Mitigation through Land Use Measures Daniel Martino Carbosur (Uruguay) Coordinating Lead Author, IPCC AR4, Vol. III, Ch. 8 (Agriculture) Presented to Policy Dialogue Session organized by IISD: The UNFCCC Negotiations: Canadian Considerations in the Lead-up to COP 15 Mitigation of GHG Emissions through Land Use Measures Winnipeg, Manitoba 16 March 2009
Outline Climate change mitigation in agriculture and forestry sectors: main findings of IPCC AR4 Baseline emission trends Mitigation potentials by region and cost of carbon Role of biomass as energy feedstock Impacts on sustainable development Additional considerations Limitations of IPCC AR4 Biological C sequestration in global C cycle context The failure of Kyoto Relevant issues for current negotiations
GHG Emissions (Gt CO2-eq/yr) Baseline emissions 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Forest and agriculture sinks not included in graph 1990 2005 2030 Agriculture Emissions 2005 7% 11% 38% N2O soils CH4 e nte ric 12% Bioma ss burning Rice mgmt. other 32% Agriculture Forests Main drivers Increase in GHGs: population pressure, income increase, diet changes, technological changes Decrease in GHGs: increased land productivity, conservation tillage, nonclimate policies (AI), forest sinks (temperate/boreal)
Baseline emissions: Agriculture 1990-2005: Developed countries, EIT: -12% Developing countries: +32%
Baseline emissions: Forests Tropical Regions Increasing emissions (deforestation: >12 million ha/yr, 5.8 Gt CO 2 /yr) Higher Latitudes Emissions stable or decreasing, even turning into sinks
Economic Mitigation Potential Carbon price (US$/tCO 2 -eq) Economic Potential 2030 (GtCO 2 -eq/yr) Agriculture Forests 20 1.6 (0.3-2.4) 1.2 (0.5-1.8) 50 2.7 (1.5-3.9) 2.1 (0.9-3.2) 100 4.4 (2.3-6.4) 2.7 (1.3-4.2) Emissions 2030 8.2 5.8 Mitigation practices in Agriculture Cropland management; Restoration of organic soils; Rice management; Grazing land management 90% of potential is carbon sequestration Mitigation practices in Forests Reduced emissions from deforestation; afforestation; forest management
Mitigation measures do not have an unrealistically high price What does US$50/tCOeq mean? Crude oil ~US$25/barrel Gasoline ~12ct/litre (50ct/gallon) Electricity from coal fired plant: ~5ct/kWh from gas fired plant: ~1.5ct/kWh
Mitigation Potentials by Sector GtCO 2 -eq/yr 7 Developing Countries Economies in Transition OECD Countries World total 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 <20 <50 <100 <20 <50 <100 <20 <50 <100 <20 <50 <100 <20 <50 <100 <20 <50 <100 <20 <50 <100 Energy supply Transport Buildings Industry Agriculture Forestry Waste Relative contribution of Agriculture + Forestry to total mitigation potential US$ 20/tCO2 21% US$ 50/tCO2 32% US$ 100/tCO2 45%
Agriculture: Regional Distribution of Technical Potential 70% of technical potential is in developing regions 2/3 of potential not covered by Kyoto mechanisms
Forests: Regional Distribution of Economic Potential (US$ 100/tCO 2 -eq) 65% of potential is in developing regions Developing countries: reduced deforestation 40% of potential Developed countries, EIT: forest management 63-72% of potential
Biomass as Feedstock for Energy Agriculture: Biomass for energy produced in agricultural land may cause indirect emissions reductions of 70-1,260 Mt CO 2 -eq./yr (at US$ 20/tCO 2 ) by 2030. In addition, emissions reductions of 770 Mt CO 2 -eq./yr can be achieved through energy efficiency Forests: Indirect emissions reductions of 40-4,000 Mt CO 2 -eq./yr (at US$ 20/tCO 2 ) can be achieved by 2030. Increasing stocks of harvested wood products can also contribute (not estimated in the report) Associated impacts: Competition with other land uses, positive or negative environmental impacts, implications for food security
Impacts on Sustainable Development Most mitigation practices in agriculture and forests have synergies with sustainable development and interactions with adaptation. C sequestration in soils correlated with productivity/resilience and soil conservation Properly designed afforestation/reforestation may increase added value per unit land and provide environmental services (watershed, biodiversity) Reducing emissions from deforestation, if adequately implemented, provides sustained income and environmental services. Some practices may cause negative impacts, but these can be addressed through proper design
www.ipcc.ch The report of IPCC Working Group III is available at www.mnp.nl/ipcc
Outline Climate change mitigation in agriculture and forestry sectors: main findings of IPCC AR4 Baseline emission trends Mitigation potentials by region and cost of carbon Role of biomass as energy feedstock Impacts on sustainable development Additional considerations Limitations of IPCC AR4 Biological C sequestration in global C cycle context The failure of Kyoto Relevant issues for current negotiations
Limitations of IPCC AR4 Being a global assessment, spatial resolution of potential estimates (as well as of associated impacts, climate change impacts, adaptation options related with mitigation) is limited. Mitigation potential in livestock systems underestimated. Emphasis was on per head emissions, but relevance of per unit product emissions (ie, getting certain amount of products with lesser animals) was overlooked. Some possible synergies between mitigation options were not quantified (e.g., grazing land/cropland productivity and reduced deforestation)
Limitations of IPCC AR4 Estimates of some options with possibly good potential (HWP, product substitution, lifestyle changes) are not provided Sink enhancement or reversal due to climate change are identified, but uncertainties remain high
Global Carbon Stocks and Flows 61 ATMOSPHERE 750 Pg C +2.8 Pg C/yr (ca. 10 Gt CO2/yr) SOILS AND VEGETATION 60 92 90 2,000 Pg C +1.4 Pg C/yr FOSSIL FUELS 10,000 Pg C -6.8 Pg C/yr 7 OCEANS 40,000 Pg C +2.0 Pg C/yr
Global Carbon Stocks and Flows SOILS AND VEGETATION 136 ATMOSPHERE 750 Pg C +170 Pg C CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 136 Pg C = 500 Gt CO2-136 Pg C FOSSIL FUELS -270 Pg C 270 IPCC TAR estimated a mitigation potential of 100 Pg C until 2050 (~7 Gt CO 2 /yr). IPCC AR4 estimated economic potentials of 11-33 Pg C until 2030 (~1-4 Gt CO 2 /yr) at prices between US$ 20-100/t CO 2
Global Carbon Stocks and Flows ATMOSPHERE 750 Pg C +170 Pg C SOILS AND VEGETATION 136 IPCC AR4: 11-33 Pg C until 2030 at prices between US$ 20-100/t CO 2-136 Pg C
Historical Evolution of C Stocks in Grassland Converted to Agriculture in Uruguay Afforestation Conversion to improved grassland Livestock grazing Cropping with conservation tillage Cropping with intensive tillage
AR Aptitude Measured by Hydrological Impacts Zomer et. al, 2006
A Mitigation Potential Largely Missed by Kyoto Emission Reductions (GtCO 2 -eq/yr) Mitigation Practice Economic Potential Kyoto Mechanisms C sequestration in agricultural lands 4.0 (2.8/1.2) ~0 (three AI Parties) Afforestation / Reforestation / Agroforestry Reduced emissions from deforestation 0.8 (0.6/0.2) n/e (nil in NAI Parties) 0.8 (0.7/0.1) n/e (nil in NAI Parties) Forest management 1.3 (0.7/0.6) 0.2 (20 AI Parties) Total 6.9 (4.8/2.1) <0.5 Annex I countries: net sink of 1.2 Gt CO 2 in 2004
Permanence Temporary credits for AR CDM, a big failure Buffer reserve approach (e.g., VCS) is a more effective mechanism Measurement of emissions and removals IPCC Good Practice Guidance 2003 and IPCC Guidelines 2006 provide a sound basis to achieve reasonable accuracy Uncertainties remain high for non-co2 gases Baselines Summary of Relevant Issues Deforestation: sound deforestation models are needed for projectbased approaches. National baselines may be an impossible task Agricultural products: adoption of carbon intensity baselines (i.e., perunit-product emissions) should be more effective than baselines based on absolute emissions. Potential conflict with trade issues (e.g., subsidies) Any restrictions to the trade of C credits will reduce the mitigation potentials and/or increase the market price of carbon