to determine the actual above ground biomass (excluding the below ground biomass/soil organic C) and total C of the yemane tree based on felled sample trees representing a wide range of stem wood diameter and height classes. Predicting equations using

of 24

models were developed for estimating the fresh and oven dry weights (biomass) of the whole tree and its components, using easily measured variables such as diameter and height. Carbon content analysis of the various tree components revealed an average of 44.73 % C in the yemane biomass. This is lower than average value (50% C) generally used for forest trees. 1.4. Average annual above ground biomass generation of the Philippine widely-grown Laguna Tall variety (Eroy et al 1999 cited by UPLB and PCA 2002) An earlier study in the country using the extensively grown Laguna Tall variety (currently about 90 % of coconut trees planted) revealed a biomass of 152 kg/tree per year, with about 14% of the biomass stored in the tree trunk, while 37% distributed among the leaf fronds (annual turnover of 12 -14 fronds). Of the biomass produced, it was estimated that 41% goes to the reproductive parts and 7.6% to the bunch peduncles and spikelets. It was also mentioned that the same tall variety generated root biomass at an average of 28.9 kg/tree per year. Assuming that the annual C sequestration of 34 - 65 t CO2/ha, depending on the crop productivity level, if fronds, husks ,shell and peduncle are used as fuel, the net annual CO2 fixation in trunk and roots is estimated at 12.81 t CO2/ha. 1.5. Preliminary results on stored soil organic carbon (SOC) done in coconut ecological study project area at Pagbilao, Quezon (Monsalud et al 2002) Table 6. Soil Organic Carbon in three agroecological zones in Pagbilao, Quezon. Location/Barangay Current Crop-

Vegetation Topography/

Slope (%) Soil Type (series-

texture) SOC ( t C/ha, top

30 cm) Kanlurang Malicboy (coastal)

Coconut, grasses, shrubs

5-8 Quingua Clay 62.6

Ibabang Palsabangon (coastal)

Coconut, pineapple, fruit trees

Almost flat/plain

Bolinao Clay loam 85.5

Binahaan (inland) Coconut, pineapple, banana, shrubs, grasses and secondary forest

Hilly Macolod Clay loam 48.1

Source: Monsalud et al (2002) 1) Note the higher levels of stored C in Ibabang Palsabangon, Pagbilao, Quezon Province. This is likely associated with more biomass coming from annual and perennial fruit trees compared to the other two areas; 2) In forest soils of Papua New Guinea, Columbia and Venezuela, stored C could be as high as 300 t C/ha (up to 1 m soil depth) reported by Lugo and Brown (1993) . In forest ecosystems, the soil C is 30% of total forest C or a much as the biomass (Muora-Costa 1996; and Lugo and Brown 1993 cited by Lasco et al 2000). Moreover, the SOC should not ignored as a C sink because it has the longest residency time among the organic C pools in the forest.

of 24

1.6 An estimation of Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) based on Soil Organic Matter (SOM), Canja (2009)

Canja (pers.comm. ) presented an estimation of SOC based on known facts about field soils from Brady and Weil (1999) : (i) SOC ranges from 40 - 58% of the SOM ; (ii) as the 58% value applies only to highly stabilized humus, especially in sub-soils, in general or most situations the reference value of 50% in more proper; (iii) only about 5% of the volume of an average ideal soil is SOM, but the influence of the organic compounds on soil properties is often greater than its low content would suggest; (iv) the organic matter is far less dense than the mineral matter, thus SOM could account for only about 2% of the mass weight of the soil; and (v) SOM = SOC x 1.72.

The table 7 below shows the estimated SOC from the estimated SOM at two levels of SOM (%) and under two soil depths or top soil thickness. The 1.0 - 2.0% soil organic matter content , the estimated SOC ranges from 10 - 40 t/ha, depending on the soil depth reference, i.e,. 15 - 30 cm. This means that for every 1% increase in SOM, at a soil depth of 15 cm, the estimated SOC produced is 10 t C/ha, a significant quantity of C stored or sequestered in the soil , usually over a long period of time.

Table 7. Estimated quantities (t/ha) of Soil Organic Matter (SOM), Soil Organic Carbon (SOM) varying SOM% and soil depths.

SOM Level Soil Depth/top soil

thickness (cm) Wt of SOM (t/ha) Wt of SOC (t/ha) Soil wt/ha at 2

depth 1.0 % 0-15 20 10 2 M kg soil/ha 0-30 40 20 4 M kg soil/ha 2.0% 0-15 40 20 2 M kg soil/ha 0-30 80 40 4 M kg soil/ha Assumptions: Area= 10,000 m2/ha Depth = 0.15 m and 0.30 m

Soil Bulk Density (SBD) = 1.33 Mg/m3

Soil wt at soil depth per ha = Area x Depth x SBD Source: Canja (pers. comm. 2009) Example calculation: 1) for 15 cm topsoil depth SOM = (2 kg SOM/100 g soil) (2 M kg/ha) (1 t /1000 kg) = 40 t/ha SOC = (40 t/ha x 0.50) = 20 t/ha 2) for 30 cm soil depth SOM = (2 kg SOM/100 g soil) (4 M Kg/ha) (1t /1000 kg) = 80 t/ha SOC = (80 t/ha x 0.50) = 40 t/ha However, although agricultural and degraded soils can provide significant potential sinks for atmospheric CO2, soil C accumulation does not continue to increase with time with increasing C inputs but reaches an upper limit or “C saturation level” with controls the ultimate limit of soil C sink (Goh 2004). He stressed that understanding the influence of soil C stabilization mechanisms should be known. In this regard, the physical mechanisms such as the protection of SOC by soil minerals are better known while the chemical and biological mechanisms are less known, hence requiring more experimental data for verification and validation under different soil and climate conditions Goh (2004) also clearly pointed out the general claim by many workers that not all the C accumulated in soils are protected against losses due to mineralization, erosion and leaching, with only a portion considered as stable soil C. In terms of soil C storage, the SOC can be divided as: (1) unprotected

of 24

or labile C (that with short half lives of 1-19 years); and (2) protected C (longer half lives of 20 -100 years or more). Therefore, as C sequestration applies to C stabilization in the soil for at least 20 -50 years, the protected C provides the key to the control and regulation of soil C sequestration, as Goh (2004 ) emphasized. 2. In Vanuatu (South Pacific)

Mostly on an extensive Coconut Ecosystem Carbon Balance Studies (2001-2007) in the South Pacific (VARTC, Santo, Vanuatu), reported by Roupsard et al (2008). Their reported studies have different aspects or components, and conducted in a more detailed manner. Take note of the terminologies and definitions used in this studies as indicated in the ensuing presentation. 2.1 Net Primary Productivity (NPP) of Coconut ( i ) Using a coconut hybrid, Vanuatu Red Dwarf cross with Vanuatu Tall or VRD x VTT, grown under almost optimum crop nutrition in high a fertility level soil and without drought problem, Navarro et al (2008) reported the total NPP of coconut + grass under-storey of 32 t dry mass/ha/yr (i.e., 16 tC/ha/yr, 50% of total NPP); NPP of coconut trees = 12 tC/ha/yr (coconut copra yield of 2.7 t/ha/yr. ( ii ) From same work area, the apparent NEP (or the actual ecosystem C balance) of the coconut plantation of is an average of 8.1 tC/ha/yr (3 years data) compared to a standard calculation of 4.7 tC/ha/yr. As the copra yield (11% of NPP) is taken out of the field, thus a correction has to done (i.e., less 1.3 tC/ha/yr), giving a corrected NEP of 3.4 to 6.8 t C/ha/yr. ( iii ) Compared to forest trees (typically dicot ) of which C goes into the more permanent structures (stems and coarse roots), the coconut palm allocates more than 86% C into perishable or (easily decomposed) parts as nuts/fruits, leaves, peduncles and fine roots, shortly converted into litter, respired by the ecosystem, eventually contributing to the soil organic matter (SOM) build-up. ( iv ) If this inherent attribute of the coconut or its ecosystem is not adjusted (or just the usual C accounting in forest inventories is followed, the significant underground C in soil organic matter and litter is excluded, hence, the carbon credits and value (subsidies) in coconut farms and ecosystem is undervalued. IMPLICATIONS ON CLIMATE CHANGE, GLOBAL LOCAL AND WARMING, AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY AND FOOD SECURITY 1. Biotic C sequestration, based on the removal of atmospheric CO2 through photosynthesis, is a natural process. The magnitude of CO2 removal through photosynthesis, in woody plants or managed and natural ecosystem, is likely to increase in the future due to the CO2 fertilization effect (increased levels of atmospheric CO2 due to local and global emissions). A significant example of a managed and natural ecosystem in the Philippines is the coconut-based farming/ecosystem, such as the coconut-lanzones fruit tree agroecosystem extensively practiced in the country, and had been studied over a 15-yr long-term period (Magat et al 2009). Grown under very adequate rainfall condition, it was managed following an

of 24

integrated soil fertility management (ISFM) with emphasis on application of a coconut-specific multinutrient fertilizer (MRF), supplying an adequate level and proper ratio of N, P,K, Cl, S and B, appropriate for the main crop coconut and the fruit tree intercrop. Under the coconut and lanzones fruit tree agroecosystem, a build up of soil organic C was shown to increase from 0.75 %C in 1993 ( initial planting of the fruit tree intercrop), increased to 1.2% C in 1997 ( 4 years later) and to 1.35%C in 2003 (10 years later). This increase in soil C by 0.6% C over a 10 years period, clearly indicated significant C storage in the soil sink, via the atmospheric CO2 fixation by the two crops of the ecosystem, generated as the combined plant biomass with most of it ending in the soil as organic matter, and eventually as the more stable stored soil organic carbon (SOC). Considering that SOM = SOC x 1.72, the 0.6% SOC increase in 10 years under this coconut-based ecosystem, means an improvement of SOM = 1.03%. Therefore, using Table 5, the estimated quantity of the increase in stored SOC amounts to 10 t C/ha and 20 t C/ha, at 15 cm and 30 cm soil depth, respectively. 2. Carbon Sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems has beneficial effects at both global and local levels, Any action to improve situations at the global level will have impact locally as well. But actions implemented should be beneficial to the local communities. Carbon sequestration includes increasing carbon pools of both biomass and soil carbon, thus it is important to capture and store the carbon (CO2) atmospheric emissions produced by the human activities Gnanavelrajah (2008). 3. Improving soil carbon has desirable influences on increased productivity of lands, reduced land degradation and increased biodiversity. Generally, soil carbon pools increase productivity of soils by reducing the constraints of: (i) nutrient availability; (ii) water availability; and (iii) soil erosion. 4. Soil carbon could be increased by incorporating crop/plant residues into the soil and organic manure application. It is well known that soil organic matter (SOM) is the main determinant of soil biological activity, fertile and friable soil with the presence of beneficial microorganisms. 5. Hence, it’s widely known now that crops and trees are natural carbon “sinks” with both plants and soils rich in organic matter are capable of absorbing the atmospheric C. Moreover, farming practices that enhance plant diversity and organic matter in soils is very likely supportive of sustainable agriculture and also environment, and the coconut crop and its agroecoystem is a remarkable example (Magat et al 2009). 6. In a recent completed long term research work (1993-2007) in Southern Mindanao (Magat et al 2008), the remarkable improvement and sustainability of 3-4 t copra/ha per year coconut yield and very productive lanzones fruit trees under a coconut + lanzones agro-ecosystem was strongly attributed to the significant influence of proper crop nutrition and fertilization management. A general improvement in soil fertility, including soil organic matter (SOM) and soil organic carbon (SOC), over the long term period of 15 years was demonstrated. This clearly indicates that a coconut-based agro-ecosystem or cropping practice could sequester CO2 and consequently store organic C via the tree components and its soil environment. However, further research studies are required to predict and quantify and magnitude of the contribution of coconut farming practices in the carbon sequestration mechanism of the plant-soil systems.

of 24

CARBON MARKET AND THE CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM (CDM)

The clean development mechanism (CDM) is a flexibility mechanism established under the Kyoto Protocol (under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It allows governments or private entities in industrialized countries to implement GHGs emission reduction projects in developing countries and receive credit in the form of “ certified emission reductions” or CERs (DENR-EMB, undated). It further stated that “the purpose of the CDM shall be to assist developing countries in achieving sustainable development and the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC, and to assist developed countries to achieve compliance with their quantified GHGs emission limitation and reduction commitments”.

The Kyoto Protocol came into force in February 2005 and committed industrialized countries

agreed to reduce their GHGs emissions during the period 2008 – 2012 by 5% of the amount recorded in 1990. The CDM-Mitigation part of the protocol (official guide-reference) is an opportunity for the coconut sector of developing countries (DC) to collect subsidies from industrialized or advance countries thru the carbon market, especially for clean energy and C emission substitution projects, for which many methodologies and projects have already been certified by the IPCC mentioned by Roupsard et al (2008) . The credit from CDM is called certified emission reduction (CER) as a result of emission reductions (remove by C sinks) achieved by project activities. Developing countries (DC) are not committed to reduce their GHGs emissions. Land-use changes in the tropics accounts for 20% of global GHGs emissions (IPCC 2007) and such contribution is of high concern. However, the eligibility of land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) project under the CDM is limited to afforestation and reforestation (A/R). Therefore, the CDM is presented as an opportunity for the DC to negotiate CERs on the carbon market, following three directions; 1) renewable energy; 2) land use change; and LULUCF); and C emission substitution (Table 5).

However, most of the value-added on local markets is the transformation of copra into energy oil, and not the certification of coconut oil for energy, hence, certifying oil under CDM would only bring negligible premium for farmers and local oil mills, although such is favorable under the commercial balance of the coconut-producing countries as commented by Roupsard and co-workers (2008).

A critical review and analysis on coconut CDM aimed at knowing the strategies of the carbon

market and its potential incomes for coconut producing countries had been done earlier, extensively, by a team of workers based in Europe (France and Italy), South Pacific ( Vanuatu, VARTC) and South America (Costa Rica,CATIE), led by the Centre for Cooperation in Agricultural Research for Development (CIRAD: Montpellier, France). The team’s general conclusion and recommendations for consideration of coconut producing countries thru the APCC are very forward-looking and should be used as a working guide for activities that are needed to undertaken to have significant social, ecological and economic benefits from the capability of the coconut crop and its ecosystem in carbon sequestration and carbon credits and market (Roupsard et al 2008). The key points are shown in the ensuing Table 8

of 24

Table 8. Conclusions and Recommendations on Exploring the Potential Benefits from Coconut’s Clean Development Mechanism (Coconut CDM-Mitigation) Initiatives (Roupsard et al 2008)

Key Points Concerns Comments/Recommendations 1. The Kyoto Protocol CDM-Mitigation in place

An opportunity for the coconut sector of developing countries to collect subsidies from the carbon market (CM)

Current evaluation and monitoring of carbon credits based on submitted methodologies and projects are now duly certified for forest trees (forestry sector) but not for the coconut trees (coconut sector) yet .

2. Value-added on coconut in local markets

Conversion of coconut dry meat (copra) into energy oil (bio-diesel) but not certification of coconut oil for energy

Certifying coconut oil under CDM gives only very small premium for farmers and local oil mills, although financially beneficial on the country level (macro scenario).

3. The intensive and extensive studies on total Carbon “Sink” (Carbon storage in biomass and soil) required and must be pursued.

C in coconut production is not stored in the permanent biomass as in trunks/stems of forest trees, but easily decomposed plant parts (nuts, leaves and other soft residues, turned to litter soon and eventually into the soil organic matter (SOM).

Certification by coconut CDM should have acceptable methodologies on sampling techniques and analysis for soil organic carbon (SOC) from the SOM. This is definitely a large and significant sink when compared to forest trees and its ecosystem. Higher income from Carbon sequestration and storage capacity identification over value of coconut oil as a bio-fuel.

4. ASAP part of copra/coconut oil converted to bio-fuel as clean energy and for reduction of GHGs, and coconut crop/ecosystem to mitigate global warming and climate change

Long and short term carbon dioxide emission reduction projects/activities as basis of the certification of emission reduction (CERs) for the carbon market in developing countries.

The APCC should lead/coordinate the preparation of applications and submission of methodologies for C sink (afforestation and reforestation projects; Coconut producing countries (farmers and oil millers trade directly with the Non-Kyoto partners in promoting C sinks, potentially more profitable than bio-fuel initiatives.

5.APCC to follow recent and future advances of CDM in terms of the certification of C sink/storage projects.

Conclusive data findings on agricultural techniques and management practices on effective, cost-efficient and sustainable mitigation of globally warming thru excessive GHGs as CO2, resulting to the unwanted and devastating climate change locally and globally.

Under the Kyoto Protocol global agreement of Parties/Countries concerned to reduce each GHGs emissions based on its submitted limits “caps”, The second commitment period to commence in 2012, the farming and environmental related practices associated with the degree of CO2 sequestration and eventual storage in the biomass and soil sinks must be presented already and accepted to optimize the economic benefits of coconut producing countries (note: developing countries are not required to submit emission targets under the current KYOTO Protocol compliance guide.

of 24

GUIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTIONS

As strongly pointed out by Rattan Lal (2008), although the natural terrestrial and oceanic “sinks” are presently absorbing about 60% of the 8.6 B ton C per year emitted, the natural sink capacity and rate are not adequate to assimilate all projected man-made CO2 emission during the 21st century or until the C-neutral energy sources take effect. Also, it was stressed that the sink or storage capacity of managed ecosystems as tree crops, forests, cropped soils, and wetlands) can be enhanced through conversion to a judicious land use and adoptions of right management practices (RMPs) or popularly called now the good agricultural practices (GAP).

In addition to the economics, the human dimension issues need to be objectively and critically attended to for both biotic and abiotic CO2 sequestration options. Appropriate policy and regulatory measures need to be developed, especially as regards to measurement, monitoring, residence time and trading of carbon credits. But, while C sequestration as in coconut agro-ecosystem is an strategy to mitigate climate change, the importance of reducing emissions of CO2 and other GHGs via the development and use of C neutral technologies (i.e. bio-ethanol, bio-diesel, methane gas from bio-digester and hydrogen gas (H2) cell from biomass) cannot be overemphasized.

Coconut palm, as in many forest tree species has a substantial C storage (sink) capability estimated at 196.75 t C/ha (722 t CO2/ha) and with C sequestration rate of 4.78 t C/ha/yr (17.54 t CO2) as reported by Lasco et al (2000), being a woody perennial crop. While non-woody crops as rice and banana has no sequestration ability because their biomass are almost constant over time. The mentioned strength of the coconut tree should be significant in mitigating the negative or unwanted impacts of climate change exacerbated by increasing levels of local and global GHGs, especially CO2. Clearly, this understanding of coconut growing attributes and conditions, and carbon “sink or storage” and CO2 sequestration latest findings strongly justifies the judicious management of the current stands of coconuts trees in 3.3 M ha of coconut lands with about 335 M trees (UCAP 2007). And in this regard, the replanting and new planting intensification following integrated crop management using site-specific farming technologies should not be ignored to achieve optimum farm productivity and profitability --------- for maximum social, ecological and economic benefits of coconut industry sectors and the Philippine nation in general.

Recent reports (Roupsard et 2008) mentioned that for coconut contrasted to dicots (as forest trees), naturally not much C goes into permanent structures (stems and coarse roots, but more than 85 % into the highly perishable structures (fruits, leaves, peduncles and fine roots) that rapidly turn into litter and be respired by the ecosystem or contribute to the build up of soil organic matter (SOM). And this aspect should be well known to avoid undervaluation of the carbon sequestration capacity of coconut as a mono-crop or in coconut-based farming system (CBFS). Considering the need to adequately understand the C sequestered by the crop and eventually stored in coconut parts and the soil over a time, as well as that emitted through respiration, workers (Roupsard et al 2008) had proposed urgent coconut researches on C sequestration and climate change in relation to coconut productivity. Following are some of the significant ones. 1) influence of cropping litter/residue management on C sequestration, balance and credits;

of 24

2) influence of different soil and climatic conditions on coconut yield and C sequestration measurements, balance and credits. 3) validate C sequestration models under different cropping systems or agro-ecosystems under normal, optimum, subnormal, and suboptimum growing conditions. Long term studies on coconut C sink under different farming conditions, new plantings and current stands are highly important because earlier studies had indicated a large C storage or sink when compared to many forest conditions. As such it is likely to bring much higher incomes than energy projects.

However, it should be noted by now that most C in coconut is not stored in permanent biomass as in forests, but rather turned rapidly into litter and then, eventually into soil organic C (SOC) via the soil organic matter (SOM). What does this mean? Clearly and strongly the certification by the CDM should include the methods for quantification of C stored in the SOM. The eventual high C content or storage in the soil is clearly unique in the coconut palm tree and its associated ecosystem and this must not be ignored in the determination of the certification of emission reductions (CERs) to have a valid and objective carbon credit trading between developing and developed or industrialized countries thru the Kyoto Protocol CDM. SUMMARY SALIENT NOTES

This review was initiated as an attempt to have a better understanding of the past events and current developments in coconut production research and practices done in the country and elsewhere, associated with global change in climate which have resulted to the observed unwanted impacts as global warming, floods, droughts and soil degradation, among many other outcomes. The excessive emissions of green house gases (GHGs) mainly carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous Oxide (N2O) for the past several decades had been claimed to trigger and intensify global warming in recent years. Largely, the emissions of GHGs is globally measured in CO2 terms as agreed upon through the International Panel in Climate Change (IPCC). Atmospheric CO2 gas is fixed or absorbed by terrestrial plants and converted to biological mass or biomass (the plant dry matter) via the biological process called photosynthesis, but this gas is also released or emitted back to the ecosystem via another biological process respiration. The CO2 intake by plants and crops is considered as C sequestered and stored in different parts of the plants as forest and coconut trees. C stored in plant parts other than the stem wood or trunk are generally decomposable biomass which eventually becomes a part of the soil organic matter (SOM) of which the more stable component is the 50% soil organic C (SOC). Therefore, in coconut, similar to most tree crops, C is stored or sequestered both by the biomass (permanently and temporarily) and the soil of the ecosystem (longer time), indicating that the biomass and the soil are the main C sinks of atmospheric CO2. And these “sinks” could be regulated and managed to a great extent by following proper cropping practices. So far, among the important and significant findings or current knowledge, though mostly only indicative, on the subject of coconut and climate-change are the following: (1) Coconut plantations or farm ecosystems could be used in many ways to reduce CO2 emissions via C capture or sequestration in the crop-soil system are: (1) substitution of fossil fuel using biodiesel or biomass from coconut oil; (2) sequestration of C in coconut plantation, mono-crop or with intercrops; (3)

of 24

enhancing C sequestration through coconut plantation management; and (4) conserving C sink in coconut farms. The coconut tree, a woody perennial with single main stem meets the criteria of “forest” per FAO criteria. The Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Order No 2005-25 included coconut as a reforestation crop, effective Nov. 17, 2005. (2) Workers obtained varying levels of the total biomass (15 – 50 t/ha/year) yield of mature bearing palms depending on the annual nut yield ( strongly influenced by the interaction of crop variety, environmental conditions, crop nutrition or fertilization management) , growth stage or age and planting density/ha. (3) the average % content or concentration of C biomass components ( stable trunk, and temporary or unstable fruit-nuts, leaf fronds, and other vegetative parts is around 44%, lower than the 50 % C content of most hardwood forest trees (4) With almost constant % C, the stored C averaged 24.1 t/ha and 5.74 t/ha, for productive bearing and pre-bearing palms, respectively. Compared to other the ecosystems studied: rice, sugar cane and grasslands, the coconut has the most stable C storage, being a perennial with almost no field burning of farm residues in practice. (5) From a short term 2-year study, excluding the sequestered C in the soil (SOC) in the Philippines (Eastern Visayas), a study reported the rate of annual C sequestration in local Tall variety coconut crop of 4.78 t C/ha (equivalent to 17.54 t CO2/ha), while in Vanuatu, South Pacific, a longer study (2001 - 2007), the potential C balance or the Net Ecosystem Productivity (NEP), showed a C sequestration rate of in a 20-year old plantation grown to coconut hybrids under optimum conditions ranging from 4.7 to 8.1 t C/ha /yr (corrected to 3.4 to 6.8 t C /ha/yr, after removing the C biomass from coconut copra exported from the field). (7) Soil organic C (SOC) based from the soil organic matter (SOM) at two levels of SOM and soil depth showed that for every 1% increase in SOM, at 15 cm soil depth (2 M kg soil/ha), the estimated SOC stored is 10 t C/ha, and 20 t C/ha at the soil depth of 30 cm. As SOC is not protected from losses due to natural processes in soil, sequestered soil C should be the C stabilized for longer period of at least 20 years. (8) As an indicative potential cash value of the annual coconut ecosystem C sequestration, assuming an average of 5.1 t C/ha of stable biomass and 15 t C/ha from the sequestered SOC, 50% of stored SOC, 30 cm soil depth, 4 M kg soil/ha) = 20.1 t C/ha/yr. At USD 15/t C (PhP 705 @ 1USD=47 PhP), the estimated cash benefits amounts to at least PhP 14,170.50/ha per year or PhP 14.17 M for every 1,000 ha coconut lands used in the Climate-Change CDM-Mitigation. If coconut lands are intercropped with fruit trees and other perennial crops, highly capable of C sequestration in their plant biomass and the soil, obviously, this value could easily double. To take the full or best advantage eventually in using coconut production and its ecosystem for judicious environmental management, and social and economic benefits from the Climate Change Clean Development Mechanism-Mitigation Component CCCDMMC) through the Kyoto Protocol (UNFCCC), more formal and scientific collaborative studies by coconut producing countries and agencies concerned are urgent needs. These should be focused on achieving acceptable methodologies and empirical data for the holistic and site-specific evaluation of the certified emission credits (CERs) applied for by developing countries for project carbon credits and subsidies from developed or industrialized countries referenced to sustainable development activities on climate-change mitigation, required by the IPCC.

of 24

REFERENCES Ables, R.C. 2009. An Update of the Coconut Biodiesel Program: Brief Notes. Diliman, Quezon City: Product

and Processing Department, R & D, Extension Branch. Phil. Coconut Authority. 1 p. Brady, N.C., and Weil, R.R. 1999. The Nature and Properties of Soils: 12th edition.. Upper Saddle River

New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 881 p. Breslau, K. 2006. It can pay to be green: cleaner air means profits at the climate exchange. Newsweek,22

May 2006, p.45 Brown, S. 1997. Estimating biomass and biomass change of tropical forest: A Primer. FAO Forestry Paper

No.134. FAO, Rome. Canja, L.H. 2009. Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) Estimation. Pers. Comn. Donovan, P. 2008. The Soil Carbon Opportunity. http:// soilcarboncoalition.org/opportunity. 9/28/2009. EEA.2008. Soil and Climate Change. European Environment Agency. http://www.eea.europa.

eu/themes/soil/climate. 9/24/2009 Eroy, M.N., Canja, L.H., Margate, R.Z. Magat, S.S., Dauzat, J. and Braconier, S. 1999. Growth and

Modeling of coconut at the PCA-Davao Research Center. Diliman, Quezon City. Annual Report, PCA-ARDB. p.52.

Friend, D., Corley, R.H.V. Measuring coconut palm dry matter. Exp.Agric 30(2):223-235. Fuentes, J.L.R. and Ling, C.M.C. 2009. A time series approach on the effect of climate variability on

Davao’s coconut production. BSc Thesis. College of Science, De La Salle- Manila. 201 p. Gnanavelrajah, N. 2008. Improving carbon sequestration through agricultural practices, LEISA India,

December 2008: 23-24. Goh, K.M. 2004. Carbon Sequestration and Stabilization in soils: Implications for Soil Productvity and

Climate Change. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr., 50 (4) 476-476. Himmel, M.E, Ding, S-Y., Johnson, D.K, Adney, W.S. Nimlos, M.R., Brady J.W. and Foust , T. 2007.

Biomass recalcitrance: engineering plants and enzymes for biofuels production. Science 315:804-807.

IPCC Climate change. 2001: the scientific basis. Inter-government panel on climate change 2001. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

IPCC Climate change 2007. Climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: Working Group II 2007. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.

Lal, R. 2004. Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security. Science, 304 (5677): 1623 -1627

Lal, R. 2007. Carbon Sequestration. Philosophical Transactions B. 27p. Online ISSN. http://rstb.royal society publishing.org/content/363/1492/815

Lales, J.S., Lasco, R.D. and Geronimo, I.Q. 2001. Carbon storage capacity of agricultural and grasslands ecosystems in a geothermal block. The Phil Agric Scientist 84(1): 8-18.

of 24

http://rstb.royal/

Lasco, R.D., Lales, J.S., Arnuevo, M.T., Guilermo, I.Q. de Jesús, A.C.Medrano, R., Bajar O.F. and Mendoza, C.V. 2000. Carbon dioxide (CO2) storage and sequestration in the Leyte geothermal reservation, Philippines. World Geothermal Congress, May 28-June 10, 2000, Kyushu-Tohoku, Japam. Proceeedings: 639-642.

Magat, S.S. 1990. Growing Conditions and Growth Habits of Coconut in Relation to Coconut-Based Farming Systems. pp 17-40. In: Coconut Based Farming Systems. Proceedings of the XXVII Meeting, Manila (De Silva, S (ed.): Jakarta, Indonesia: Asian and Pacific Coconut Community. 606 p.

McGowan, E. 2007. WM joins carbon market model discussion. Waste News 22 January 2007, 23. Monsalud, F.C., Florece, L,, Medina, S.M. and Montesur, J.G. 2002. Ecological Values of Coconut Farms in Various Agricultural Landscapes (An Annual Report).Los Banos, Laguna: FSRRI and SESAM, University of

the Philippines Los Banos. Reay, D. and Pidwirny, M. 2006. Carbon Dioxide. In: Encylopedia of Earth. Cleveland, C.J. (ed.). Washington, D.C.: environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and Environment.

[First published September 27, 2006; revised October 2006: retrieved October 11,2006]. <http:// eoearth.org/article/Carbon_dioxide>

Schlesinger, W. H. 2006. Carbon Trading. Science 314, 1217. Secretaria, M.I. and Magat, S.S. 2003. Effects of coconut leaf pruning (CLP) on coconut+gemelina

cropping system. Phil. J. Coconut Studies. 23(1): 22-36. Stephanopoulos, G. 2007. Challenges in engineering microbes for biofuels production. Science 315:801-

804. Subramanian P., Reddy, D.V. S., Palaniswami, C., Gopalasundaram, P. and Upadhyay. 2005. Studies on

the nutrient export and extent of nutrient recyling in coconut based high density multispecies cropping system. Intl J Coconut R & D 21 (1): 20-27.

Tandug, L.M. 2006. Biomass and Carbon Sequestration of (Gmelina Arborea Roxb.). Los Banos, Laguna: S & T Paper . Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau, DENR, College, Laguna. 29 p..

UCAP.2007. Coconut Industry Kit ( Series 2006). Pasig City Metro Manila: United Coconut Association of the Philippines, Inc. 51 p.

UPLB and PCA. 2002. Relationship of coconut diversity to environmental protection and nutrition (Project Report). Los Banos, Laguna.: School of Environmental Science and Management, Farming and Soil Resources Institute, College of Agriculture and College of Human Ecology, University of the Philippines Los Banos and Philippine Coconut Authority. 95 p.

Wald, M.L. 2007. Is ethanol for long haul ? Science Am.January 2007, pp 42-49.

of 24

productive and sustainable coconut farming ecosystems as potential carbon...

Documents