Carbon mitigation potential and costs of forestry options in Brazil,China, India,Indonesia, Mexico,the Philippines and Tanzania

This paper summarizes studies of carbon (C) mitigation potential and costs of about 40 forestry options in seven developing countries. Each study uses the same methodological approach – Comprehensive Mitigation Assessment Process (COMAP) – to estimate the above parameters between 2000 and 2030. The approach requires the projection of baseline and mitigation land-use scenarios. Coupled with data on a per ha basis on C sequestration or avoidance, and costs and benefits, it allows the estimation of monetary benefit per Mg C, and the total costs and carbon potential. The results show that about half (3.0 Pg C) the cumulative mitigation potential of 6.2 Petagram (Pg) C between 2000 and 2030 in the seven countries (about 200× 10⁶ Mg C yr^-1) could be achieved at a negative cost and the remainder at costs ranging up to $100 Mg C^-1. About 5 Pg C could be achieved, at a cost less than $20 per Mg C. Negative cost potential indicates that non-carbon revenue is sufficient to offset direct costs of these options. The achievable potential is likely to be smaller, however, due to market, institutional, and sociocultural barriers that can delay or prevent the implementation of the analyzed options.     

Land use change and forestry climate project regional baselines: a review

Climate change programs have largely used the project-specific approach for estimating baseline emissions of climate mitigation projects. This approach is subjective, lacks transparency, can generate inconsistent baselines for similar projects, and is likely to have high transaction costs. The use of regional baselines, which partially addresses these issues, has been reported in the literature on forestry and agriculture projects, and in greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation program guidance for them (e.g., WRI/WBCSD GHG Project Protocol, USDOE’s 1605(b) registry, UNFCCC’s Clean Development Mechanism). This paper provides an assessment of project-specific and regional baselines approaches for key baseline tasks, using project and program examples. The regional experience to date is then synthesized into generic steps that are referred to as Stratified Regional Baselines (SRB). Regional approaches generally, and SRB in particular explicitly acknowledge the heterogeneity of carbon density, land use change, and other key baseline driver variables across a landscape. SRB focuses on providing guidance on how to stratify lands into parcels with relatively homogeneous characteristics to estimate conservative baselines within a GHG assessment boundary, by applying systematic methods to determine the boundary and time period for input data.

Forest Management for Greenhouse Gas Benefits: Resolving Monitoring Issues Across Project and National Boundaries

Demand for new environmental services from forests requires improved monitoring of these services at three scales: project-, regional-, and national-level. Most forest management activities are organized at the project scale, while the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) recognizes the nation as the party to the agreement. Hence, measurement and monitoring issues are emerging at the intersections of the project and national scales, referred to here as monitoring-domain edge effects. The following actions are necessary to improve existing monitoring capabilities and to help resolve project/national edge effects: (1) consensus on standard methods and protocols for monitoring mitigation activities, their off-site greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts, the fate of forest products and their relation to national GHG inventories (baselines); (2) a global program for collecting land use, land cover, biomass burning, and other data essential for national baselines; (3) the development of new nested-monitoring-domain methods that allow projects to be identified in national GHG inventories (baselines), and permit tracking of leakage of GHGs and wood product flows outside project boundary and over time; and (4) presentation of a set of credible, carefully designed, and well-documented forest mitigation activities that resolve most of the current issues.     

Baselines for land-use change in the tropics: application to avoided deforestation projects

Although forest conservation activities, particularly in the tropics, offer significant potential for mitigating carbon (C) emissions, these types of activities have faced obstacles in the policy arena caused by the difficulty in determining key elements of the project cycle, particularly the baseline. A baseline for forest conservation has two main components: the projected land-use change and the corresponding carbon stocks in applicable pools in vegetation and soil, with land-use change being the most difficult to address analytically. In this paper we focus on developing and comparing three models, ranging from relatively simple extrapolations of past trends in land use based on simple drivers such as population growth to more complex extrapolations of past trends using spatially explicit models of land-use change driven by biophysical and socioeconomic factors. The three models used for making baseline projections of tropical deforestation at the regional scale are: the Forest Area Change (FAC) model, the Land Use and Carbon Sequestration (LUCS) model, and the Geographical Modeling (GEOMOD) model. The models were used to project deforestation in six tropical regions that featured different ecological and socioeconomic conditions, population dynamics, and uses of the land: (1) northern Belize; (2) Santa Cruz State, Bolivia; (3) Paraná State, Brazil; (4) Campeche, Mexico; (5) Chiapas, Mexico; and (6) Michoacán, Mexico. A comparison of all model outputs across all six regions shows that each model produced quite different deforestation baselines. In general, the simplest FAC model, applied at the national administrative-unit scale, projected the highest amount of forest loss (four out of six regions) and the LUCS model the least amount of loss (four out of five regions). Based on simulations of GEOMOD, we found that readily observable physical and biological factors as well as distance to areas of past disturbance were each about twice as important as either sociological/demographic or economic/infrastructure factors (less observable) in explaining empirical land-use patterns. We propose from the lessons learned, a methodology comprised of three main steps and six tasks can be used to begin developing credible baselines. We also propose that the baselines be projected over a 10-year period because, although projections beyond 10 years are feasible, they are likely to be unrealistic for policy purposes. In the first step, an historic land-use change and deforestation estimate is made by determining the analytic domain (size of the region relative to the size of proposed project), obtaining historic data, analyzing candidate baseline drivers, and identifying three to four major drivers. In the second step, a baseline of where deforestation is likely to occur–a potential land-use change (PLUC) map—is produced using a spatial model such as GEOMOD that uses the key drivers from step one. Then rates of deforestation are projected over a 10-year baseline period based on one of the three models. Using the PLUC maps, projected rates of deforestation, and carbon stock estimates, baseline projections are developed that can be used for project GHG accounting and crediting purposes: The final step proposes that, at agreed interval (e.g., about 10 years), the baseline assumptions about baseline drivers be re-assessed. This step reviews the viability of the 10-year baseline in light of changes in one or more key baseline drivers (e.g., new roads, new communities, new protected area, etc.). The potential land-use change map and estimates of rates of deforestation could be re-done at the agreed interval, allowing the deforestation rates and changes in spatial drivers to be incorporated into a defense of the existing baseline, or the derivation of a new baseline projection.     

Greenhouse gas mitigation options in the Forest sector of Russia: National and project level assessments

Greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation options in the Russian forest sector include: afforestation and reforestation of unforested/degraded land area; enhanced forest productivity; incorporation of nondestructive methods of wood harvesting in the forest industry; establishment of land protective forest stands; increase in stand age of final harvest in the European part of Russia; increased fire control; increased disease and pest control; and preservation of old growth forests in the Russian Far-East, which are presently threatened. Considering the implementation of all of the options presented, the GHG mitigation potential within the forest and agroforestry sectors of Russia is approximately 0.6–0.7 Pg C/yr or one half of the industrial carbon emissions of the United States. The difference between the GHG mitigation potential and the actual level of GHGs mitigated in the Russian forest sector will depend to a great degree on external financing that may be available. One possibility for external financing is through joint implementation (JI). However, under the JI process, each project will be evaluated by considering a number of criteria including also the difference between the carbon emissions or sequestration for the baseline (or reference) and the project case, the permanence of the project, and leakage. Consequently, a project level assessment must appreciate the near-term constraints that will face practitioners who attempt to realize the GHG mitigation potential in the forest and agroforestry sectors of their countries.     

Avoided deforestation as a greenhouse gas mitigation tool: economic issues

Tropical deforestation is a significant contributor to accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. GHG emissions from deforestation in the tropics were in the range of 1 to 2 Pg C yr(-1) for the 1990s, which is equivalent to as much as 25% of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. While there is growing interest in providing incentives to avoid deforestation and consequently reduce net carbon emissions, there is limited information available on the potential costs of these activities. This paper uses a global forestry and land use model to analyze the potential marginal costs of reducing net carbon emissions by avoiding deforestation in tropical countries. Our estimates suggest that about 0.1 Pg C yr(-1) of emissions reductions could be obtained over the next 30 to 50 yr for $5 per Mg C, and about 1.6 Pg C yr(-1) could be obtained over the same time frame for $100 per Mg C. In addition, the effects of carbon incentives on land use could be substantial. Relative to projected baseline conditions, we find that there would be around 3 million additional hectares (ha) of forestland in 2055 at $5 per Mg C and 422 million ha at $100 per Mg C. Estimates of reductions in area deforested, GHG mitigation potential, and annual land rental payments required are presented, all of which vary by region, carbon price paid, and time frame of mitigation.     

Carbon Management Response Curves: Estimates of Temporal Soil Carbon Dynamics

Measurement of the change in soil carbon that accompanies a change in land use (e.g., forest to agriculture) or management (e.g., conventional tillage to no-till) can be complex and expensive, may require reference plots, and is subject to the variability of statistical sampling and short-term variability in weather. In this paper, we develop Carbon Management Response (CMR) curves that could be used as an alternative to in situ measurements. The CMR curves developed here are based on quantitative reviews of existing global analyses and field observations of changes in soil carbon. The curves show mean annual rates of soil carbon change, estimated time to maximum rates of change, and estimated time to a new soil carbon steady state following the initial change in management. We illustrate how CMR curves could be used in a carbon accounting framework while effectively addressing a number of potential policy issues commonly associated with carbon accounting. We find that CMR curves provide a transparent means to account for changes in soil carbon accumulation and loss rates over time, and also provide empirical relationships that might be used in the development or validation of ecological or Earth systems models.     

Community and farm forestry climate mitigation projects: case studies from Uttaranchal,India

The methodologies for forest mitigation projects still present challenges to project developers for fulfillment of criteria within the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) or other such mechanisms for the purpose of earning carbon credits. This paper systematically approaches the process of establishing carbon (C) stocks for baseline (BSL) and mitigation scenario (MSL) for two case studies i.e., community and farm forestry projects in Uttaranchal, India. The analysis of various interventions shows that both projects present high carbon mitigation potential. However, the C reversibility risk is lower in long-rotation pine and mixed species plantation on community lands. The project is financially viable though not highly lucrative but the carbon mitigation potential in this ‘restoration of degraded lands’ type of project is immense provided challenges in the initial phase are adequately overcome. C revenue is an essential driver for investors in community projects. The short-rotation timber species such as Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus), Poplar (Populus) have high internal rates of return (IRR) and high carbon benefit reversibility potential due to fluctuations in market prices of commodities produced. The land holdings are small and bundling is desired for projects to achieve economies of scale. The methodological concerns such as sampling intensities, monitoring methodologies, sharing of benefits with communities and bundling arrangements for projects need further research to make these projects viable.     

Forestry Mitigation Potential and Costs in Developing Countries Preface

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change -