Science push or policy pull? How to get forest C science into the policy realm and vice versa Lessons from Canadian experience Presenter: Graham Stinson Contributing Authors: W.A. Kurz, T. Lemprière, C.E. Smyth, and E.T. Neilson 3 rd NACP All-Investigators Meeting Jan 31 – Feb 4, 2011 New Orleans, LA

2 Any new research agenda should be guided by the need to 1)inform decision-making 2)anticipate the knowledge required to inform future decisions 3)address shortcomings in human understanding of the Earth System

3 Outline Why policy needs input from science Why science needs input from policy Example: forest management decision for Kyoto Protocol accounting Lessons and take-home message

4 Why policy-makers need guidance from Earth system science 7 billion people High appropriation of NPP by humanity –Haberl et al. (2007) PNAS, 104, Fundamental alterations to the global C cycle –Raupach & Canadell (2010) “Carbon and the anthropocene” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2, Rockström, et al. (2009) “A safe operating space for humanity” Nature, 461, Knowledge of the Earth system is required to inform decisions on how to manage it (or manage ourselves so as to avoid dangerous interference)

5 Why Earth system science needs guidance from policy-makers Maximize relevance –Contribution toward finding effective policy solutions to current and future challenges Justify expenditure –Regional and global observation networks –Space-based Earth observation $ $ $

6 Who dat Yeah u rite Policy Questions Science Questions Q: Should countries be accountable for C losses from their forests? Q: What are the effects of human activities on the forest C budget? Q: What contribution can forest mgmt make toward achieving GHG emission reduction targets? Q: What human activities have the greatest probability of enhancing forest C uptake? Q: Which processes control the forest C budget? Q: Should countries be able to claim credit for C gains by their forests (sinks)? Q: What is the number…A: It depends on…

7 Outline Why policy needs input from science Why science needs input from policy Example: Canada’s Article 3.4 decision Lessons and take-home message

8 Knowledge foundation at the time Conventional wisdom: –Large forests = large sink Emerging view: –C balance driven by disturbance, legacy effects of past disturbance, and current environmental conditions –Kurz & Apps (1999) Ecological Applications

9 The Question Chain Should countries be able to use forest sinks to meet emission reduction targets agreed to in Kyoto? Are forest sinks the result of management? Workaround: –Optional to elect forest management to help meet emission reduction targets in the first commitment period (2008 – 2012). –If elected, then account for net GHG emissions and removals in area of forest subject to forest management –Limits (caps) on size of accountable emissions or removals. Could not answer given current knowledge

10 The “managed forest”

11 The Question Chain continued Will Canada’s managed forest be a sink or source during the Kyoto Protocol commitment period ( )? Reframe question… What is the risk of Canada’s managed forest being a source? Cannot predict beforehand what the impact of natural disturbances will be

12 Methods: data and models

13 InsectsFire Source Sink Methods: Monte Carlo

14 Kurz et al. (2008) PNAS Source Probability Distribution of 5-yr average CO 2 e Balance (2008 – 2012)

15 CO2e source predicted for and beyond Kurz et al. (2008) PNAS 1 st CP Percentile

16 Why sink in past and source in future? Three major disturbance types Each disturbance has own temporal dynamics And each affects the probability distribution Harvest Insects Fire

17 Why sink in past and source in future? Interannual variability in area burned determines range of probability distribution. Regions with low interannual variability in fires have more narrow range of probability distribution. Fire

18 Why sink in past and source in future? Stage in insect outbreak cycle determines location of distribution (relative to zero line). 1990’s were period of low insect activity  sink 2008 – 2012 period of high insect activity  source Insects

19 Why sink in past and source in future? Harvest rate determines location of distribution (relative to zero line). Harvest

20 Canada did not elect forest management reporting under Kyoto rules Accounting rules contribute to the risk that management efforts are completely swamped by natural processes  few incentives to change management –Account for all carbon and non-CO 2 emissions within the managed forest: includes all naturally caused emissions (e.g. wildfires and insects) –No factoring out of pre-1990 age-class effects –Reporting of absolute changes (gross-net accounting) not against a baseline (net-net) –Role of harvested wood products not well accounted for

21 The question chain continues If accounting rules not creating incentives for action, what accounting system would? –Factor out direct impacts of natural disturbances –Factor out legacy impacts –Account relative to a reference level What is an appropriate reference level? How much mitigation potential in forestry?

22 Lesson from CFS experience Close collaboration between science and policy throughout all stages of enquiry –Both parties engaged in the crafting of fruitful questions Foster lasting relationships –Know who the right folks are to work with –Gain understanding and appreciation of each other’s perpectives and teminology –Become aware of each other’s unspoken assumptions

23 Conclusions Interesting vs. important questions Policy relevant vs. policy prescriptive Be honest brokers of –What we know (the facts) –What we don’t know (uncertainty) Sustained science-policy cooperation