Upload
others
View
7
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Tomoko Hasegawa (NIES, Japan)
1
The 18th AIM international workshop, 14-16 Dec, 2012
* AFOLU: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (IPCC, 2006)
Energy supply
26%
Industry19%
Agriculture14%
Deforestation17%
Transport13%
Residential & commercial
8%
Waste3%
GHG emission from LULUCF
• 17% of global emission
• High emission rate in Asia
2
(MoE, Indonesia, 2010)
17%
(IPCC, 2007)
Global GHG emission
Energy21%
Industrial Process
3%
Agriculture4%
LUCF38%
Peat Fire25%
Waste9%
GHG emission in Indonesia in 2005
63%
AFOLU Bottom-up type model (AFOLU-B)
• Country & sectoral model: LULUCF (& agriculture)
• Emission mitigation model with bottom-up technologies – Calculate GHG mitigation potentials & technology
selection
– Optimization calculation to maximize mitigation potential or minimize total mitigation cost
– Given future scenarios of AFOLU sector’s activity
3
Required information of AFOLU-B
4
AFOLU-B
(1) Future scenarios on
- Agricultural production
- Area of land use change
- Fertilizer input
- Manure management
system etc.
(3) Policy scenarios
- Emission tax
- Subsidy etc.
(2) GHG mitigation
technologies
- Cost
- Mitigation efficiency
- Lifetime etc.
Agricultural module
LULUCF module
- GHG mitigation potentials - Combination of mitigation
technologies
Research question on mitigation in LULUCF
• Which time span is better to make a reduction target?
– Up to 2020, 2030?, or
– Up to 2050?
• By when mitigation effect should be taken into account?
– At 2030?, or
– Up to 2050?
time 2030 2070 40years planting
Ex. Plantation
Optimization schemes of technology selection
6
Time spans to make decision
every time step (Recursive case)
the entire period (Dynamic case)
Present view point (Present case)
Up-to Future view point (Future case)
2010 2030 (2070) Application period
Present point of view
Future point of view
• Technology application period: 2010-2030 • Mitigation up to 2070 is taken into account in SQF &WQF.
View point to consider mitigation effect & cost
Assumptions & Constraints
• Use IPCC methodology to estimate GHG emission
• Constant ratio of fire area to total forestland
• Mitigation cost constraint
– Dynamic case: 1.0 bil.US$
– Recursive case: 48 mil.US$/yr
• Once technology starts, it continues for lifetime.
• Only once land conversion (exl. otherland)
7
Averaged into annual
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Are
a[M
ha]
Other land
Settlements
Cropland
Grassland
Forestland
Future land use scenario BaU case
Develop future scenario based on national reports.
Remaining land
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Are
a [
Mh
a]
Other land
Settlements
Cropland
Grassland
Forestland
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Are
a [M
ha/
year
]OL to GL
GL to SL
GL to CL
OL to SL
OL to CL
FL to SL
FL to GL
FL to CL - with peatland drainage
FL to CL - by fire
FL to CL
Converted land
w/o fire & w/o peat drainage
with fire with peat drainage
Emission factors and mitigation technology are different among the three conversions
②GHG mitigation technology in LULUCF sector
Countermeasures Marginal
cost
[US$/tCO2]
Lifetime
[yr]
Annual
available area
[000ha/yr]
Technically
available area
[Mha]
Reduced Impact Logging 0.02 35 200 40.1
Enhanced natural regeneration 0.07 35 600 38.1
Reforestation-fast growing species 0.28 12 200 5.2
Reforestation-slow growing species 0.13 40 200 7.3
Plantation-short rotation 1.06 10 195 6.6
Plantation-long rotation 0.29 35 195 1.4
Avoid deforestation 30 1 700 21.0
Forest Protection 0.32 1 235 17.1
Prevention of forest fire 0.35 1 30 0.9
Water management in peatland 0.85 1 30 0.9
Peatland rehabilitation 5.21 35 30 0.9
Land category & conversion type to apply technologies
10
n
Technologies Conversion type
Reduced Impact Logging
Enhanced natural regeneratio
Reforestation-fast growing species
Reforestation-slow growing species
Plantation-short rotation Normal
Reduction
Plantation-long rotation Normal
Reduction
Avoid deforestation Normal
Forest Protection Normal
Fire prevention Fire
Water management in peatland Peatland
Peatland rehabilitation Peatland
Land converted
other land
-> forestland
Land converted
forestland
-> cropland
Land category
Remaining forestland
Results
11
GHG emission from LULUCF in Indonesia
• Adjust emission in 2000 by comparing with National communication.
• BaU Emission in 2010-2030
– 19GtCO2, 720-1060MtCO2/yr (excl. peatfire)
– 26GtCO2, 1100-1380MtCO2/yr (incl. peatfire)
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Emis
ssio
n [
MtC
O2
/ye
ar]
Peat fire
Peatland drainage
Removal
Emission
Total mitigation potential for 1bil.US$
13
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Recursive Dynamic Recursive Dynamic
Present view point case Future view point case
Mit
igat
ion
[G
tCO
2]
Total mitigation
Mitigation up to 2030
Technology selection from long-term view point may make larger mitigation potential, but short-term view point may make less total mitigation. Long-term reduction target seems to be important.
Breakdown of mitigation by technology for 1bil.US$
14
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Mit
igat
ion
po
ten
tial
[M
tCO
2/y
ear]
Present mitigation potential Peatland rehabilitation
Water management in peatland
Prevention of forest fire
Forest Protection
Avoid deforestation
Plantation-long rotation
Plantation-short rotation
Reforestation-slow growing species
Reforestation-fast growing species
Enhanced natural regeneration
Reduced Impact Logging
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Present viewpoint case
Present viewpoint case
Future viewpoint case
Future viewpoint case
Recursive Dynamic Recursive Dynamic
Mit
igat
ion
[G
tCO
2]
Take long time but make large amount of mitigation
More types of technologies are selected
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
Mit
igat
ion
po
ten
tial
[M
tCO
2/y
ear] teq632
teq631
teq630
teq621
teq618
teq617
teq616
teq620
teq619
teq612
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
Mit
igat
ion
po
ten
tial
[M
tCO
2/y
ear]
teq632
teq631
teq630
teq621
teq618
teq617
teq616
teq620
teq619
teq612
teq602
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Mit
iga
tio
n p
ote
ntia
l [M
tC
O2
/y
ea
r] teq632
teq631
teq630
teq621
teq618
teq617
teq616
teq620
teq619
teq612
teq602
Time-series annual mitigation
15
Recursive
Present view point
Dynamic
Future view point
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Mit
iga
tio
n p
ote
ntia
l [M
tC
O2
/y
ea
r]
teq632
teq631
teq630
teq621
teq618
teq617
teq616
teq620
teq619
teq612
teq602
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Mit
igat
ion
po
ten
tial
[M
tCO
2/y
ear]
Present mitigation potential Peatland rehabilitation
Water management in peatland
Prevention of forest fire
Forest Protection
Avoid deforestation
Plantation-long rotation
Plantation-short rotation
Reforestation-slow growing species
Reforestation-fast growing species
Enhanced natural regeneration
Reduced Impact Logging
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Present viewpoint case
Present viewpoint case
Future viewpoint case
Future viewpoint case
Recursive Dynamic Recursive Dynamic
Mit
igat
ion
[G
tCO
2]
From future view point , mitigation upto2030 are not so high but it makes large amount of mitigation from a long term view point.
Cost breakdown Total cost = 1 bil. US$
16
Present view point
2nd & 3rd highest efficient technologies
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
Co
st[m
il.U
S$/y
ear]
teq632
teq631
teq630
teq621
teq618
teq617
teq616
teq620
teq619
teq612
teq602
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
Co
st[m
il.U
S$/y
ear]
teq632
teq631
teq630
teq621
teq618
teq617
teq616
teq620
teq619
teq612
teq602
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Co
st[m
il.U
S$/y
ear
]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Co
st[m
il.U
S$/y
ear]
Dynamic
Recursive
Future view point
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Mit
igat
ion
po
ten
tial
[M
tCO
2/y
ear]
Present mitigation potential Peatland rehabilitation
Water management in peatland
Prevention of forest fire
Forest Protection
Avoid deforestation
Plantation-long rotation
Plantation-short rotation
Reforestation-slow growing species
Reforestation-fast growing species
Enhanced natural regeneration
Reduced Impact Logging
Only highest mitigation technologies are applied
Cost breakdown Total cost = 1 bil. US$
17
Present view point
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
Co
st[m
il.U
S$/y
ear]
teq632
teq631
teq630
teq621
teq618
teq617
teq616
teq620
teq619
teq612
teq602
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
Co
st[m
il.U
S$/y
ear]
teq632
teq631
teq630
teq621
teq618
teq617
teq616
teq620
teq619
teq612
teq602
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Co
st[m
il.U
S$/y
ear
]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Co
st[m
il.U
S$/y
ear]
Future view point
Save & use as O&M cost after 2030 to make larger mitigation .
Dynamic
Recursive
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Mit
igat
ion
po
ten
tial
[M
tCO
2/y
ear]
Present mitigation potential Peatland rehabilitation
Water management in peatland
Prevention of forest fire
Forest Protection
Avoid deforestation
Plantation-long rotation
Plantation-short rotation
Reforestation-slow growing species
Reforestation-fast growing species
Enhanced natural regeneration
Reduced Impact Logging
Barrier
• “Reforestation of slow glowing species” and “Enhanced natural regeneration”
High efficient, but long-term technologies. • Short/middle-term reduction target will make lower
efficient technology selection? Which kind of policy is required? • Long-term reduction target may cause large mitigation. • Take into account time for reduction in LULUCF • Avoid stopping technology application due to financial
and political issues
18
Summary
• AFOLUB was developed and applied to Indonesia.
• High effect technologies from a long-term view point:
– Reforestation-slow growing species
– Enhanced natural regeneration
• To reduce emission efficiently in LULUCF,
– Technology selection from a long-term view point
– Avoid stopping technology application due to short-term issues
19
Appendix
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Co
st[m
il.U
S$/y
ear]
Present cost breakdownteq632
teq631
teq630
teq621
teq618
teq617
teq616
teq620
teq619
teq612
teq6020
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Co
st[m
il.U
S$/y
ear]
Present cost breakdown teq632
teq631
teq630
teq621
teq618
teq617
teq616
teq620
teq619
teq612
teq602
Cost breakdown under the same cost allocation
Same results Cost allocation is a key.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Co
st[m
il.U
S$/y
ear]
Present cost breakdownteq632
teq631
teq630
teq621
teq618
teq617
teq616
teq620
teq619
teq612
teq602