1. The LULUCF sector: land use, land-use change and forestry
Ian McCallum
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
The LULUCF sector: land use, land-use change and forestry
Scientific tools to help negotiators set emission reduction targets Annex-I Parties can learn about a scientific tool to compare the costs & mitigation potentials for GHG emission reductions for 2020.
Other tools show how different medium-term global targets for GHG will affect climate in the long term & how multiple development challenges can be addressed together 1

2. LULUCF options considered
Conservation, prevent emissions from existing carbon pools, e.g., avoided deforestation
2. Sequestration, increase stocks in existing carbon pools, e.g., reduced tillage (CO2), longer rotations (FM), afforestation on agricultural land
3. Substitution, substitute fossil fuel products with renewables, e.g., sustainable bioenergy: ethanol, biodiesel, fuel for combustion

3. LULUCF mitigation model tree
Scenarios POP, GDP, Energy demand
LAND USE
Trade and competition between regions,, market feedbacks (affor, defor bioenergy)
Opportunity costs
Production costs
FORESTS
Forest biomass harvest, supply
Age, etc.
AGRICULTURE
Crop production, environmental factors
Geographically explicit data
Global aggregated databases:
Mitigation potentials
biophysical models: climate, soil, land cover
initial carbon stock/ baseline / calibration (ie. Fao, unfccc)
Costs
opportunity costs (eg. FM: rotations, Afforestation: biofuels)
production costs: planting, harvest, technologies-Bioenergy
To estimate mitigation potentials and costs within the LULUCF sector a framework of models was applied (cf. Figure 1.2). Land use change related options such as afforestation and avoided deforestation are estimated using a global land use model (GLOBIOM) and a spatially explicit forestry model (G4M). The model cluster covers all land-use types and thus allows for fully integrated analysis of competitive interactions between different land uses and land use change types. Combining the different models allows for geographically explicit analysis of afforestation and avoided deforestation policies in a global context. The model G4M also provides mitigation potentials and costs of options in management of existing forests. A similar model setup is used to supply costs and potentials of bioenergy measures. Here the optimisation model EUFASOM is linked to the biophysical agricultural model EPIC. The agricultural model supplies EUFASOM with geographically explicit biomass potentials for various energy crops and bioenergy plantations. The more detailed European scale model AROPA-GHG calculates both mitigation potentials and costs of mitigation options at farm level. This model is applied to deliver CO2 mitigation cost curves for agriculture, mainly different tillage options. P
Mitigation 3

4. Baseline construction and calibration e. g
Baseline construction and calibration e.g. afforestation, deforestation
Reported 2005
Baseline in 2020
Tg CO2
Age, consumption
Emissions and removals total
Used fao data for missing countries? Source is unfccc 2008 nat inv rep
Max pot that could be avoided (def pot avoided emissions)
Take area
Tgco2 equiv
Data from left not independent
Strong influence of the historic values therefore carried over into the baseline projection
UNFCCC 2008 4

5. Marginal abatement curves: Afforestation until 2020
$/tonne CO2
1.Trees small
2. Ag land more expensive
3. Baseline is full of affor, therefore additional affor is limited
Defore, due to the method, this is what is coming out… because of baseline…
Affor- opposite to fm, countries with high fm options have low affor options – however potentials are low
Defor, australia has great potential to reduce defor, and with low carbon price
Percent of 1990 total emissions 5

6. Marginal abatement curves: Deforestation until 2020
$/tonne CO2
1.Trees small
2. Ag land more expensive
3. Baseline is full of affor, therefore additional affor is limited
Defore, due to the method, this is what is coming out… because of baseline…
Affor- opposite to fm, countries with high fm options have low affor options – however potentials are low
Defor, australia has great potential to reduce defor, and with low carbon price
Percent of 1990 total emissions 6

7. Marginal abatement curve: Forest management until 2020
$/tonne CO2
Cheapest option available with greatest potential
Russia with most potential for this
Does not consider market effects
Fm could come into conflict with timber supply, raising costs and limiting potentials
Percent of 1990 total emissions 7

8. Limitations and caveats
Data issues
Global land cover, NPP
Forest inventories
Global statistics on forests, products, etc.
Baseline assumptions
Forest management, deforestation
Not all countries reporting
Market
Market feedbacks are included for Afforestation & Deforestation
Forest management: costs expected to rise in case of timber shortage

9. Summary Work in progress Mitigation potentials for
Afforestation & Deforestation < 1%,
Forest Management < 5%
of 1990 emissions, until 2020 (preliminary results)
Large uncertainties specific to the biosphere
Npp continental vs global scale 9