Applying a Systems Approach to Assess C Emissions Reductions from Climate Change Mitigation in Mexico s Forest Sector

Transcription

1 Applying a Systems Approach to Assess C Emissions Reductions from Climate Change Mitigation in Mexico s Forest Sector Marcela Olguín, Craig Wayson, Max Fellows, Richard Birdsey, Carolyn Smyth, Michael Magnan, Alexa Dugan, Vanessa Mascorro, Armando Alanís, Enrique Serrano, and Werner Kurz Forestry and Agriculture Greenhouse Gas Modeling Forum September 4-7, 2018

2 1. Context Mexico is the largest fossil fuel consuming country in Latin America (64% fossil fuel emissions, INECC 2016) Interested in reducing GHG emissions : - Climate Change General Law, 2013 (50% GHG by 2050) - Nationally Determined Contribution, 2015 (25% GHG by 2030) - Mid-Century Mitigation Strategy, 2016 Mexico s Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry sector is considered a net greenhouse gas sink (SEMARNAT 2015), but key challenges remain to: - identify and understand main drivers - design and prioritize national level mitigation actions (e.g. REDD+) to reduce future GHG emissions and increase sinks in a cost-effective manner. - Co-exist with other forest management policies (e.g. timber supply - ENAIPROS)

3 - Trinational effort Since 2011, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) and forest services of North America have collaborated to improve modeling tools/methods for monitoring GHG fluxes, while being able to assess, project and communicate the effect that policy decisions can have on GHG emissions in the future. Examples of pilot areas

4 - Potential mitigation activities Maximise Carbon stocks. Fossil Emissions Biofuel Fossil Fuel Forest Ecosystems or maximise Carbon uptake? Wood Products Other Products Services used by Society Fossil Emissions Biofuel Fossil Fuel Kurz et al Forest Ecosystems Wood Products Other Products Services used by Society

5 2. Future scenarios for Mexico Baseline: Business as usual 2018 to 2050 (e.g. average rate of Activity Data as in historic period 2000 to 2016) Mitigation: 2018 to 2050 as E mitigation = E scenario E baseline Forest ecosystem Harvested Wood Products Substitution benefits + + M1 * Net 0 deforestation by 2030 M2 * M1 + increase 10% forest recovery M3 ** Increase forest productivity and harvests up to 50% M4 All of the above Changes in HWP: M3a. Forest commodity % are same as in base M3b. 100% of increased harvest goes to long-lived products (LLP) Use wood products or wood waste (bioenergy) to replace emissions-intensive products (steel and concrete) and fossil fuels M3i low displacement M3ii medium displacement * e.g. Mexico s NDC goal, Climate Change Law, ** e.g. ENAIPROS goal

6 - Pilot areas Durango 5.8 M ha of forests -~62% managed forest (coniferous and broadleaf) -contributes ~30% of the national wood volume Quintana Roo: 3.8 M ha of forests -~14% managed forest (tropical humid); ~1% of the national wood volume - included in REDD+ program *Source: INEGI 2002, FAO-FRA/CONAFOR 6

7 - Systems approach for mitigation analysis *Consistent with IPCC-GPG (2003), National Inventories of GHG (2006) Multiple Sectors Forest Sector forest ecosystems bioenergy wood products fossil fuel other products Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector (CBM-CFS3) Carbon Budget Modeling Framework for Harvested Wood Products (CBMF-HWP) Substitution benefit (tc emissions avoided / tc wood used) *Mexico s NFI growth data, climate data, disturbances (LUC, Harvest, Fires) *Municipal/state level annual reports on wood commodities, management plans *Available from the literature

8 - Examples of input data / assumptions CBM-CFS3: Biomass dynamics Quintana Roo Growth curves by spatial unit and classifier set, using MLE routine + NFI plot pairs t2-t1 (ca plots) Proxy of age: Time since last major disturbance. Forest structural attributes 8

9 - Examples of input data / assumptions CBM-CFS3: Forest disturbances Durango Disturbance types Quintana Roo Source: State-level annualized LU/LC change matrices (INEGI 2011) Municipal-level annual fire events (INEGI 2014) Municipal-level annual timber harvest (CONAFOR 2016) 9

10 - Examples of input data / assumptions CBMF-HWP and displacement factors: (1) Carbon transfers from forest ecosystems to HWP: Coniferous/Durango Total 18% left on site Round 41% mill waste Wood harvest 82% wood 59% product 50% landfill 50% burned (2) % forest product commodities Product half-life assumptions (IPCC 2013): - 35 years for sawn wood and other solid wood, - 25 years for panels, - 2 years for pulp and paper (3) Displacement factor (DF): 0.5 t C / t C for bioenergy 2 t C / t C for HWP Source: Fuentes et al. 2012, IPCC 2013, Smyth et al. 2014, INEGI 2015

11 Durango Quintana Roo 3. Results: Baseline Scenario Source Sink Estimated contribution to future net CO 2 e ecosystem balance in BAU Disturbance types Source Sink Net CO 2 e balance * FL = all forest types, OL = all non-forest classes Historic Baseline 11

12 Durango Quintana Roo 3. Results: Baseline Scenario Source Sink Source Sink Estimated contribution to future net CO 2 e ecosystem balance in BAU Main drivers of net GHG balance: FL FL (growth + harvest + fire) FL OL (deforestation) Disturbance types Considerations for baselines: Same rate of disturbances yields different net GHG balance over time. Net CO 2 e balance * FL = all forest types, OL = all non-forest classes - aging of forest - emissions per ha deforested - less forest area over time Historic Baseline 12

13 -Cumulative mitigation potential (TgCO 2 e): Durango M3 M4 Baseline = 0 M1, M2

14 -Cumulative mitigation potential (TgCO 2 e): Durango Baseline = 0 Increased emissions M3 M4 Decreased emissions M1, M2 M1- Net 0 deforestation by 2030 M2 -M1 + 10% forest recovery M3 - productivity and harvests up to 50% M4 - All of the above

15 -Cumulative mitigation potential (TgCO 2 e): Quintana Roo Baseline = 0 Increased emissions Decreased Increased emissions emissions M3 Decreased emissions M1, M2, M4 M1- Net 0 deforestation by 2030 M2 -M1 + 10% forest recovery M3 - productivity and harvests up to 50% M4 - All of the above

16 Cumulative mitigation benefit in 2050 Durango Quintana Roo Country s mitigation targets should acknowledge state (municipal?) characteristics and components. M1 M2 M3 M4

17 Cumulative mitigation benefit in 2050 Durango Quintana Roo National policies need to consider localized forest characteristics Crucial to consider a systems approach to include multiple sectors M1 M2 M3 M4 DGO: Harvests CO 2 e emissions, but CO 2 sink if LLP + substitution benefit are considered QROO: Avoided deforestation via forest area under sustainable forest management

18 4. Final comments This study demonstrates that: A systems approach can use the same inputs as those in the official, national GHG emissions reporting to generate useful results for mitigation actions for Mexico In addition: o Identify and assess the effect of the main drivers of GHG fluxes o Does not assume fixed baselines or mitigation potentials o Track carbon in HWP Photo:ENAIPROS o Assess the potential interaction with other sectors to reduce emissions o Show the implication of non-carbon objectives on the forest sector (e.g. timber supply) affecting the achievement of mitigation targets. We can provide specific information related to Mexico s NDC and Mid- Century plans for 2030 and

19 - Next steps This study can be refined (e.g., uncertainty, sensitivity tests), and expanded to other regions in Mexico and more complex scenarios can also be implemented (e.g., forest degradation, cost-benefit analysis) Transition to generic integration tools for operationalizing MRV systems (e.g., FLINT- Full Lands Integration Tool) Cover all land uses and carbon pools Have projection capabilities and allow scenario testing Use existing country-specific data of varying completeness and quality (e.g. spatially-explicit, Tier 1, 2 &3) Modular design, open-source, enhancing continuous improvement Source:

20 Thank you Publications: Mexico: Olguin et al. 2018, Environmental Research Letters USA: Dugan et al. 2018, Carbon Balance & Management Canada: Smyth et al. 2018, Carbon Balance & Management Collaborators Mexico: Marcela Olguin (CEC-Consultant), Vanessa Mascorro (CEC-Consultant), Armando Alanís (CONAFOR), Enrique Serrano (CONAFOR), Jorge Fernández (CONAFOR), Germánico Galicia (CONAFOR), Oswaldo Carrillo (CONAFOR),Claudia Octaviano (INECC) United States: Richard Birdsey (WHRC), Alexa Dugan (USFS), Craig Wayson (SilvaCarbon), Sean Healey (USFS), Grant Domke (USFS) Canada: Werner Kurz (CFS), Carolyn Smyth (CFS), Michael Magnan (CFS), Max Fellows (CFS) CEC: Karen Richardson, Lucie Robidoux

21 Questions? For more information about the project: