Transcript Module 3 Mitigation Options

Module 3
Mitigation Options
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
General considerations
Industry
Buildings
Transport
Energy supply
Solid waste
Land-use, land-use change and forestry
Agriculture
Note: geological sequestration is not covered but is a potential longer-term mitigation option.
3.1
Module 3g
LULUCF: Land-use, land-use
change and forestry
3.2
Key LULUCF Sectors
1. Forestry
2. Rangelands and Grasslands
3. Agriculture
3.3
Role of LULUCF Sectors
in Global GHG Emissions
Global Emissions per year (early 1990's)
Fossil fuels
Landuse sectors
Carbon Emissions (GtC) 6.0 +- 0.5
1.6 +- 0.4
Methane (Tg)
100
400
Other GHG (Anthropogenic)
Significant but < 5 %
Net Sequestration (GtC) 0
0.7 +- 0.2
Climate change impacts (2*CO2)
Projections by three GCMs show an increase of total forest area from 8 - 13 %
of the current 82.7 Mi km2, and mixed impacts on drylands and agricultural
areas in different regions of the world
3.4
Key Steps in LULUCF
Mitigation Assessment
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
Identification and categorization of the mitigation options appropriate for
carbon sequestration.
Assessment of the current and future land area available for mitigation
options.
Assessment of the current and future demand for products and for land.
Determination of the land area and product scenarios by mitigation
option.
Estimation of the C-sequestration per ha. for major available land
classes, by mitigation option.
Estimation of unit costs and benefits.
Evaluation of cost-effectiveness indicators.
Development of future carbon sequestration and cost scenarios.
Exploration of policies, institutional arrangements and incentives
necessary for the implementation of mitigation options.
Estimation of the national macro-economic effects of these scenarios.
3.5
Potential Area Available for Mitigation
in Select
Countries
(million
ha)
Land Area Available for Biomass Growth (Million hectares)
Total Available
Area
Managed Forests
Plantation
Agroforestry
Chinaa
172
19
85
68
Indiab
175
37
42
96
Malaysiac
12
7.9
2.7
1.4
Mexicod
56
18.7
30
7.3
Nigeriae
53
9.6
7.5
35.9
Tanzaniaf
40.1
34.6
1.1
4.4
Thailandg
31.9
3.7
7.7
20.5
TOTAL
540
130.5
176
233.5
Country
3.6
Footnotes for Area Availability Table
•
* Source = FAO Forest Resource Assessment 2000, with –ve figure
implying threshold. a – 20% crown cover. Data are for 1998. b – Data for
1995; c—Data for 1995-97; d-- Degraded lands in three study regions in
2000; e-- Unproductive land, grasslands and critical lands; f-- Annual
average for 1990-1997 (includes transmigration and agricultural
development, forest fire and shifting cultivation; excludes illegal logging). g -Grassland areas, sub-marginal forests and brushlands; h-- Annual average
for 1995-1998 period; i: Early 1990s. Forest area includes semi-arid
vegetation, which accounts for 66 Mha;; j-- Degraded forest land; k-Forested area in three study regions. Total forested area is 158,941
thousand ha; l-- Estimated potential for natural regeneration, farm forestry
and plantations from Trexler and Haugen, 1995; m-- 1978 to 1997 data from
Brazil web site (www.mct.br/clima/ingles/communic_old/amazinpe.htm); n-Forests and “cerrados” located in the Amazon region only. o--3.5 mi. ha for
short rotation community woodlots, and 2.5 mi. ha (50% of the fallow area)
for reforestation and 1.5 mi. ha for all other forestation including
agroforestry, long rotation plantations, non-forest tree crops (wattle, rubber,
oil palm, etc). p – Figures from Trexler and Haugen, 1995. Estimated
potential in regeneration, farm forestry and plantations between 1990 and
2040.
3.7
Forestry Mitigation Options
1. Reducing GHG emissions through:
- conservation and protection
- efficiency improvements
- fossil fuel substitution
2. Sequestering carbon through:
- increased vegetation cover
- increased carbon storage in soils
- conversion of biomass to long-term products
3.8
Drylands Mitigation Options
Rangelands and Grasslands:
1. Reduction of Emissions
•
•
•
Improved range and fire management
Improved animal husbandry
Biomass replenishment
2. Carbon Sequestration:
•
•
Biomass replenishment
Enhanced soil carbon storage
3.9
Agriculture Mitigation Options
1. Emission Reduction through improved:
–
–
–
–
Rice cultivation
Animal husbandry
Fertilizer application
Cultivation methods
2. Carbon Sequestration in:
– Agroforestry
– Agricultural tree crops
– Soil carbon storage
3.10
Agricultural Sector
Mitigation Assessment
• Included Gases and Activities
• CH4 from Livestock
– Enteric Fermentation (digestive)
– Manure Management
• CH4 from Rice Cultivation
• N2O from Disturbance of Agricultural Soils
Note: Open Biomass burning of agricultural waste is covered under Land-use Change and Forestry
3.11
Main Sources of Emissions from Agriculture
CH4 Emissions from Livestock and Manure
1.
Enteric Fermentation
– CH4 emitted from normal digestive processes
– Main source: mostly ruminant animals, e.g. cattle
and sheep, & non-ruminants e.g. horses and pigs
– Main factors influencing emissions:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
type of digestive system
age
weight
quality and
quantity of feed intake
3.12
Main Sources of Emissions from Agriculture
CH4 Emissions from Livestock and Manure
2. Manure from livestock
– CH4 is emitted from anaerobic
decomposition of organic matter, mostly
slurry/liquid manure
– Main factors are:
a. manure management system
b. temperature
c. quantity of manure produced
3.13
Baseline Emissions from Agriculture
CH4 Emissions from Livestock and Manure
Proposed approach
• Identify the target animal types for mitigation
• Estimate animal population by animal types
• Select emission factor per head for each animal
type
– Tier 1 countries: Select from standard default values
– Tier 2 countries: Develop emission factors based on
country specific conditions
• Multiply animal population by emission factor to
obtain baseline emission levels
3.14
Baseline Emissions from Agriculture
CH4 Emissions from Livestock and Manure
Cattle categories:
• Dairy cattle: Milk producing cows for
commercial exchange and calves as well as
heifers being kept for future diary production
• Non-dairy cattle: All non-diary cattle, including
cattle for beef production, draft and breeding
animals
3.15
Baseline Emissions from Agriculture
CH4 Emissions Factors for Enteric Fermentation
Region
Cattle Type
Emission Factor
tCH4/Kcatl/yr
Comments
(milk prodn)
North
America
Diary
Non-Diary
118
47
6.7t/Kh/yr
NA
Latin
America
Diary
Non-Diary
57
49
0.8t/Kh/yr
NA
Africa &
M-East
Diary
Non-Diary
36
32
0.48t/Kh/yr
NA
3.16
Strategies for Reducing Ruminant
CH4 Emissions
• Improved Nutrition via mechanical and chemical
feed processing
• Improved Nutrition via Strategic
Supplementation e.g. providing microbial and/or
by-pass protein supplements
• Production Enhancing Agents e.g. Bovine
somatotrophin(bST) and anabolic steroid
implants
• Improved Production through genetic improvements
• Improved Reproductive Efficiency.
3.17
Baseline Emissions from Agriculture
CH4 Emission Factors for Manure Management
Region
Livestock
Emission
Factors
(kg/hd/yr)
150<Cool
150<Tmp<250 Warm>250
North
America
Diary
Non-diary
Swine
Buffalo
36
1
10
-
54
2
14
-
76
3
18
-
Latin
America
Diary
Non-diary
Swine
Buffalo
Diary
Non-diary
Swine
Buffalo
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
-
Africa
3.18
Baseline Emissions from Agriculture
CH4 Emission Factors for Manure Management
Sheep
Cool
0.19
DC’s
Temp
0.28
Cool
0.10
LDC’s
Temp
0.16
Warm
0.37
Warm
0.21
Goats
0.12
0.18
0.23
0.11
0.17
0.22
Camels
1.59
2.38
3.17
1.28
1.92
2.56
Horses
1.39
2.08
2.77
1.09
1.64
2.18
Mules/Asses
0.76
1.14
1.51
0.60
0.90
1.19
Poultry
0.078
0.117
0.157
0.012
0.018
0.023
Animal
* In Kg CH4/head/year, Cool<150, 150<Temperate<250, Warm>250
3.19
Emissions from Agriculture
CH4 Emissions from Livestock and Manure
• Tier 1 Method
– Perform for each animal type for each climatic
region if applicable
– Annual Emissions =Pop*[EFenteric +EFmanure]
– Note: The term Tier 2 applies to those countries with
large numbers of livestock with substantial
contribution to national emissions.
3.20
Emissions from Agriculture
CH4 Emissions from Livestock and Manure
• Tier 2 Recommended Method:
– Detailed animal types
– Detailed animal and feed characteristics
– Estimate feed intake
– Detailed manure management data and
country specific emission factors
3.21
Emissions from Agriculture
CH4 Emissions from Livestock and Manure
Recommended representative cattle types for Tier 2
Main Category
Sub-category
Mature Dairy
Cows
Principally raised for commercial milk production
Mature non-diary
cattle
(i) Mature Females
-Beef cows: mainly for beef steers and heifers
-Multiple-use cows: used for milk production, draft
power, beef, etc
(ii) Mature Males
-Breeding Bulls – principal use is breeding
-Draft bullocks – principal use is draft power
Young Cattle
-Pre-weaned calves
-Growing heifers, steers/bullocks and bulls
-Feedlot-fed steers and heifers on high grain diets
3.22
Baseline Emissions from Agriculture
CH4 Emissions from Livestock and Manure
• Tier 2 Method for Enteric Fermentation
(by animal type)
– Emissions (kg CH4/yr) =(GE * Ym * 365
days/yr)/(55.65 MJ/kg CH4)
– where:
• GE = daily gross energy intake (MJ/day)
• Ym = methane conversion rate (default = 0.06)
– GE = [(NEm + NEf + NEl + NEd + NEp)/(NE/DE) +
(NEg/(NEg/DE)] * (100/DE%)
– where:
• NE = Net Energy DE = Digestive Energy
3.23
Baseline Emissions from Agriculture
CH4 Emissions from Livestock and Manure
• Tier 2 Method for Manure Management
(by animal type)
– Emissions (kg CH4/yr) = VS * 365 days/yr * B0 *0.67
kg CH4/m3 * jk(MCFjk) * MS%jk)
Where:
– VS = daily volatile solids excreted (kg/day)
– B0 = maximum methane producing capacity for manure (m3
CH4/kg VS)
– MCF = methane conversion factor
– MS% fraction of animal type’s manure handled
– jk = manure management system j in climate k
3.24
Manure Management Mitigation Options
• Covered lagoons – methane recovered for
farm energy use
• Small scale digesters – enhances
anaerobic decomposition of organic
material which yields CH4 for energy
• Large scale digesters – for large
operations and are much more complex
but based on the same principle.
3.25
Baseline Emissions from Agriculture
CH4 Emissions from Flooded Rice Fields
Overview
- Decomposition of organic material in flooded rice fields
produces CH4.
- CH4 escapes to the atmosphere primarily by diffusive
transport through rice plants.
- Flux rates are highly variable, both spatially and
temporally -- depending on water management, soil
temperature, soil type and cultivation practices.
- The method is revised in the Revised 1996 IPCC
Guidelines
3.26
Emissions from Agriculture
CH4 Emissions from Flooded Rice Fields
Definitions
- Growing season length: The average (for the
country or subcategory) length of time in days,
from seeding or transplanting until harvest
- Continuously flooded: Fields inundated for the
duration of the growing season
- Intermittently flooded: Inundated part of the time
- Dry (upland): Fields seldom flooded during the
growing season
- Harvested area: Accounts for multiple cropping per
year; harvested area=>cultivated area.
3.27
Mitigation Options for Rice
Cultivation
• Nutrient Management – Using N fertilizers
and reducing use of raw organic materials
can reduce CH4 emissions from paddy
fields*
• Water management – Intermittent draining
of rice fields during the growing season or
between croppings. Also by increasing
water percolation rate in fields.
3.28
Estimating Emissions from Agriculture
CH4 Emissions from Flooded Rice Fields
Apply to each water management regime
Emissions (Gg CH4) = Harvested Area (Mha/yr)
x Growing season length (days)
x Emission Factor (kg Ch4/ha/day)
Emission factors: depend on water management
and average growing season temperature
3.29
Emissions from Agriculture
CH4 Emissions from Flooded Rice Fields
CH4 Emissions =i Harvested Area x SFi x CFi x EFi
Where:
SFi = scaling factor for each water management
system i.
CFi = Correction factor for organic amendments
applied in each water management system i.
EF = Seasonally integrated emission factor for
continuously flooded rice without organic
amendments
3.30
Emissions from Agriculture
Emissions from Agricultural Soils
Overview:
• Agricultural soils may emit or sequester N2O,
CO2 and CH4
• Fluxes are affected by a wide variety of
natural and management processes, the
effects of which are not clearly understood
• The methodology currently only includes N2O
• The methodology is significantly revised in
the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines
3.31
Emissions from Agriculture
Emissions from Agricultural Soils
Recommended Methodology:
N2O Emissions (103 tN/yr) =
i(Fmn + Fon + Fbnf) x Ci x 44/28)
Where:
• i = low, medium, high
• Fmn = amount of mineral fertilizer applied
• F = amount of organic material (animal manure and crop
residues) applied
• Fbnf = amount of biological N-fixation added
• C = Emission coefficient
3.32
Emissions from Agriculture
Emissions from Agricultural Soils
Ranges of Emission Coefficients for N2O from Agricultural Soils Tg (N2O-N):
Emission type
Low
Medium
High
Expert Group
Recommendations
0.0005
0.0036
0.039
Alternative
Calculations2
0.0014
0.0034
0.037
Recent
Analyses3
19931
0.0025
0.0125
0.0225
Footnotes
1
2
3
Values were suggested by an expert group during the Amersfoot workshop (Bouwman and Mosier,
1993). They are not representative of global figures because they are based on mineral fertilizer use
for each type.
In response to comments on the draft Guidelines, a range of coefficients was calculated based on
figures in Table 5-9 of the OECD/OCDE (1991) report.
Provided by Mosier (1994) based on detailed analysis of currently available measurement data. In
these Guidelines, these are the recommended coefficients.
3.33
Emissions from Agriculture
Emissions from Agricultural Soils
Revisions in the Revised 1996 Guidelines
• Revised methodology takes into account both direct
and indirect emissions of N2O and includes additional
sources of N that are applied, deposited or made
available in the soil.
3.34