hidden pixel

Carbon Sequestration In Terrestrial Ecosystems Information

Carbon sequestration by terrestrial ecosystems is the net removal of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere or the avoidance of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from terrestrial ecosystems into the atmosphere. The removal process includes CO2 uptake from the atmosphere by all chlorophyllous plants, through photosynthesis. This C is stored as plant biomass (in the trunks, branches, leaves and roots of the plants) and organic matter in the soil (IPCC 2000[1]). The terrestrial carbon sequestrations depend on land use practices and different ecosystem conditions that sustain established vegetation over longer periods.

Terrestrial carbon sequestration is not only of interest in those countries which have an obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emission under the Kyoto Protocol. Contemporary rational for its policy making includes that it (1) offers cost effective solutions for limiting Greenhouse Gases (GHG) concentration in the atmosphere for countries while enhancing their natural capital; (2) enhances cooperation for knowledge and technology transfer amongst states; (3) provides opportunities in developing countries (over US$30 billion/year) (Peskett et al. 2008[2]); and (4) has potential for rural poverty reduction.

Numerous methodologies for carbon sequestration projects (CSP) have been developed targeted at reducing carbon fluxes primarily through management interventions involving land use, land use changes and forestry (LULUCF) (Smith 2004;[3] Lehmann et al. 2006;[4] Bondeau et al. 2006;[5] Batjes 1998;[6] Smith et al. 1993;[7] Brown et al. 1993[8]). Two critical considerations to be borne in mind are impacts of planned project activities on ecology and human welfare. Therefore it is essential that carbon management is adequately formulated within national and international climate policies. This article takes a pragmatic approach in discussing several features of carbon sequestration reflected in the discourses of science (biogeochemistry), social sciences, economics and policies. It looks at both normative and controversial aspects, and provides recommendations for scientists and policy makers.

Contents

Biogeochemistry of sequestering carbon in terrestrial ecosystems

Anthropogenic activities coupled with some natural processes have led to dramatic net flows of CO2 to the atmosphere over the last three centuries (IPCC 1996b[9]). Carbon losses occur through decreased vegetation productivity, increased respiration, deforestation, biomass combustion and other poor land management practices. Land use changes account for about 1.6±1.0 Gt of CO2 to be released to the atmosphere annually (IPCC 1996a) with the deforestation of tropical forests emit most GHGs (IPCC 2000; Meyers, 2007[10]). This increasing release of GHGs into the atmosphere contributes to Global Warming, which in turn limits the ability of TEs to sequester C (Heimann and Reichstein 2008[11]).

Although natural and anthropogenic activities enhance GHG releases into the atmosphere, prospects for the use of CS by TEs as a strategy for mitigating climate change (Meyers, E.C. 2007) are increasing. It is considered to be a relatively cost-effective emission reduction strategy, and has the potential of generating co-benefits for humans and environment. Aggressive CS programs could sequester and avoid carbon emissions equivalent to about 12–15% under the business-as-usual scenario over a 50-year period (IPCC 2001[12]). However, these pessimisms straddle around assumptions and experimental modification of anthropogenic activities. Hence there are challenges for the eventual use of CS for climate change mitigation. Some of these include lack of scientific understanding of the biogeo-chemical cycle of C, socio-economic and policy issues related to organizing human activities that may limit this opportunity and actually enhance the CO2 emission potential of TES (IPCC 2001).

Methods for carbon measurement and assessment

Measurement of carbon biomass

Different methods are used for measuring carbon in soil, water or atmosphere. There are conventional methods such as dry combustion as well as sophisticated methods such as laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) for rapid carbon analysis (Ebinger n.d[13]). Methods used for measuring carbon in biomass include: non-destructive sampling for biomass (application of algometric or cylinder equations or estimation tree root biomass from proximal root and algometric relations); destructive sampling of soil and vegetation (harvesting vegetation, taking samples of litter and soil); and remote sensing methods that assess carbon in vegetation but less useful to measure soil C directly (unless bare) (Jacobs n.d.[14]).

Measurements of carbon fluxes and assessment of carbon sequestration

Different methods such as closed chamber, eddy-covariance and remote sensing are used to measure fluxes of carbon. Normally whole-ecosystem C exchange is measured in harvested and nearby un-harvested forest through meteorological and mensuration methodologies for assessment of carbon sequestration (Jacobs n.d.).

Nature of sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems

Various TEs such as forests, grasslands, agricultural systems and degraded land, have different potential of carbon storage (DOE 1999[15]). For instance, forest ecosystems contain more carbon per unit area than any other land types (accounting for 60% of total C in TEs) and their soils are of major importance for CS (FAO 2001[16]). However, CS rates vary depending on plant species, soil type, region, climate, topography and management practices that can affect plant productivity (Lal 1999[17]). At a local scale, CS in TE is largely influenced by light conditions, water availability, soil water holding capacity and its nutrient content. Local conditions could modify the frequency and severity of natural risks such as forest fires, strong winds etc., increasing the probability of CO2 emissions and hence carbon loss from these systems (Heimann and Reichstein 2008). TEs sequestered about 2.6 x109 g C per year of all atmospheric emissions during the period 2000-2007 representing net reductions of about 30% (according to 2006 levels) (GCP 2008[18]). They have the potential of eventually sequestrating about 2 Gt C/year under intensive management and/or manipulation scenarios of a significant fraction of these systems (DOE 1999). Table 1 shows the different present stocks and net primary production (NPP) of various terrestrial biomes.

Table 1: Global estimates of land area, net primary productivity (NPP), and carbon stocks in livIng plants and soil organic matter for ecosystems of the world

Ecosystem Area (1012 m2) NPP (gC/m2/year) NPP(PgC/year) Plant C (g/m2) Plant C (PgC) Soil C (g/m2) Soil (PgC) Total (PgC)
Tropical forest 14.8 925 13.7 16500 244.2 8300 123 367
Forest Temperate and plantation 7.5 670 5.0 12270 92.0 12000 90 182
Boreal forest 9.0 355 3.2 2445 22.0 15000 135 157
Temperate Wood land 2.0 700 1.4 8000 16.0 12000 24 40
Chaparral 2.5 360 0.9 3200 8.0 12000 30 38
Tropical Savannas 22.5 790 17.8 2950 65.9 11700 263 329
Temperate grasslands 12.5 350 4.4 720 9.0 23600 295 304
Tundra, arctic and alpine 9.5 105 1 630 6 12750 121 127
Desert and semi desert scrub 21 67 1.4 330 6.9 8000 168 175
Extreme desert 9 11 0.1 35 0.3 2500 23 23
Perpetual ice 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lake and streams 2 200 0.4 10 0 0 0 0
Wetland 2.8 1180 3.3 4300 12.0 72000 202 214
Northern Peatland 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 133800 455 455
Cultivated and permanent crop 14.8 423 6.3 200 3 7900 117 120
Human areas 2.0 100 0.2 500 1.0 5000 10 11
Total 150.8 59.1 2056 2542

Note: Soil C values are for the top 1 m of soil only, except for peatlands, in which case they account for the total depth of peat. Pg = Petagram = Gigatonne.

Source: Amthor et al. 1998.[19]

Carbon flows, feed-back loops and trends in terrestrial ecosystems

Scientific knowledge on which CS models are mainly constructed straddle on CO2 uptake by photosynthesis and release by respiration from sinks and emission sources (Kirschbaum, 2006[20]) as well as feedback loops. However, feed-back loops are more complicated. Other biological processes associated with respiration respond to temperature exponentially but are not affected by the CO2 concentration except photosynthesis (Kirschbaum, 2006). Hence TEs can continue to sequester C, provided the temperature is below certain levels that have a stimulating effect for respiration to exceed the CO2 fertilization effect. In actual fact carbon dynamics and feedback patterns are much more complicated than ordinary respiration/photosynthesis loops and may encompass complex physical, chemical and biological processes within the ecosystem.

Carbon emission trends

Mean annual concentrations in CO2 have been increasing since pre-industrial times as a result of anthropogenic land use changes as illustrated in Figure 1 (GCP 2008). When harvested trees are burned, 1 to 4 Pg C are released to the atmosphere in tropical latitudes (Iverson et al. 1993[21]). Carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation contributed about 1.5 x 109 GC/ year while land use change contributed an estimated of 1.5 Pg C per year with about 43% coming from South and Southeast Asia (GCP 2008) consensus that these trends will seriously enhance global warming.

Figure 1. Carbon Emissions from deforestation in tropical regions (Source: GCP 2008).

Different scenarios for carbon sequestration

The potential capacity for different TEs to sequester carbon is highly dependent on land-use practices and forestry activities (Table 2). The CS potential of ecosystems depends on the type of land, while in the case of forests management determines substantially the CS rates. The most common methods to increase the sequestration rate in terrestrial ecosystems are reforestation and afforestation (dealt in article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol) (IPCC 2000). Conversion of cropland to grassland can also provide relatively large annual increase in carbon stock while shift to conservation agriculture (minimum tillage, protective cover of upper soil) is very important for increasing soil organic matter (FAO 2001).

Table 2: Main effects of land management practices or land-use on carbon sequestration capacity (t C ha-1 yr-1) in dry-lands and tropical areas.

Management activities Dry-lands (3 billion ha) Tropical areas(humid and sub-humid)(2 billion ha)
Croplands 700 billion
Conservation tillage 0.1–0.2 0.2–0.5
Mulch farming or plant cover 0.05–0.1 0.1–0.3
Conservation agriculture 0.15–0.3 0.3–0.8
Composting 0.1–0.3 0.2–0.5
Nutrient management 0.1–0.3 0.2–0.5
Water management 0.05–0.1
Grass lands and pasture 0.05–0.10 0.1–0.2 3 billion
Afforestation 4–8
Agro-forestry 0.2–3.1 1 billion

Source: Lal 1999; FAO 2001

Methods of terrestrial carbon sequestration

Forested land and agricultural land are the land types most commonly associated with carbon sequestration. Within forested lands, the primary methods for promoting carbon sequestration are:

• Afforestation Afforestation is the conversion of previously non-forested land into forested land. This method is more commonly associated with the conversion of poor to marginal cropland into forested land. Afforestation can result in a large amount of carbon sequestered over a long period of time. A non-forested acre converted into a forested acre can result in a carbon sequestration rate of 0.6–2.6 MMT over a period of 90–120+ years (EPA 2006).

• Reforestation Reforestation is the restoration of previously forested land. Doing so can produce an increase in carbon uptake of around 2.1 MMT per acre over a period of 90–120+ years (EPA 2006)

• Sustainable forest management Sustainable forest management techniques include forest preservation, adoption of low-impact harvesting methods, lengthening of forest rotation cycles, agroforestry, and the adoption of other methods aimed at increasing carbon uptake (Richards et al. 2005). Forest preservation is the protection of current forestland from conversion into other land types. Doing so prevents the release of carbon from current carbon stocks (EPA 2006). Low-impact harvesting methods suggest the use of selective cutting to avoid unnecessary removal of biomass from forestlands (Richards et al. 2005). By increasing the rotation period between harvesting timber, a larger amount of wood is permitted to grow and greater carbon uptake is seen (Richards et al. 2005). Agroforestry is essentially the combination of forestry and agriculture, whereby trees are grown alongside traditional crops. Other forest management methods that can increase the sequestration rates of carbon included the thinning of forests, and the planting of tree species that produce a larger carbon uptake (Richards et al. 2005).

Methods for increasing carbon sequestration on agricultural land are:

Soil erosion management

An estimated 115.2 MMT of carbon is removed from agricultural land via erosion every year, 20% of which is believed to return to the atmosphere (Nelson, 1999). Soil erosion management employs vegetative buffers, and residue management to reduce erosion on highly erodible land. Vegetative buffers, or riparian buffers, are plants and trees that are planted on the borders of agricultural land, or along the bank of streams and waterways (EPA, 2006). These plants reduce the impact of wind and water, which thereby reduces the amount of soil erosion, and consequently the water quality of adjoining waterways (EPA, 2006). Residue management is essentially the introduction of manure or animal by-products into the soil (Nelson, 1999). Doing so reduces the tendency of soil to be eroded, and increases the tendency for soil to uptake carbon (Nelson 1999).

Conservation tillage

Traditional agricultural practices in the United States rely on intense tilling or plowing of the land. Tilling has many purposes, but it is primarily employed to prevent soil compaction and remove unwanted vegetation (Edwards et al. 1990). In removing unwanted vegetation, tilling reduces the carbon content of the top layer of the soil, and prevents the long-term storage of carbon deeper in the soil. Conservation tillage employs a variety of techniques to reduce the amount of tillage required to maintain productive cropland. Soil that undergoes conservation tillage as opposed to traditional tillage can contain 30–50% more carbon (Nelson, 1999). If conservation tillage were to be adopted on a large scale, as much as 32 MMT of additional carbon could be sequestered each year. Implementation of conservation tillage is often combined with the use of crop rotation.

Crop rotation

Crop Rotation is the alternation between summer and winter crops on the same plot of land. A common example of this is the rotation between wheat and peas. Maintaining a crop cover during the winter reduces soil compaction (decreasing the need for tillage), decreases the occurrence of erosion, and increases the organic content of the soil (Nelson 1999). Within the United States, 50 million hectares of cropland are suitable for crop rotation practices (Nelson 1999). If this technique were employed on all of that land, an additional 10.2 MMT of carbon would be sequestered each year (Nelson 1999).

Grazing land management

To maximize the carbon uptake of grazing land livestock is rotated in a more efficient and scheduled manner. The absence of livestock from grazing land for longer periods of time increases the presence of biomass and increases the soil uptake of carbon. Effective grazing land management can be expected to increase carbon sequestration rates by 0.02–0.5 MMT of carbon per acre (EPA, 2006).

Wetland restoration

Wetlands are frequently drained to produce dry, fertile soil for agricultural use (Claassen et al. 1998). Wetland soil contains a very concentrated amount of carbon; 14.5% of the world’s soil carbon is found in wetlands, while only 6% of the world’s land is composed of wetlands (Nelson, 1999). The need to protect wetlands is particularly relevant in the United States, where over half of the nations wetlands have been drained (Nelson, 1999). Wetland restoration calls for agricultural producers to protest and/or restore the wetlands found on their property.

Biofuel substitution

Biofuel Substitution is the use of agricultural land for the production of biomass that can be converted to biofuel. This fuel can be used onsite to offset the energy used for agricultural production or the biofuel can be transported offsite for large-scale energy production. Every acre used for biofuel production can produce a net sequestration rate of 1.5 MMT of carbon (EPA, 2006).

Socio-economic aspects of carbon sequestration initiatives

Ecological co-benefits

Ecological impacts of CSP on biodiversity must be considered since land use changes alter habitats, thereby compromising the survival of species. It is from healthy biota that humans derive ecosystem benefits such as food, raw materials, climate regulation, pollution control, etc. (NETL 2009[22]) amounting to an estimated several billion US$/yr ecosystem service benefits (Constanza et al. 1997[23]). Other ancillary benefits resulting from intact biodiversity through CSP programmes include improved wildlife populations, reduced soil erosion, reduced diffuse agro-related pollution resulting in improved water quality, reduced local and regional air pollution (Plantinga and Wu 2003;[24] Feng et al. 2004;[25] Pattanayak et al. 2002; USEPA 2006b;[26] Krupnick et al.. 2000[27]).

Equity and sustainable development

According to Macleod (2000),[28] carbon sequestration activities aiming towards the sustainable development cannot be achieved until and unless issues on active participation in the decision-making process and intra/inter generational equity are addressed under the climate change regime. This is because poor people with limited choices due to lack of access to financial resources, education, skills and decision-making structures are more susceptible to suffer the burden of environmental problems. They are additionally vulnerable to problems such as soil erosion, air and water pollution, resource depletion etc. (Beder 2000[29]). The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the first global environmental investment and credit scheme under Kyoto protocol has provided a mechanism of technology and fund transfer from the developed to the developing world in terms of reducing green house gases emission (UNFCCC n.d.[30]), thus giving leeway to common but differentiated responsibility among the nations and contributing towards intra generation equity to a certain extent.

CSP related to afforestation, re-forestation and renewable energy programs that involve entire communities could help to establish intra generational equity between the poor and affluent in society, rendering a better environment (Pan and Kao 2008;[31] Plantinga and Wu 2003; Pattanayak et al. 2002; Krupnick et al. 2000; USEPA 2006b). Also to be considered are the effects of carbon credits payments on social structures such as alteration of views and attitudes towards livelihood activities due to improved income. The possibility of increasing disparity within marginal communities can be tied to problems with benefit sharing. A direct cause of this would be the mere increase of household income among families whose members would gain direct employment in CSP. An indirect cause would be difficulties in apportioning displacement benefits generated from changes in land-use, whose traditional tenure system among vulnerable and indigenous communities renders it a ‘common’ resource.

Economic considerations

Sustainable forest management is essential to achieving sustainable development. The crucial role of forests in the carbon cycle (Pena and Grunbaum 2001[32]) suggests that the forest management might be used to offset GHGs emissions from fossil-fuel use, and even to reduce the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Richards and Stokes (2004) estimate the cost of carbon sequestration for forestry projects in developing countries to be in the range of 0.5 US$ to 7 US$/tCO2.

However, Sathaye et al. (2001)[33] notes that most of the forestation programme options have a high cost primarily due to their high opportunity costs. But this should be analyzed further for rural socio-economic benefits. The study done on the costs and benefits of LULUCF carbon mitigation options in developing countries by Sathaye et al. (2001) showed that the mitigation potential of 6.2 Pg C between 2000 and 2030 could be obtained even at a negative cost, about 5 Pg C at a cost below $20 per Mg C, and most ranging up to $100 per Mg C. The study also highlighted that the benefit from non-carbon revenue could help offset the direct cost of the options. However, the costs and benefits also vary with countries e.g. the annualised net cost per Mg C for the forestation programme option is negative in China, Mexico and Brazil and that for regeneration programme options are negative for India and the Philippines.

Current discourses on trade-offs and potential conflict areas

CSP albeit having several benefits (employment opportunities, revenue generation through taxes, investment incentives, etc.) are riddled with numerous uncertainties and potential negative implications when inappropriately implemented. While pre-2004 debate on the subject centred around technical aspects, policy frameworks and the political arena, current discourses have brought social implications of CSP and policies (such as community disruption and equity issues as discussed previously) to the fore. CSP that do not take careful account of key issues such as halting driving forces for deforestation and remediating carbon pool losses are doomed to failure from the onset (Grace et al. 2003;[34] Jindal 2004[35]). Suggested alternatives are mitigative measures that create incentives for retaining secondary forest stands, maintain soil carbon stocks, and incorporate payable service options for prevention of reconversion of afforested areas to agricultural use (Blay 2002[36]). Additionally there are high associated costs to CSP which are largely overlooked including high costs of organizing and monitoring numerous stakeholders as well as the competitiveness/effectiveness of scattered forestry activities undertaken by small isolated farming communities versus large-scale projects by larger corporate players. Finally, countries importing wood products could be negatively impacted when their foreign exchange reserve is drained to a certain extent via LULUCF CSP (Zhang et al. 2000[37]).

Controversies related to afforestation/reforestation projects

Forestry can make a significant contribution to a global carbon sequestration portfolio. However, this opportunity is being largely missed in the current context and has resulted in only a small portion of this potential being realized at present (IPCC 2007[38]). Ravindranath (2007)[39] suggested that among most salient reasons for such modest popularity of forestry projects would be the following factors:

a. Long gestation period: Forestry projects could take 50–100 years to provide significant carbon mitigation benefits. Such long gestation period leads to unwillingness of potential investors to participate in afforestation/reforestation projects due to uncertainties linked with permanence of carbon uptake and socio-economic impacts.

b. Low economic returns: Some forestry projects have low or even negative economic return. This impedes the investments from private (commercial) sectors.

c. Subject to natural disturbances: Forests and tree plantations are very susceptible to fires, droughts, pests and diseases.

d. Links to local and global environmental factors: Decisions on forestry mitigation will affect biodiversity and other ecological aspects such as watershed regime, resilience to climatic change and land degradation.

e. Participation of local communities: Local community participation is required for implementing mitigation projects in regions where communities currently reside in or depend on the forest.

All these obstacles seriously impede the development of afforestation/reforestation for carbon sequestration in large scale. Increase of profitability of forestry carbon sequestration projects along with unambiguous carbon-related international policy framework would significantly help to raise the attractiveness of forestry projects. Furthermore, according to IPCC (2007) there are some researchers suggesting that the beneficial impacts of climate change are overestimated by ignoring some of the aspects. Also, the negative impacts might be larger than expected and some effects remain incompletely understood. Therefore more R&D in this area is needed.

Box 1: Moldova soil conservation project

One of the largest and promising CDM afforestation/reforestation projects was recently launched in Moldova. The Moldova Soil Conservation Project involves the conservation and restoration of 20,200 ha of degraded lands by means of reforestation with tree and shrub species adapted to adverse local conditions (UNFCCC 2008[40]). The project area covers degraded lands in all districts of Republic of Moldova with the exception of the eastern territories of Transnistria. The project is planned to sequester 3,587,827 t CO2e during the first crediting period (2002–2022). It was registered as CDM project in January 2009. The cost of implementation the project during first 11 years (2002–2012) is estimated at US $18.74 million. The project is expected to generate revenue from the sale of timber from thinning and from the sale of Certified Emission Reduction (CER) credits over the first 20-year crediting period.

The State Forest Agency, Moldsilva is the main implementing entity of the project. By reforestation of degraded lands in Moldova, the project will sequester carbon and reduce GHG emissions that are real, measurable and give long-term benefits to the mitigation of climate change. According to validation report conducted in 2007 if the project will be implemented as designed, the project is very likely to achieve the targeted amount of certified emission reductions. The project is expected to reduce landslides, improve the productivity of degraded lands and will ensure the supply of fuel wood, timber, and non-timber products and employment opportunities to local communities. The timber supplies from the project will contribute to stable timber and fuelwood prices. The non-timber benefits such as medicinal plants, bee-keeping, fruits and berries (e.g. walnut), mushrooms, vines for basketry, game (rabbits, deer) and hunting leases are expected to improve near term revenue of the local councils. In the long run, additional benefits could result from tourism and recreation.

International policy measures/innovations

The most influential international policy in carbon sequestration and management has been the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Under its 1997 Kyoto Protocol, Annex B countries have agreed to reduce their overall greenhouse gas emissions by at least 5% below 1990 levels in the first commitment period (2008–2012). Several networks and agencies today address the issues of carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems e.g. Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF); International Energy Agency; Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6); European Commission; World Business Council on Sustainable Development.

Current and future initiatives

Current mechanisms: The Kyoto Protocol includes mechanisms to offset emissions (article 3.3) in industrialized countries (UNFCCC 2009[41]) with emission reductions in non-industrialized countries (Van Laake 2008[42]) though three flexible policy mechanisms:

Other international development assistance is now being channeled through Global Environment Facility (GEF) and international financial institutions like World Bank (Carbon Partnership Facility) and Asian Development Bank in forest conservation for green house gas mitigation. In 2007, the European Commission developed ‘An Energy Policy for Europe’, which also provides a framework to develop, research and invest in carbon sequestration (IEA 2007). The European Union Trading System (EU ETS) is strong on this, which provides the largest market, through which countries like Norway and Germany have invested in carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas mitigation in Latin America.

Future initiatives: Carbon sequestration activities have been integrated within the post-Kyoto dialogues (UNFCCC COP-15) as the ‘Land use, Land-use change and Forestry (LULUCF)’ policy issue. Several stakeholders like Food and Agricultural Organization (UNFAO), United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and international NGOs have been negotiating the rules and modalities for accounting for LULUCF within the Kyoto targets (Jung n.d.[44]). The LULUCF sector activities (Forest management, cropland management, grazing land management and revegetation) have the opportunity to offset emissions through cost effective investments by planting trees or forest management (UNFCCC 2009). Another widely discussed mechanism is the “Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD)”. This aims to reduce emissions from both deforestation and degradation in developing countries, and is a formal part of the Bali Action Plan (Peskett et al. 2008).

Challenges and opportunities

The main challenges in devising international policies for carbon sequestration can be summarized as follows:

However advances in technology and better awareness of issues are providing opportunities at the international level to overcome the barriers to international policy making. Policy making should now be geared towards:

Box 2: Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration in Africa

Forests in Africa have gained global attention for their carbon sequestration function, for both purposes on carbon credits trading under the Kyoto Protocol’s CDM as well as voluntary emission reductions. Up to 2008, there are more than 23 projects in 14 countries with additional projects being funded under the BioCarbon Fund of the World Bank (Jindal 2006;[45] Jindal et al. 2008[46]), the largest carbon investor in Africa. These projects often follow the CDM instructions, even though most of them are not established under the Kyoto Protocol (Jindal 2006). To achieve the goal of CDM, one of the criteria is to respond to the sustainable development challenges.As such, terrestrial carbon sequestration projects in Africa also address the benefits to local communities especially for poverty alleviation, both directly in terms of incomes from carbon credits trading and directly for instances access to non-timber forest products from regenerated forests and employment opportunities in forestry businesses. Moreover, other indirect advantages from these projects include endemic species protection, restoration of natural ecosystems and awareness raising on HIV/AIDS. However, as currently most projects are under responsibility of national governmental agencies (Jindal 2006), transparent regulatory systems, good governance and adequate national institutional capacity are among the concerns emerged in order to sustain carbon projects in Africa (Jindal 2006; Climate Avenue 2008[47]), where many countries are confronting political instability.

National policy measure

At national level, policies on climate change mitigation and carbon sequestration in particular, are mainly incorporated in National Communications under the UNFCCC and National Action Plans on Climate Change Mitigation. In spite of the great potential of carbon sequestration to achieve the emission reduction target, the main focus of the policies has been made on the energy and industrial sector, including improvement of fuel efficiency and development of renewable energy sources (Ahn 2008[48]). Development of programs aimed at reduction of emissions through carbon sequestration gets much less attention and its potential is only being realised at the national level in developing countries.

Current and future initiatives

The majority of national policies on carbon sequestration, especially in developing countries, are focused on reforestation and afforestation activities to increase the carbon sink. An approach, which is quite popular in developed countries, is to improve the agricultural practice to enhance the capacity of soils to store carbon and to prevent GHG emissions from irrational agricultural practice and soil erosion. The combination of these two approaches is also being considered and implemented by a number of countries. The measures used in the policies, include both market-based and non-market incentives and approaches (Bangsund and Letistritz 2008). A number of examples on current policy intitaives are being directed includes:

Challenges and opportunities

The main challenges for incorporation and development of carbon sequestration policies at national level can be summarized as follows:

The following short- and medium-term policy measures are being discussed to facilitate development and integration of carbon sequestration policies and programs:

Conclusions

Issues of human welfare in CSP encompass such thorny areas as vulnerability (especially in developing regions), health risks, possible negative impacts on culture and livelihoods, land tenure conflicts bordering on rights of indigenous populations, as well as equitable benefits sharing among local stakeholders (Bass et al.. 2000[55]). Accordingly, trade-offs involving sustainable land use, energy conservation, ecological and economic development in the name of CSP in terrestrial ecosystems should be critically assessed in light of current discourses. Finally, costs/benefits of CSP should be carefully weighed ex-ante in order to avoid potential conflict situations. As carbon abatement costs are much lower in most developing countries, carbon trading allows reduced costs for industrialized countries. Policy making must give priority on assessing other land use options apart from afforestation and deforestation, making CDM type projects attractive in developing countries though streamlined processes, develop better incentive packages and overall, investment in national technological and capacity development.

References

  1. ^ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2000. Land use, land-use change, and forestry special report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. ^ Peskett, L., Huberman, D., Bowen-Jones, E., Edwards, G. and Brown, J. 2008. Making REED work for the poor. Gland: International Union for Conservation of Nature.
  3. ^ Smith, P. 2004. Carbon sequestration in croplands: the potential in Europe and the global context. European Journal of Agronomy 20 (3):229–236.
  4. ^ Lehmann, J., Gaunt, J. and Rondon, M. 2006. Bio-char Sequestration in Terrestrial Ecosystems–A Review. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 11 (2): 395–419.
  5. ^ Bondeau, A., Smith, P.C., Zaehle, S., Schaphoff, S., Lucht, W., Cramer, W., Gerten, D., Hermann, L., Muller, C., Reichstein, M. and Smith, B. 2006. Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial carbon balance. Global Change Biology 13 (3): 679–706.
  6. ^ Batjes, N.H. 1998. Mitigation of atmospheric CO2 concentrations by increased carbon sequestration in the soil. Biology and Fertility of Soils 27 (3): 230–235.
  7. ^ Smith, T.M., Cramer, W.P., Dixon, R.K., Leemans, R., Neilson, R.P. and Solomon, A.M. 1993. The global terrestrial carbon cycle. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 70 (1–4): 19–37.
  8. ^ Brown, S., Hall, C.A.S., Knabe, W., Raich, J., Trexler, M.C. and Woomer, P. 1993. Tropical forests: Their past, present, and potential future role in the terrestrial carbon budget. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 70 (1–4): 71–94
  9. ^ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1996a. Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Working Group III Report. WMO and UNEP. University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  10. ^ Meyers, E.C. 2007. Policies to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) in tropical forests: an examination of the issues facing the incorporation of REDD into market-based climate policies. Resources for the Future, Washington DC
  11. ^ Heimann, M. and Reichstein, M. 2008. Terrestrial ecosystem carbon dynamics and climate feedbacks. Nature 451: 289–292.
  12. ^ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. IPCC Third assessment report: Climate Change 2001: the scientific basic. URL: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm [consulted 10 May 2009].
  13. ^ Ebinger, M.H., Cremers, D.A., Breshears, D.D., Unkefer, P.J., Kammerdiener, S.A. and Ferris, M.J. n.d. Total carbon measurement in soils using laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy: results from the field and implications for carbon sequestration. URL: http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/p50.pdf. [Consulted 10 May 2008].
  14. ^ Jacobs, G.K., Dahlman, R.C. and Metting, F.B. Jr. n.d. Carbon Sequestration in terrestrial ecosystem: a status report on R & D Progress. URL: http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cppr/y2001/pres/111559.pdf [Consulted on 10 May 2009].
  15. ^ Department of Energy (DOE). 1999. Carbon Sequestration Research and Development, Office of Fossil Energy and Office of Science URL: http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/sequestration/publications/1999_rdreport/index.html [Consulted 10 May 2008].
  16. ^ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2001. World Soil Resources Reports 96: Soil carbon sequestration for land management. FAO, Rome 2001.
  17. ^ Lal, R. 1999. Global carbon pools and fluxes and the impact of agricultural intensification and judicious land use. In: Prevention of land degradation, enhancement of carbon sequestration and conservation of biodiversity through land use change and sustainable land management with a focus on Latin America and the Caribbean. World Soil Resources Report 86. FAO, Rome.
  18. ^ Global Carbon Project (GCP). 2008. Global Carbon Budget 2007. URL: http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/07/index.htm. [Consulted 10 May 2009].
  19. ^ Amthor, J.S. and 21 others. 1998. Terrestrial ecosystem responses to global change: a research strategy. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, ORNL/TM-1998/27.
  20. ^ Kirschbaum, M. U. F. 2006. The temperature dependence of organic-matter decomposition—still a topic of debate. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 38: 2510–2518.
  21. ^ Iverson, L. R., Brown, S., Grainger, A., Prasad, A., and Liu, D. 1993. Carbon sequestration in tropical Asia: an assessment of technically suitable forest lands using geographic information systems analysis. Climate Resume 3: 23-38.
  22. ^ National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). 2009. Carbon sequestration. United States Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). URL: http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/FAQs/carbon-seq.html [consulted May 12, 2009].
  23. ^ Costanza, R. et al 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260.
  24. ^ Plantinga, A.J. and Wu, J. 2003. Co-benefits from Carbon Sequestration in Forests: evaluating reductions in agricultural externalities from an afforestation policy in Wisconsin. Land Economics 79 (1): 74–85
  25. ^ Feng, H., Kling, C.L. and Gassman, P.W. 2004. Carbon sequestration, co-Benefits, and conservation programs. Working Paper 04-WP 379. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
  26. ^ United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006b. Carbon sequestration in agriculture and forestry: Water quality. URL: http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/water_quality.html [consulted May 12, 2009].
  27. ^ Krupnick, A.J., Buttraw, D. and Markandya, A. 2000: The ancillary benefits and costs of climate change mitigation: a conceptual framework. The Expert Workshop on Assessing the Ancillary Benefits and Costs of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Strategies, 27–29 March 2000, Washington D.C. URL: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/31/46/2049184.pdf [Consulted 12 May 2009].
  28. ^ Macleod C. 2000. A code of climate change ethics: acceptance of responsibility and united action fundamental. URL: www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/P_1311_web.pdf [Consulted on 12 May 2009].
  29. ^ Beder, S. 2000. Costing the earth: equity, sustainable development and environmental economics. New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law 4: 227–243.
  30. ^ United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) n.d. The mechanisms under the Kyoto protocol: emission trading, the clean development mechanism and joint implementation. URL: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/mechanisms/items/1673.php [Consulted 12 May 2009].
  31. ^ Pan, T. and Kao, J. 2008. Inter-generational equity index for assessing environmental sustainability: an example on global warming. Institute of Environmental Engineering, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu 30039, Taiwan, ROC.
  32. ^ Pena, N., Grunbaum, G., 2001. Global climate data. In: Claussen, E. (Ed.), Climate Change, Science, Strategies and Solutions. Boston: Brill MA
  33. ^ Sathaye, J.A., Makundi, W.R., Andrasko, K., Boer, R., Ravindranath, N.H., Sudha, P., Rao, S., Lasco, R., Pulhin, F., Masera, O., Ceron, A., Ordonez, J., Deying, X., Zhang, X. and Zuomin, S. 2001. Carbon mitigation potentioan and costs of forestry options in Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, The Philippines and Tanzania. Mitigation and adaptation Strategies for Global Change (6): 185–211.
  34. ^ Grace, J., Krujit, B., Freibauer, A., Benndorf, R., Carr, R., Dutschke, M., Federici, S., Mollicone, D., Sanz, M.J., Schlamadinger, B., Sezzi, E., Waterloo, M., Valentini, R., Verhagen, J., and Putten, B.V. 2003. Scientific and technical issues in the Clean Development Mechanism. The European Commission. URL: http://gaia.agraria.unitus.it/ceuroghg/report10.pdf [consulted May 25, 2009].
  35. ^ Jindal, R. 2004. Measuring the socio-economic impact of carbon sequestration on local communities: An assessment study with specific reference to the Nhambita pilot project in Mozambique. URL: http://www.miombo.org.uk/RJMSc.pdf [consulted May 25, 2009].
  36. ^ Blay, D. 2002. Tropical secondary forest management in humid Africa: Reality and perspectives. FAO Corporate Document Repository. URL: http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/J0628E/J0628E12.htm [consulted May 24, 2009].
  37. ^ Zhang, P., Shao, G., Zhao, G., le Master, D., Parker, G., Dunning, J. Jr. and Li, Q., 2000. China’s forest policy for the 21st century’. Science (288), 2135–2136.
  38. ^ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  39. ^ Ravindranath, N. H. 2007. Mitigation and adaptation synergy in forest sector. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change 12: 843–853.
  40. ^ United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2008. Moldova Soil Conservation Project. Project Design Document Form. UNFCCC.
  41. ^ United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2009. Joint implementation. Bonn: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). URL: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/mechanisms/joint_implemen-tation/items/1674.php [consulted May 13, 2009].
  42. ^ Van Laake, P. 2008. Forests and the UNFCCC. Enschede: International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation.
  43. ^ International Energy Agency (IEA). 2007. Near-term opportunities for carbon dioxide capture and storage. Paris: International Energy Agency.
  44. ^ Jung, M. n.d. Carbon sequestration options in the international climate regime. Hamburg: International Max Planck Research School on Earth System Modelling.
  45. ^ Jindal, R. 2006. Payments for carbon sequestration in Africa: status and challenges to scaling up. URL: http://www.indiana.edu/~iascp/bali/papers/Jindal_rohit.pdf [consulted May 10, 2009].
  46. ^ Jindal, R., Swallow, B. and Kerr, J. 2008. Forestry-based carbon sequestration projects in Africa: Potential benefits and challenges. Natural Resources Forum 32 (2): 116–130
  47. ^ Climate Avenue. 2008. CDM in Africa forests: problems and potentials. URL: http://www.climateavenue.com/cdm.Afr.challenge.htm [consulted May 10, 2009].
  48. ^ Ahn, S.E. 2008. How feasible is carbon sequestration in Korea? A study on the costs of sequestering carbon in forest. Environmental Resource Economics 41: 89–109.
  49. ^ Bigsby, H. 2009. Carbon banking: creating flexibility for forest owners. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 378–383.
  50. ^ Wunder, S., Bui, D.T. and Ibarra, E. 2005. Payment is good, control is better: why payments for forest environmental services in Vietnam have so far remained incipient. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research.
  51. ^ Bangsund, D. and Leistritz, F. 2008. Review of literature on economics and policy of carbon sequestration in agricultural soils. Management of environmental quality: an international journal 19 (1): 85–99.
  52. ^ Lu, F., Wang, X., Han, B., Ouyang Z., Duan, X., Zheng, H. and Miao, H. 2009. Soil carbon sequestrations by nitrogen fertilizer application, straw return and no-tillage in China’s cropland. Global Change Biology 15: 281–305.
  53. ^ Graff-Zivin, J. and Lipper, L. 2008. Poverty, risk, and the supply of soil carbon sequestration. Environment and Development Economics 13: 353–373
  54. ^ Han, K.J. and Youn, Y.Ch. 2009. The feasibility of carbon incentives to private forest management in Korea. Climatic Change 94: 157–168.
  55. ^ Bass, S., Dubois, O., Costa, P.M., Pinard, M., Tipper, R. and Wilson, C. 2000. Rural livelihoods and carbon management. United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID). URL: http://www.research4development.info/PDF/Outputs/Forestry/R7374_-_Rural_Livelihoods_and_Carbon_Management.pdf [consulted May 12, 2009].

• Claasen, Roger, Dwight Gadsby, Ralph E. Heimlich, Robert M. House, Kieth D. Weibe. “Wetlands and Agriculture: Private Interests and Public Benefits” Agricultural Economics Report AER765 (1998): 104. Print. • Edwards, Clive A., Gar House, Rattan Lal, Patrick Madden, Robert H. Miller. Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Soil and Water Conservation Society, 1990. Print. • Environmental Protection Agency. “Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry” http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/index.html. 19 October 2006. Web. 12 October 2009. • Nelson, Robert. “Carbon Sequestration: A Better Alternative for Climate Change?” Maryland School of Public Affairs. http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/faculty/nelson/nelson.htm. July 1999. Web. 19 October 2009. • Stavins, Robert N. and Richards, Kenneth R. “The Cost of U.S. Forest-Based Carbon Sequestration”. Pew Center on Global Climate Change (2005): i–33. Web. 12 October 2009.

Categories: Carbon dioxide | Climate change

 

The above information uses material from Wikipedia and is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Some facts may not have been fully verified for accuracy. [Disclaimers]
This page was last archived by our server on Mon Jul 11 21:10:40 2011.
Displaying this page or its contents does not use any Wikimedia Foundation's resources.
The owners of this site proudly support the Wikimedia Foundation.

More Information Results for "Carbon Sequestration In Terrestrial Ecosystems"
[Hide]▼
'Carbon Sequestration In Terrestrial Ecosystems' Images
[Hide]▲