status of forest biomass and carbon stock assessment in ... · redd+ for the guiana shield, 3rd...
TRANSCRIPT
REDD+ For the Guiana Shield, 3rd Working Group Meeting, Design of a Multipurpose National
Status of forest biomass and
carbon stock assessment in
South and Central America
Matieu Henry (FAO) & Lars Gunnar Marklund (FAO)
Role of South American forests in
global climate change
Status of national
communications to the
UNFCCC (%)
https://unfccc.int/2860.php
•LUCF sector contributes to 8% of global GHG emissions (Le Quéré et al. 2013)
•1/3 of the tropical C sink results from the South America tropical forests (Malhi, 2010)
Large source of uncertainties
related to the combination of
various sources of data and
various methodologies, from
bottom-up ecosystem
inventories to land fluxes,
biogeochemical models, and
atmospheric inversions.
Nat. Com. Non-Annex I LA Countries
1st 94 95
2nd 65 81
3d 3 10
4th 1 5
5th 1 5
Reporting GHG estimates under the UNFCCC
(2) National Communication, submitted by all Parties (however it is mandatory, every 4 years, for Annex I Parties only).
• Under the UNFCCC there are 2 channels for GHG data acquisition:
The review procedure:
Assists Annex I Parties in improving the quality
Ensures that the COP has adequate and reliable information
>> subject to review & accounting procedure under KP
>> subject to review
Future requirements under the UNFCCC (CP.16)
The first biennial report due by 1 January 2014 and then every 2 yrs
• Annex I Parties should submit a biennial report
>>subject to an International assessment and review process
The first biennial update reports due by December 2014 &then every 2 yrs
• Non-Annex I Parties should submit a biennial update report
>> subject to an international consultations and analysis
(1)GHG Inventory, annually submitted by Annex I Parties only (it is mandatory). A GHGI
contains information on GHG emissions and removals.
Data are published on the UNFCCC website;
http://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php
Their consistency with other official statistics prepared
by the Party under other national (e.g. statistical
yearbook) and international initiative (e.g. FRA) has to
be ensured.
Data published are official data of the Party
Published data are used by the UNFCCC to assessing
country progresses towards commitments and for assessing
global trends of anthropogenic emissions and removals.
National Forest Resources Assessment in South and Central America
• Data at national level
• FRA 2010 dataset – data officially submitted by countries to FAO. Note that FRA data come from the countries, they are not FAO data.
Guidelines for country reporting available at:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/k1276e/k1276e00.htm
Countries are requested to provide best possible
estimates:
• NFI or RS data on forest area;
• NFI data on stocks per hectare when available;
• National data / equations on volume and biomass whenever possible;
• If not available, best possible volume estimate and application of national
BCEF or as a last resort, default BCEF values from IPCC 2006.
The bottleneck is, and has always been, the availability of robust country data
How have the countries reported to FRA 2010?
• This brief analysis covers all LA countries excluding the Caribbean Islands
• In total 21 countries and territories.
• Of these countries, 17 reported on growing stock and 16 reported on biomass and carbon - the following analysis will focus on these 16 countries.
• Among those not reporting we find countries like Ecuador, El Salvador, Paraguay & Venezuela. The reason given is lack of information.
Forest area estimates
• Of 16 countries reporting on biomass and carbon, 3 have estimated total forest area from NFI data, remaining 13 from RS derived maps
• Several countries do not have trend data on forest area, and have assumed an annual deforestation rate – a couple of countries even assumed zero deforestation
Growing stock estimates • 7 countries have fairly recent NFI data, 1 more have
very old NFI data.
• No any country reports using tree allometric equations in FRA reports, although they may have used tree AE.
• Two countries have estimated volume from biomass figures, applying a BCEF “backwards”.
• Remaining countries have estimated growing stock per hectare from other partial inventories, management plans, etc. It is unclear when equations have been used and when not.
Above-ground biomass estimates
• 3 countries (Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras) have applied biomass equations on NFI data
• 4 countries have applied nationally estimated stocks per hectare
• Remaining countries have applied either an estimate based on D x BEF or directly a BCEF. Of these, a few countries (Argentina, Brazil) have made more elaborated estimation of BEFs, by region or by biome. Some have used the equation by Brown to calculate BEF.
Below-ground biomass
• One country (Mexico) seems to have applied equations, but it is unclear how estimates were derived
• Two countries/territories have national estimates on BGB per hectare – it is unclear how these were derived (Guyana / French Guiana)
• Remaining have used IPCC default values, usually 0.24. A few countries have applied sub-national or biome values (Argentina, Brazil)
Carbon estimates
• Most countries have applied a carbon fraction of 0.47 as of IPCC (2006)
• A few countries have applied a carbon fraction of 0.5 (IPCC, 2003)
• Brazil is using different carbon fractions for different biomes (between 0.47 and 0.5)
Conclusions – data reported to FRA
• Growing stock data still very weak. Some important countries (Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador) completely lack growing stock data useful for national estimates.
• Other important countries rely on partial inventory data for their growing stock estimates (Brazil, Peru, Bolivia).
• Biomass and carbon estimates are in most cases based on the growing stock figures.
• Only a few countries have used national biomass data, and it is uncertain how these data were obtained and processed.
Recent development
• Several countries in process of planning or implementing a national forest inventory
– Brazil
– Ecuador
– Panama
– Paraguay
– Costa Rica
• Many countries are updating or elaborating new forest maps, so better area and area change estimates will soon be available
Other sources for national data
• Saacthi pantropical study on forest carbon stocks
– Satellite LIDAR data calibrated with ground plots
– Tabulated national estimates cannot be compared “as is” with FRA data, as areas are inconsistent
– Saatchi gives slightly lower carbon estimates per ha than what’s reported to FRA, but likely due to different area figures – Saatchi seems to include more “bushland” as forest. Typical example is Argentina.
Comparisons with the Saatchi study
Argentina 2,396 1,306 81.5 16.5 29,400 79,000
Belize 138 158 99.1 79.0 1,393 2,000
Bolivia 3,582 4,850 62.6 65.5 57,196 74,000
Brazil 52,745 47,526 101.5 79.7 519,522 596,000
Chile 1,124 1,028 69.2 39.5 16,231 26,000
Colombia 5,488 8,054 90.7 95.9 60,499 84,000
Costa Rica 192 333 73.6 83.3 2,605 4,000
French Guiana 1,344 328 166.3 109.3 8,082 3,000
Guatemala 227 576 62.0 72.0 3,657 8,000
Guyana 1,348 2,401 88.7 126.4 15,205 19,000
Honduras 266 514 51.2 57.1 5,192 9,000
Mexico 1,688 2,243 26.0 33.0 64,802 68,000
Nicaragua 282 674 90.5 84.3 3,114 8,000
Panama 296 469 91.1 78.2 3,251 6,000
Peru 6,903 9,666 101.5 120.8 67,992 80,000
Suriname 2,553 1,815 173.0 129.6 14,758 14,000
Forest
area
(1 000 ha)
Saatchi
Carbon in
AGB (t/ha)
FRA
Carbon in
AGB
(million t)
Saatchi
Carbon in
AGB (t/ha)
Saatchi
Forest
area
(1 000 ha)
FRACountry/area
Carbon in
AGB
(million t)
FRA
Final remarks
• It is essential to improve country data in many aspects, and in particular
– Better data on area and in particular area trends. Changes often assessed by comparing independent studies or maps, and can therefore have substantial errors
– National forest inventories are the basis for stock assessments. Still, many of the most important countries in the region do not have a NFI; however many countries are planning or have started the process of implementing a NFI.
Remarks
• NFI data need to be complemented with good allometric equations for volume and biomass.
• There is very little data on below-ground biomass.
• Airborne LIDAR is a promising technology for non-destructive estimation of biomass. Still quite expensive. Does not replace a NFI as the NFI covers many more aspects than just biomass and carbon.
Status of national forest inventory in the Guiana Shield
1 000 ha
% of
land area %a %a %a
Suriname 3 14,758 95 0 0 -0.02 214 3,158
French Guiana ** 3 8,082 98 -0.09 -0.04 -0.04 204 1,649
Brazil ** 23 519,522 62 -0.51 -0.57 -0.42 121 62,862
Guyana 4 15,205 77 0 0 0 107 1,627
Average LA 47 80,350 49 0.59 0.60 0.62 115 6,350
Country/area
Forest 2005-2010Pop.
Density
/km 2
C stock t/
ha
Total C
stock (Mt
C)
1990-2000 2000-2005
Suriname Guiana Brazil French_Guiana
Forest land area
Map: NARENA SBB
1998
Guyana Forestry
Commission, FRIU 2005 -
2007 (But estimates for year
1999)
Maps of the
Vegetable Cover of
Brazilian Biomes –
PROBIO (MMA,
2007)
Recensement agricole, Direction de
l’Agriculture et de la Forêt, 1990.
Granville et al., 1993, Recensement
agricole, 2001, IFN 2008, Gond V.,
2002, Eva, H., et al. 2000
NFI NA NA NA NA
Deforestation NA NA Annual
Linear Extrapolation based on 1990
and 2006
Forest categories
Classif.: Lindeman &
Molenaa 1957,
National Forest
Policy 2003, Veg.
Class 1998, SBB
2000-2008
Guyana Forestry
Commission, Forest
Resources Information Unit
2005 - 2007
PortalBio/MMA
2002 ONF 1968 - 2008
Afforestation/refore
station NA NA
ABRAF of 2006,
2007, 2008, and
2009 & IBGE, 2008,
Bracelpa 2002
Plantations ECEREX 1990, 2000,
2005 et 2010
Status of national forest inventory in the Guiana Shield
Status of national forest inventory in the Guiana Shield
Suriname Guiana Brazil French_Guiana
Volume
Growing stock:
Surinam Forest
Inventory 1973,
Extraction: LBB
yearly statistics
1999-2007 Default
FELFILI (1994, 1997, 2001),
PEREIRA,(1987), BRASILEIRO (1988),
REZENDE 2002: (1988-1992), Higuchi et
al (1997-2000), Andrade and Higuchi
(2000, 2002, 2004, 2006)
Silva (1994), Carvalho, Oliveira (1993),
Sá (1998), Carvalho, Zákia (1994), Isaia,
Verslype, Gariglio (1992)
ONF-CTFT 1970,
ONF-CTFT 1972,
ONF 2000-2004,
Gazel 1983, ONF
1998
Biomas
s
Poels (1987), K.
Tjon (1998) Default
REZENDE (2002), SANTOS et al (2001),
CASTRO (1996), FELFILI (1994),
FELFILI, SILVA (2001), HIGUCHI et al
(1994), HIGUCHI etal (1998, p. 153-166),
HIGUCHI et al (1998, p.153-166),
HIGUCHI M (2004), FEARNSIDE (1994),
HIGUCHI et al (1994)
Utilisation de
données sources
des années 1970-
1980 (inventaires
papetiers)
BCEF NA Default Specific NA
RS Default Default Specific Specific
Dead
Wood Default Default Specific Specific
Carbon
content Default Default Specific Default
Litter Default Default Specific Default
SOC Default Default Specific Default
Status of national forest inventory in the Guiana Shield
Suriname Guiana Brazil French Guiana
Fires
Forest sector
environmental
assessment plan
2003 NA
IBAMA (1988-1992,
1998-2002, 2003-
2007), INPE (1998-
2002, 2003-2007) ONF, 1990 - 2000
Perturbati
ons NA NA
EMBRAPA
FLORESTAS (1988-
2003) ONF, 1990 - 2000
Volume
extracted SBB 2000 & 2005
Forest Sector
Information
Report, Guyana
2005-2007 IBGE (1990-2007) ONF (annual)
22
The regional workshop is divided into 4 sessions:
Accounting & reporting objectives of REDD+
• Report the anthropogenic impact on carbon-stock changes in, and other emissions from, forest carbon pools
• Account for the change, in carbon-stock changes and other emissions, associated with mitigation actions
• To ensure comparability among accounted quantities, we need to calculate estimates that are systematically neither over nor under the true value so far as can be judged and with an associated uncertainty reduced so far as practicable
• There is not any reference to conservativeness in COP decision related to REDD+ activities
• However, COP Decision taken in Warsaw on FRL ask for providing justification of why omitted pools and/or activities were deemed not significant; which means that non-significant pools may be excluded from accounting
Designing a NFI for REDD+ purposes
Carbon stock assessment for REDD+ under the
UNFCCC
“….requested developing country Parties aiming to undertake the REDD+ activities, […], to develop:
– A national strategy or action plan
– Forest reference emission level and/or forest reference level
– A robust and transparent national forest monitoring system for the monitoring and reporting REDD+ activities
– A system for providing information on how the safeguards are being addressed and respected”
The Cancun Agreements (Decision 1/CP.16)
Elements requested to be developed
“…establish, according to national circumstances and capabilities, robust and
transparent national forest monitoring systems and, if appropriate, sub-national
systems as part of national forest monitoring systems that:
• Use a combination of remote sensing and ground-based forest carbon
inventory approaches for estimating, as appropriate, anthropogenic forest-related
greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks, forest carbon stocks
and forest area changes;
According to Decision 4/CP15: to use the most recent IPCC guidance and guidelines, as
adopted or encouraged by the COP.
Establish & maintain IA
Ensure Designate Make
available
Assign responsi-
bilities
Elaborate a QA/QC plan
Establish processes
Improve-ment plan
Analyze Estimate in accordance
with GL
Complete data
collection
Assess quality
Report Control Review
Improve-ment based on review
Archive Make
accessible Transpa-
rency Security
Linking the different elements/ functions of the
national system for the preparation of the GHG
inventory
Sustainability of the forest monitoring system
Forestry
Border Mapping
National Defense
Techno.& scientific progresses can support different sectors/national
objectives
ADOPTABLE ADAPTABLE FEASIBLE
AN ADEQUATE INSTITUTIONAL & LEGAL FRAMEWORK
BUT, they need to be
AND REQUIRE
Biodiversity
Cross-cutting issues
– Regional networking;
– Data availability and accessibility;
– Regional collaboration;
– Communication.
– Etc.