Assessing GHG emission reduction after peatland rewetting: 2013 IPCC Wetland Supplement and other opportunities

Transcription

1 Regional Workshop on Challenges in addressing Climate Change and Eco-system Based Approach in Peatlands, Minsk, Republic of Belarus, August 2015 Assessing GHG emission reduction after peatland rewetting: 2013 IPCC Wetland Supplement and other opportunities Andrey Sirin Peatland Conservation and Restoration Center Institute of Forest Science Russian Academy of Sciences Rewetted peatlands: Moscow Oblast, Shatura District, June 2013

2 Peatlands (peat >30 cm) make up over 8% ( km) and with shallow peat lands (< 30 cm) up to 22% ( km) of Russia Vompersky, Sirin, Salnikov et al. // Contemporary Problems of Ecology 2011, V.4, N 7. «GIS «Peatlands of Russia»

3 Estimates of Carbon Pool in Russian Peatlands and shallow peat lands: 113,5 (Vompersky et al., 1994) 210 G t (Botch et al., 1994) thus Russian Peatlands could make from 1/4 to 1/2 of World peat carbon. тыс.т/кв.км 10 9 g km 2 < > 40 At least 15% or 21, tons of peat carbon is related to permafrost palsa and polygon mires, and to tundra with shallow peat.

4 Peatland ecosystems (including peat and vegetation) contain disproportionally more organic carbon than other terrestrial ecosystems. in the boreal zone 7 times more; in the (sub)polar zone 3.5 times more; in the humid tropics as much as 10 times. This makes peatlands the top long-term carbon store in the terrestrial biosphere and (next to oceanic deposits) the Earth s second most important store. Assessment of Peatlands, Biodiversity and Climate Change, 2008 (Adopted by CBD COP 10 (2008)

5 Carbon store in soil and biomass in different ecosystems of Russia Biomass Soil Biomass Soil 400 Carbon pool, t C ha Tundra Steppe Peatlands Forests Vompersky et al., 1994, Karelin et al., 1994, Chestnykh et al., 2004, Zamolodchikov et al., 2011 By courtesy of Dmitry Zamolodchikov

6 Global Warming Potential GWP atm. lifetime 20 yr horizon GWP 100 yr horizon 500 yr horizon CO 2 Variable CH 4 12±3 yr ? 6.5 N 2 O 120 yr KYOTO

7 Rewetting CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 Global Warming Potential (GWP)???

8 Assessment of Peatlands, Biodiversity and Climate Change, 2008 initiated by Convention on Biological Diversity (2004), endorsed by SBSTA (2007), adopted by COP 10 (2008). International Peat Society Parish, F. Sirin, A., Charman, D., Joosten, H., Minayeva, T., Silvius, M., Stringer L. (eds.) Assessment on Peatland Biodiversity and Climate Change: Full report. Global Environment Centre, Kuala Lumpur and Wetlands International, Wageningen pp. Peatlands and Climate Change. Maria Strack (Ed.), International Peat Society, 2008, 223 pp.

9 Selected overall findings (Chapter 7. Peatlands and Greenhouse Gases / Laine J., Sirin A.): Available from: Welcomed by CoP 7 Convention on Biological Diversity (February 2004) Adopted by CBD SBSTTA 12 (July 2007) and accepted by CBD CoP 9 (May 2008, Bonn, Germany) Natural peatlands play a complex role with respect to climate by affecting atmospheric burdens of CO2, CH4 and N2O in different ways. GHG fluxes in peatlands have a spatial (zonal, ecosystem, site and intersite) and temporal (interannual, seasonal, diurnal) variability which needs to be considered in assessment and management. Small changes in ecohydrology can lead to big changes in GHG emissions due to its influence on peatland biogeochemistry. In assessing the role of peatlands in global warming the different time frame and radiative forcing of continuous and simultaneous CH4 emission and CO2 sequestration should be carefully evaluated to avoid global warming potentials that are not fully applicable.

10 Потенциал глобального потепления / Global warming potential 100 лет / years CO 2 1, CH 4 34, N 2 O лет / years CO 2 1, CH 4 86, N 2 O IPCC AR5 POC, DOC, DIC The different GHG fluxes of pristine (left) and drained (right) peatland sites. Source: Laine et al. 1996

11 Carbon dioxide and methane fluxes from intact and disturbed peatlands (observed from over 70 sites in Tomsk Oblast (southern part of West Siberia). Figures represent gross emissions; GHG sequestration by peat and vegetation growth not included. Glagolev et al. 2008

12 Median of Emission Factors for European Peatlands 45 CO2 CH4 N2O t CO 2 -equiv. ha -1 a Mire Drained forest Grassland Cropland Degraded Restored bog Restored fen By courtesy of M. Drösler

13 Рамочная Конвенция ООН об изменении климата Reporting for UNFCC and KP 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

14 Рамочная Конвенция ООН об изменении климата Reporting for UNFCC and KP 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories peatland prepared for / under extraction / abandoned after extraction Болота, подготовленные к добыче, разрабатываемые, брошенные

15 IPCC 2014, 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands, Hiraishi, T., Krug, T., Tanabe, K., Srivastava, N., Baasansuren, J., Fukuda, M. and Troxler, T.G. (eds). Published: IPCC, Switzerland. Contents Overview Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 Drained Inland Organic Soils Chapter 3 Rewetted Organic Soils Chapter 4 Coastal Wetlands Chapter 5 Inland Wetland Mineral Soils Chapter 6 Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment Chapter 7 Cross-cutting Issues and Reporting Glossary

16 Tier 1: Based on default Emission Factors (EFs) given in IPCC Guidelines adopted/agreed by UNFCCC Tier 2 and 3: EFs developped from observation and research data verified according IPCC and UNFCCC requirements (published in peer reviewed journals etc.) * IPCC 2013

17

18 Углеродные кредиты и заболачивание деградированных торфяников: климат - биоразнообразие - землепользование: теория и практика - уроки реализации пилотного проекта в Беларуси: [перевод с немецкого] / редакторы: Франциска Таннебергер и Венделин Вихтманн. Stuttgart : Schweizerbart Science, с. Tanneberger, F. & Wichtmann, W. (eds.) Carbon credits from peatland rewetting. Climate - biodiversity - land use. Science, policy, implementation and recommendations of a pilot project in Belarus. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart, 223 pp.

19 Management of carbon rich terrestrial ecosystems (special attention to peatlands) under a changing climate UNFCCC SBSTA 38 Research Dialogue, Bonn, 4 of June, 2013

20 Project Restoring Peatlands in Russia for fire prevention and climate change mitigation financed under the International Climate Initiative (ICI) by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) and facilitated through German Bank KfW (Project number 11 III 040 RUS K Restoring Peatlands). In partnership with Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of Russian Federation and Moscow Oblast Government

21 Forest-peat fires 2010 Photo: NASA, 9 August, 2010 Moscow, August 01, C

22 German-Russian technical cooperation coordinated by the German Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety and the Ministry of Nature Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation a high level bilateral decision was made to draw on expertise available in Germany for peatland rewetting and develop a joint Russian-German project with German investment for technical expertise and Russian investment into implementation. To support these activities the project Restoring Peatlands in Russia - for fire prevention and climate change mitigation was initiated jointly conducted by the Ministry of Nature Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation, Moscow Province Government, Wetlands International, the Michael Succow Foundation, Greifswald University and the Institute of Forest Science, Russian Academy of Sciences. This project is part of the International Climate Initiative (ICI) funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) through KfW Entwicklungsbank.

23 Restoring peatlands of Russia for fire prevention and GHG reduction Inventory Rewetting Monitoring Capacity building Advocacy Economic incentives Reduction: Restoration Monitoring Accounting

24

25 The Scale of Disturbances to Peatlands in European Part of Russia Peat extraction нарушено, Disturbed % >50 Москва Drainage for agriculture Forest drainage GIS «Peatlands of Russia»

26 Moscow Oblast has the largest areas of abandoned peatlands, partially excavated by milled extraction Ленинградская Псковская Владимирская Ивановская Тверская Московская Рязанская Ярославская Горьковская Новгородская ha га Area of peatlands drained for peat extraction by Площадь выработанных месторождений excavation and milled methods фрезерный карьерный «Проект по сохранению торфяных болот Рос

27 Taldom testing area (Moscow Region) 1 2 3

28 Intact peatbog Carbon (C) losses after peat extraction and agriculture (Taldom testing area, Moscow Region) Long-term apparent rate of carbon accumulation (LORCA) in the studied non-drained peatland, which is estimated at Mg C ha -1 year -1 according to 14 С dating. Abandoned peat cutting Abandoned hayfield C losses from biomass removal could reach 20 Mg ha -1 at a time in the course of site preparation, and Mg C ha -1 year -1 during peat extraction. CO 2 emissions from a peat extraction site abandoned without revegetation resulted in C losses between 1.6 and 4.7 Mg C ha -1, depending on weather conditions of the year, which means that the amount of uselessly mineralized peat lost over 10 years would be comparable with annual rate of milled peat production. The lower limit of C losses through CO 2 emissions from an unused hayfield was estimated for particular year at 0.8 Mg C ha -1 or 4 times lower as compared with abandoned peat extraction site. The present rate of C losses through CO 2 emissions from abandoned peatlands was one order of magnitude higher than the LORCA. Suvorov et al. Agrochemistry, 2015.

29 Moscow Oblast Moscow Oblast: Total area: km 2 Distance: W-E 320 km, N-S 305 km Population: 7,048 mln. People + Moscow City 12,108 mln. The Netherlands km 2 Peatland area: ha about 6% of MO; Total number > 1700 (area from 2.5 to ha)

30 Moscow Oblast Objects Area, ha Re-wetted Total

31 Institute of Forest Science RAS Status of abandoned degraded peatlands of Meschera National Park testing area 8000 ha Assessing of Fire Hazard Status Fire hazardous areas Brown bare peat; yellow dry grass communities; light-green pine (coniferous) forest vegetation; green deciduous forest vegetation; blue-green hydrophilic vegetation; blue open water. Assessing of rewetting effectiveness Medvedeva M. et al. Assessing of status of abandoned peat extraction areas base on multispectral remote sensing data // Earth Observation from Space Sirin et al. How to Avoid Peat Fires? // Science in Russia, (2), Rewetted sites

32 Peat fires in Meschera National Park (Vladimir Oblast, Russia) in Number of Peat Fires Количество пожаров, ед Burned Area, ha Площадь пройденная пожарами, га During over 2000 ha from 7500 ha of abandoned milled extracted peatlands were rewetted Sirin et al Science in Russia. N 2.

33 Abandoned peat excavated site with dry periodically burning bare peat surface 4 years after re-wetting, Meschera National Park, Vladimir Province

34 Level of spectral radiance MIR-Channel7 Mean values of spectral radiance in channels for defined land/vegetation classes Classes Класс 1 Класс 2 Класс 3 Класс 4 Класс 5 Класс Channels Номер канала MIR-Channel5 Brown bare peat; yellow dry grass communities; light-green pine (coniferous) forest vegetation; green deciduous forest vegetation; blue-green hydrophilic vegetation; blue open water. Sirin A., Maslov A., Medvedeva M., Vozbrannaya A., Valyaeva N., Tsyganova O., Glukhova T., Makarov D. Multispectral remote sensing data as a tool for assessing the need and the effectiveness for peatland restoration // The 9th European Conference on Ecological Restoration, Oulu, Finland, August 03th 08th, 2014.

35 Fire-hazardous land/vegetation classes 1. Bare peat 2. Willow herb, small reed and birchsmall reed communities

36 3. Communities with pine Medium fire-hazardous land/vegetation classes 4. Communities dominated by willow and birch

37 wetland/peatland restoring land/vegetation classes 5. Hydrophilic communities with cat-tail and reed 6. Shallow-water

38 Landsat-8 Sensor Landsat-7 UK-DMC2 Spot-5 Spot-6 Pixel, m Channels Wave Length, µm Blue Green Red NIR SWIR SWIR Spot-6 UK-DMC2 Date Landsat-7 Spot-5 Brown bare peat; yellow dry grass communities; light-green pine (coniferous) forest vegetation; green deciduous forest vegetation; blue-green hydrophilic vegetation; blue open water.

39 Pilot area (Taldom District) Landsat 8 pixel = 30 m * Spot 5 pixel = 10 m * Brown bare peat; yellow dry grass communities; light-green pine (coniferous) forest vegetation; green deciduous forest vegetation; blue-green hydrophilic vegetation; blue open water.

40 Remote Sensing Data Main Requirements drainage spacing about 40 m require higher resolution NIR and SWIR channels mosaic covering the whole Oblast based on EO data within short period (1-2 weeks) reasonable price

41 Examples of land/vegetation changes after rewetting applied by Moscow Oblast during years (2011 image already include effect of 2010 rewetting; Spot 5 data for 2010 do not exist) 2011_07_ _08_ Spot 5_10 m Fire-hazardous land/vegetation classes: brown bare peat, yellow dry grass communities; Not fire-hazardous land/vegetation classes: blue open water, blue-green hydrophilic vegetation;

42 Monitoring results: Changes of land/vegetation cover of rewetted objects ( ha) end 2014 May-June Classes Area, ha % ,28 4% Bare peat ,79 37% Dry grass communities ,93 12% Pine (Coniferous) ,85 36% Deciduous (will-birch) ,40 7% Hydrophilic ,24 3% Water ,79 2% Bare peat ,41 30% Dry grass communities ,65 8% Pine (Coniferous) ,48 29% Deciduous (will-birch) ,02 5% Hydrophilic ,40 3% Water ,73 24% Burned-out ,71 7% Bare peat ,34 27% Dry grass communities ,8 8% Pine (Coniferous) ,31 44% Deciduous (will-birch) ,2 9% Hydrophilic ,66 5% Water

43 Methodology Scope: Moscow Oblast rewetting programme ( ) ha Classification of 6 land cover classes by remote sensing: 1. Bare peat 2. Sparse willow-herb, reed and birch-reed communities 3. Communities dominated by pine 4. Communities with willow and birch 5. Hydrophilic communities with cat-tail, tall sedges and reed 6. Open/sparsely vegetated water surfaces 7. Recently burned peat Emission factors: IPCC (2014) default values, literature and field observation data were applied to estimate emissions Carbon loss from peat fires (field data)

44 Methodology I Emission factors used for calculating emissions for the land/vegetation cover classes Land cover class IPCC land use class IPCC EF t CO2eq. ha -1 1) Bare peat (sparse vegetation) Average boreal and temperate peatland managed for extraction 2) Forb communities Average boreal, temperate nutrient poor and shallow drained grassland 3) Communities with pine trees (3) Forest land, drained, nutrient poor (boreal) 4) Communities with willow and birch Average boreal nutrient rich and temperate forest land 5) Hydrophilic communities Average temperat poor and rich rewetted organic soils 6) Open water Assumed the same as land cover class 5 yr -1 Tier 2 EF t CO2eq. ha -1 yr

45

46

47

48

49 20 40 mg C-CO 2 m -2 h mg C-CH 4 m -2 h -1 Chistotin M. V., Sirin A. A., Dulov L. E. (2006). Seasonal Dynamics of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Emission from Peatland of Moscow Region Drained for Peat Extraction and Agricultural Use // Agrochemistry N 6. pp (in Russian). Sirin A.A., Suvorov G.G., Chistotin M.V., Glagolev. M.V. (2012) Values of methane emissions from drainage ditches // ДОСиГИК Т.3.No 2(6).10 (in Russian)

50 Peat extraction over ha Drainage for Agriculture at least ha Forest Drainage over ha Disturbance related to linear constructions? Giving ditches and canals 1% of drained lands = over ha Ditches make drained peatlands comparable with virgin peatlands in order of CH 4 flux Total CH 4 emission from ditches could reach 0.1 M t and more

51 Methodology II Emissions from ditches in t CO 2 -eq ha -1 yr -1 *. drainage ditches in deep drained areas drainage ditches in shallow drained areas Before rewetting After rewetting Before rewetting After rewetting Emission reduction t CO 2 -eq. Area (ha) ,5 EF CH 4 (t CO 2 -eq) Emission * per ha GHG emissions calculated on the basis of the total rewetted area

52 Permanent high moisture Gas sampling Changing moisture Control of soil moisture Suvorov et al Gas chromatography

53 Draft map of peat fires in 2010 Based on Map of Peatlands Map of Moscow Oblast and on-line map of Forest-Peat (August 2010, SRDC Scanex)

54 Only 10 cm of peat loss after burning (biomass is not considered) CO 2 emission over 350 t per ha; Макаров и др Makarov et al Среднее > 16 см

55 Methodology III Assumptions and calculations of the fire prevention effect for reduction of GHG fluxes Total peat fire area in 2010 (ha) Peat fire area later rewetted (ha) Total rewetted area (ha) Assumptions: Peat loss (m) 0.1 Biomass loss not considered Bulk density (kg m -3 ) 100 Carbon content (fraction) 0.5 Carbon loss (0.1 m 100 kg m ; t ha -1 ) 50 CO 2 emissions (50 44/12; t CO 2 ha -1 of burnt land) 183 CO 2 emissions 2010 (13656 ha 183; t CO 2 ) 2,499,050 Frequency of peat fires as in 2010 once in 10 years (yr -1 ) 0.1 Effect of rewetting by avoiding fires (0.1 2,499,050; t CO 2 yr -1 ) 249,905 Effect of rewetting by avoiding fires (249,905 / 73,109 ha; t CO 2 ha -1 yr -1 ) 3,42

56 Peat fires in Central European Russia in 2002 Russian Academy of Sciences INSITUTE OF FOREST SCIENCE Minayeva & Sirin Science and Industry of Russia. N 9. Courtesy to Stanislav Vompersky

57 Peat fire on peat massif «Orshinsky Mokh», Tver Oblast Aug Spot 5, resolution 10 m. CNES 2014, Dept. of distribution Spot Image S.A.

58 Results I Reduction from decomposition: t CO 2 eq. per ha and year Total: tco 2 eq. per year (for ha) Reduction from fires: 3.5 t CO 2 eq. per ha per year Total: ~ t CO 2 e per year Combined emission reduction: 4.5 t CO 2 eq. per ha and year Total: ~ 300,000 t CO 2 e per year

59 Results II Site heterogeneity of emissions from decomposition: 7 sites (~ 8,500 ha): Emissions reduced by about 6 t CO 2 eq. per ha and year 9 sites (~ 3,400 ha): Emissions increased by about 5 t CO 2 eq. per ha and year 29 sites (~ ha): Emission change neutral or insignificant. 5% 12% 83% - 6 t CO2e + 5 t CO2e neutral

60 Thanks to Tamara Glukhova, Gennady Suvorov, Aleksandr Maslov, Institute of Forest Science Russian Academy of Sciences Hans Joosten and John Couwenberg, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald, Germany Tatiana Minayeva, Wetlands International, The Netherlands Yulia Kurbatova, A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences Dmitry Zamolodchikov, Moscow State University

61 Thank you for attention