Monitoring, Verification and Permanence of Carbon Sinks Sten Nilsson, Matthias Jonas, Anatoly Shvidenko, Vladimir Stolbovoi, Michael Obersteiner and Ian McCallum Forestry Project, IIASA March 2003, Lisbon, Portugal Forestry Project
OUTLINE IIASA FOR Activities in this Field This Presentation Full accounting of Kyoto GHGs Full carbon accounting of sinks Uncertainties of GHGs Uncertainties of carbon sinks Verification of GHGs Verification of carbon sinks Missing sink issue The missing carbon sink Spatial verification of GHGs Spatial variability and verification of carbon sinks Temporal verification of GHGs Temporal verification of carbon sinks Biomass and capturing of GHGs Sinks in abrupt climate change Monitoring with help of RS of GHG fluxes Monitoring of carbon fluxes Permanence of GHG sinks Permanence of carbon sinks Verification mechanisms and institutions Policy recommendations for policy makers Suggestions for CarboEurope and the post Kyoto process Forestry Project
Full Carbon Accounting for Russia in 1990 Forestry Project
Input Datasets for and Characteristics of Full Carbon Accounting Consistency Systems Approach Complete Integrated Accounting Assessments Uncertainties Forestry Project
Russian Terrestrial Full Carbon Accounting Evolution Earlier Now Inventory Approach RS and Environmental Variables Combination of Process Based Methods with Inventories Forestry Project
1990 Mainly Process Based Carbon Scheme Terrestrial Full C org Balance for Russia (1988 – 1992) -351 A -( 176) NPP: 4354 HR + Ant: Dep: 23 ( 7) ( 118) Dep_H: 4026 ( 131) 3 ( 1) 306 Dis: 143 ( 16) V ( 156) Con: 682 ( 41) Det: 3222 ( 93) Dep_P: 20 ( 7) Plab: -69 -( ± 155) -38 SRO: 9 ( 3) P HR: 3201 ( 123) -( 155) Pstab: 31 ( ± 9) CSRO: DOS: 70 ( 15) 12 ( 4) URO: 50 ( 13) Leak: 20 ( 7) RO: 62 ( 14) 20 62 L H ( 7) Forestry ( 14) Project
Russian Terrestrial FCA: 1988 – 1992 Average Annual Atmospheric Sink Strength -0.35 ± 0.10 (This Study, 2003) -0.15 ± 0.12 (Nilsson et al., 2000) -0.80 -0.55 -0.30 -0.05 0.20 Atmospheric Sink Strength [PgC yr -1 ] Terrestrial Sink Strength [PgC yr -1 ] Forestry Project
Conclusions for 1990 Estimates • Modified systems view with respect to soils and inclusion of more detailed lateral and horizontal fluxes resulted in doubling the net terrestrial sink capacity • The assessment of the atmospheric pool is sensitive to small changes in surface and sub-surface fluxes • The uncertainties are substantially reduced • Underlining the need for thorough and full accounting including all fluxes Forestry Project
Status of Inverse Modeling of 1980 – 1989 Terrestrial C Sources (+) and Sinks (-) in PgC • yr -1 90N [-2.3, - 0.6] 30N [-1.0, + 1.5] 30S [-0.7, + 0.2] 90S (Heiman, 2001; Prentice et al ., 2001) Forestry Project
Inverse Modeling and the Northern Extra-tropical Belt (Top – Down) Northern Extra-tropical sink strength in PgC • yr -1 for 1980 – 89 • (North America/Eurasia) [-2.3, -0.6] Cv: -1.45 ± 0.85 ( ± 59%) 90N North America Eurasia [-3.16, +0.72] [-2.3, +0.72] Cv: -1.22 ± 1.94 ( ± 159%) Cv: -0.79 ± 1.51 ( ± 191%) 30N Forestry (House et al ., 2003) Cv = centered view Project
Up Scaling of the Terrestrial Sink Strength Bottom-up Results for Russia Valid for the Northern Extra-tropical Region Vegetated Area 10 12 . m 2 Region Russia 16 (IIASA) Eurasia 36 (Schimel et al ., 2001) Northern Extra-tropics 56 (Schimel et al ., 2001) PgC • yr -1 Inverse Modeling Up Scaled Bottom-up Values Northern Extra-tropical Eurasia Northern Extra-tropical Eurasia -1.45 - 0.79 -1.22 - 0.77 Forestry Project
Bottom-up Combined Top Down – Bottom Up Full Account in PgC • yr -1 [-2.3, -0.6] Cv: -1.45 ± 0.85 ( ± 59%) 90N Extra-tropical North w/o Russia (71% area) Cv: -1.10 ± 0.87 ( ± 79%) 30N Russia (29 % area) Cv: -0.35 ± 0.18 ( ± 51%) Forestry Cv = centered view Project
Conclusions • Our full C account of Russia is closer to atmospheric inversion than existing C inventory + model techniques • Combined top down – bottom up based approach has smaller uncertainties than pure top down approach • The combination of bottom up (FCA) with top down (atmospheric inversion) is the way to achieve ultimate verification • No “Missing Sink” Forestry Project
Missing Sink • The missing sink issue is a result of the introduction of land use changes in the balance • Our bottom up approach for 1990 and the 1990s are sufficiently taking care of the effect of historical land use changes (including vegetation replacement and the changed production and consumption of products from converted land) • The inverse modeling also reflects historical land use change • Based on the good correspondence between the top down and bottom up approach, and with this no identification of any missing sink, leads us to conclude that the missing sink issue is reduced to an issue of relevant accounting Forestry Project
Spatial Accounting Concept Input Datasets C-flux Algorithms dV NPP Det Ant NPP Det Con Dis dt 1 GIS 2 2 2 2 DetA 2 _ Trans Trans DetA Database Trans _ tot 2 2 2 2 RO _ SROs SROs RO 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 RO RO SROs _ Leak Leak _ SROs Leak C-flux Spatial Locator 2 2 2 1 Leak SROs RO Forestry Project
Geographical Distribution of Terrestrial Sinks/Sources in 1990 Value Sink Source Forestry Project
Spatial Variability • Large variations between sub regions and different ecosystems in the sink strength capacity • We are working on the uncertainty assessments of the spatial calculations • The uncertainty assessments are needed for the verification • This work is an important step towards regional verification by inverse modeling in the future • This tool is aiming at supporting carbon management of land resources within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol Forestry Project
Dual Constrained vs.Temporal Verification Atmosphere Net flux – atmospheric Verification: measurement(s) Identical net Net flux – “surface fluxes? system” measurements “Surface System” (No spatial or thematic restriction) Dual-constrained Verification Temporal Verification (Bottom up – Top down) Working Conditions Working Conditions • National Scales • Well Defined Test Sites • Split of Biosphere into (“Zero - leakage systems”) Kyoto/Non-Kyoto • No split of Biosphere into Biosphere Kyoto/Non-Kyoto Biosphere Forestry Project
Temporal Verification Net Emissions Signal Total Reduction Commitment Time for Achieving Reduction Commitment t 1 t 2 Time Verification Time Forestry Project
Permanence: Stock Stock Time S 0 = Unchanged Long-term Trend Forestry t Project
Permanence: Stock Change Stock S * t t Time S S t S = The realized long-term stock change should x % t outstrip the variability of the stock t Conf (at a given confidence level) * t t Forestry Project
Permanence is Multi-dimensional • Huge stocks and small sink = High Permanence • High temporal variability of stocks = Low Permanence • High spatial variability of stocks = Low Permanence Spatial and temporal variabilities impacting permanence are partly manageable Forestry Project
Permanence Specifics: NBP from Russian Forests (1961 – 1998) Net Biome Production, PgC yr -1 Observations • Increasing stocks over time Permanence of Annual variability 0.05 to 0.60 stocks Variability of 5 year averages 0.24 to 0.32 • The degree of permanence depends on the monitoring 1961 – 1998 average period 0.28 ± 0.06 Forestry Project
Driving Forces for Sink/Source Changes Impacting Permanence • Land use change • Change productivity • Changed disturbance regimes • Changed climate conditions, etc. Forestry Project
Implications for Monitoring and Verification • The monitoring system design for sinks should be based on the demands: Full accounting Satisfy uncertainty assessments Satisfy verification conditions • Continuously monitoring • Due to the variability in the sink capacity between individual years the verification should also be based on multi-year periods Forestry Project
Suggestions to CarboEurope and the Post Kyoto Process with respect to Sinks • Introduce full accounting • Improve uncertainty assessments • Develop solid verification mechanisms • Spatial verification • Temporal verification • Design monitoring systems to handle the above • Contribute to establishment of institutions for implementation of the above • Introduce bifurcation rules Forestry Project
Recommend
More recommend
