Theme 2 – From policy to impact

Celso von Randow, Ana Paula Aguiar, Kirsten Thonicke, Eloi Dalla-Nora, Dorian Frieden, + DGVM groups

Outline

• Introduction: LUC modeling approaches, international vs regional factors

• LuccME projections: inputs from stakeholders; qualitative effects of international policies (e.g. biofuel targets)

• DGVM runs• Analysis of impacts on provision of ecosystem

services

CST 401/2011 3

General structure of LUC models

Despite the diversity of land use models found in the literature it is possible to identify a common functional structure that is valid for most of the available cases;

Dalla-Nora et al., (no prelo)

CST 401/2011 4

LUC MODELS FOR THE AMAZON

Laurance et al., 2001

2020 2020 2050

2030 2050

Aguiar et al., 2006 Lapola et al., 2011

Nepstad et al., 2008 Soares-Filho et al., 2006

CST 401/2011 5

Quantity of change in LUC models

None of the previous studies were able to plausibly capture the general trajectory of land cover change observed in this region during the last decade;

Dalla-Nora et al., (no prelo)

CST 401/2011 6

Model results and Amazon LUC dynamics

If Amazon deforestation was a result of price movements, we would expect that the slowdown in deforestation would be conjunctural and temporary;

Dalla-Nora et al., (no prelo)

CST 401/2011 7

Model results and Amazon LUC dynamics

Protected areas (PAs) 240 new PAs from 2004 +65% over 2000-2004 55% of the remaining forests.

Credit access All lines of rural credit -65% (all rural municipalities) -77% (MT, PA, RO)

Command and control Monitoring and enforcement +8.823 fines 70 times more over 2000-2004

Dalla-Nora et al., (no prelo)

CST 401/2011 8

Model results and Amazon LUC dynamics

Previous modeling studies were not able to integrate the global and regional forces that shape land use dynamics in the Amazon;

Scenarios' formulation was also quite simplistic which compromised their ability to explore contrasting pathways;

It's necessary to adopt an innovative modeling framework to represent land use systems as open systems;

CST 401/2011 9

Amount of change

LUCCME Demand (scenarios)

MAGNET global model

Stakeholder

Spatial Patterns

LUCCME Potential/Allocation

(scenarios)

Visions – Stakeholder inputs

Biophisical, socioeconomic and institutional factors affect the Demand and Allocation

Global: population, GDP and production growth + biofuels targets Regional: roads, protected areas, credit

Regional: roads, protected areas, law enforcement

Storylines and contrasting rates of change

CST 401/2011 10

Premises

Scenario C19500 km2yr-1 (until 2100)(ave 1996-2005)

Scenario B:3900 km2 in 2020(20% 19500 km2)

Scenario A:“Zero”Deforestation

Scenario D? 10000km2

CST 401/2011 11

(A) Scenario A: Deforestation in 2050 (B) Scenario B: Deforestation in 2050 (C) Scenario C: Deforestation in 2050

(D) Scenario A: Secondary Vegetation in 2050

(G) Scenario A: Agriculture in 2050 (H) Scenario B: Agriculture in 2050 (I) Scenario C: Agriculture in 2050

(E) Scenario B: Secondary Vegetation in 2050 (F) Scenario C: Secondary Vegetation in 2050

Yearly anomalies intermodel comparison

DGVM runs

Use DGVM results in quantifying changes in ESS provision

Kirsten Thonicke,

Alice Boit, Fanny Langerwisch, Anja Rammig, Ariane Walz

PIK Potsdam

area of degraded ES in nature conservation areas= conservation area – areas with decrease by one „degradation class“

Regional Climate Regulation

Accessibility (Obidos)

Global Climate Regulation

NEP in t C = NPP-rh-fire-harvest-deforested over all pfts and cfts

rainwater recycling in mm/m2 = transpiration over all PFTs in natural vegetation (and cfts?)

accessibility= number of month with sufficient discharge for shipping (to Opidos)

Area with ecosystems of integrity

Which DGVM other than LPJmL can

provide basin-wide data?

Overlay with current shape-files of

protected areasCalculate habitat

from fractional cover per PFT and biomass

Make selection of 3-5 Ecosystem Servicescarbon storage in t C = VegC + LitterC + Soilc

t of wood extractable with road extention= C in wood biomass

Potential Timber Extraction

Multi-model ESS projectionEcosystem Service Moore

protocolModel variables needed Units DGVMs

LPJmL

JULES

ORCHIDEE

INLAND

Global climate regulation (NEP)

NEE, RAGBfire,RAGBlu

NPP , heterotr. respiration, fire/disturbance, deforestation flux

gC/m² XXXX

Total carbon storage AGB Carbon stored in AGB, litter and soil

gC/m² x

Regional climate regulation

evapotranspiration

Transpiration from all PFTs mm/m² x

Potential timber extraction

AGBWood Wood biomass gC/m² x

Accessibility for transport (no. month with sufficient discharge for shipping)

Total runoff rate

River discharge seasonality month x

Area of degraded ES in nature conservation areas (overlay w current conservation areas)

LAI (FPC) and AGB

Changes in PFT coverage forest degradation

km² x

Please add!

Regulation of Flooding

Which DGVM other than LPJmL can

provide basin-wide data?

Overlay with current shape-files of

protected areasCalculate habitat

from fractional cover per PFT and biomass

Ecosystem Services: further options

regulation of flooding as change in regular flooding = |mean area of flooding in km2

(1990-2009) - flooded area in km2|

Land suitable for indigenous lifestyles

area of heavily degraded ES in areas protected for indigenous people = protected area – area with decrease by two „degradation classes“

Interesting for stakeholder dialogue?