View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Andis Lazdiņš, LSFRI SilavaRiga street 111, Salaspils LV-2169Phone: +37126595586, Fax: +37167901359, E-mail: andis.lazdins@silava.lv
Tool for modelling GHG emissions related to forest management in
Latvia
JRC technical workshop on reporting LULUCF27 February – 1 March 2013, Ispra
Joint Research Center (JRC), Via Fermi, conference room 3/36
The rationale and concept
● Rationale behind – lessons learned by the forest management reference level (country specific activity data, coefficients and assumptions should be developed and used).
● The tool – as simple as possible, multiple fields of usage (spreadsheet with transparent functions and activity data structure relevant to the NFI and other data sources).
● The most of work behind:– recalculation of historical data (1990-2004) – backward calculation on the
base of the NFI data; – key innovations – mortality and increment factors.
Structure of the model● Living biomass (gross annual increment of living biomass).● Mortality (natural reduction of number of trees and decay).● Commercial harvesting (decay of harvesting residues,
fractions of incinerated and extracted biomass).● Harvested wood products (JRC FMRL method, only locally
produced HWP considered).● Emission from organic soils (Tier 1), mineral soils
considered CO2 neutral, except drained soils (N2O).● Fire – incineration of harvesting residues and forest fires.● Recent additions:
– deforestation (living biomass, litter, dead wood, soil);– afforestation (living biomass, litter, dead wood).
Gross annual increment of living biomass
● Increment figures on the base of the NFI, historical recalculations (before 2004) was done in conjunction with mortality rate estimations (one of possible scenarios).
● Species, age and dimensions specific increment equations.● Species specific wood densities, different BEFs for
coniferous and deciduous trees (will be improved).● Some facts about living biomass:
– average gross increment in 2011 – 9.1 m3 ha-1, in 1990 – 8.4 m3 ha-1 (much better than previously used, because of significant changes in forest management practice);
– better mortality equations than those in forestry text books elaborated on the base of considerably exhausted forests 80 years ago (selective felling dominated management).
Increment figures19
7019
7119
7219
7319
7419
7519
7619
7719
7819
7919
8019
8119
8219
8319
8419
8519
8619
8719
8819
8919
9019
9119
9219
9319
9419
9519
9619
9719
9819
9920
0020
0120
0220
0320
0420
0520
0620
0720
0820
0920
1020
1120
12
0
5 000
10 000
15 000
20 000
Aspen Grey alder Birch Spruce Black alder Oak, ash Other species Pine
Tota
l bio
mas
s, kt
ons a
nnua
lly
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
8000
8200
8400
8600
8800
9000
9200
55.15.25.35.45.55.65.75.8
Gross increment in woody biomass, ktons C annually Gross annual increment, tons ha-1 annually
Gg C
ann
ually
tons
ha¯
¹ ann
ually
Mortality and decay
● Species specific coefficients of mortality:– reduction of number of trees (do not depend on size of tree); – affecting factors – age of stand and average dimensions of trees, – average mortality in 2004-2008 – 1.5 m3 ha-1.
● Calculations on the base of NFI using backward calculation for 5 years period (complicate to consider commercial thinning due to change of forest practice after 1990).
● Decomposition period – 20 years (mortality since 1970 considered as emissions, will be updated).
● Constant mortality values considered for periods before 1990.
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
Net e
miss
ions
from
dea
d w
ood,
Gg
CO
Net emissions due to natural mortality
Commercial felling
● Dominant species specific harvesting data since 1970 (1990-2011 Central statistical bureau, 1970-1989 research papers).
● Decomposition of crown and underground biomass – 20 years; species specific wood densities and different BEFs for coniferous and deciduous trees (Tier 1).
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
02 000 0004 000 0006 000 0008 000 000
10 000 00012 000 00014 000 00016 000 00018 000 000
Coniferous roundwood Deciduous roundwood Pulp wood Firewood
m³ a
nnua
lly
Harvested wood products
● The methodology utilized in Rüter, S., 2011. Projection of Net-Emissions from Harvested Wood Products in European Countries, Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institute, Hamburg.
● Necessary improvements – tree species dependant assortments' distribution (export should be returned to HWP).
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
-3 000
-2 500
-2 000
-1 500
-1 000
-500
0
500
1 000
Gg C
O
1 99
0
1 99
1
1 99
2
1 99
3
1 99
4
1 99
5
1 99
6
1 99
7
1 99
8
1 99
9
2 00
0
2 00
1
2 00
2
2 00
3
2 00
4
2 00
5
2 00
6
2 00
7
2 00
8
2 00
9
2 01
0
2 01
1
2 01
2
-5 000
0
5 000
10 000
15 000
20 000
Wood products Below-ground biomass Crown biomass Stem biomass Net emissions
Gg C
O
Summary of emissions due to commercial harvesting
Aspen
Grey alder
Birch
Spruce
Black alder
Oak, ash
Other species
Pine
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Share of assortments depending from dominant species
Coniferous roundwood Deciduous roundwoodPulp wood Firewood
1970-1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011-2020
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Structure of harvesting stock
Aspen Grey alder Birch SpruceBlack alder Oak, ash Other species Pine
Why dominant tree species are important for HWP accounting
Soil emissions
● Only emissions from drained soils are accounted (0.68 tons C ha-1 and 0.943 kg N2O ha-1 annually from organic soils and 0.094 kg N2O ha-1 annually from mineral soils).
● Area of organic soils in forest is still overestimated.
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
CO₂ fro organic soils N₂O from drained soils
Gg C
O e
q.
Fire● Forest fires:
– burnt biomass 19.8 tons ha-1, combustion factor 0.45;– forest fires related emissions – 0.1 % of the FM net removals.
● Harvesting residues:– 30 % left for incineration and 60 % of them actually incinerated until 2010
(since 2011 according to forest owner questionnaire about 7% of residues are left for incineration);
– CO2 accounted under harvesting, the rest is 0.1 % of the FM net removals.
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
020406080
100120140160180
Incineration of harvesting residues Forest fires
Gg C
O e
q
Actual data on incineration of harvesting residues
● In private forests 15 % of harvesting residues were left for incineration during last 3 years, in state forests no harvesting residues are left for incineration.
● Average = 7 % of harvesting residues, previous overestimation of emissions due to on-site incineration 400 %.
All
< 20 ha
20.1-100 ha
> 100.1 ha
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
49%49%
48%48%
55%55%
51%51%
15%15%
16%16%
10%10%
8%8%
14%14%
13%13%
18%18%
28%28%
13%13%
13%13%
12%12%
7%7%
7%7%
8%8%
4%4%
4%4%
1%1%
1%1%
1%1%
1%1%
Don't know Other Extracted as energy wood for free Extracted as energy wood for money Incinerated Left in forest
Summary
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
-40 000
-30 000
-20 000
-10 000
0
10 000
20 000
Fire Soil Dead wood HWP Harvesting Living biomass Total
Gg C
O₂
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
-30 000
-25 000
-20 000
-15 000
-10 000
-5 000
0
JRC tool 08.12.2011 Net emissions due to forest management
Gg C
O e
q
Additional conclusions
● National capacity in GHG accounting & projections should be strengthened and prioritized in decision making.
● Reporting & projections (decision support tools) should be integrated with planning as primary target.
● Many things can be done with limited resources, if climate change mitigation related issues are integrated with ongoing research work.
● We should concentrate on 2013-2020 and beyond instead of patching really complicated issues until 2014.
Recommended