Mind the gap: reconciling tropical forest carbon flux estimates from earth observation and national reporting requires transparency.

BACKGROUND: The application of different approaches calculating the anthropogenic carbon net flux from land, leads to estimates that vary considerably. One reason for these variations is the extent to which approaches consider forest land to be "managed" by humans, and thus contributing to the net anthropogenic flux. Global Earth Observation (EO) datasets characterising spatio-temporal changes in land cover and carbon stocks provide an independent and consistent approach to estimate forest carbon fluxes. These can be compared against results reported in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (NGHGIs) to support accurate and timely measuring, reporting and verification (MRV). Using Brazil as a primary case study, with additional analysis in Indonesia and Malaysia, we compare a Global EO-based dataset of forest carbon fluxes to results reported in NGHGIs. RESULTS: Between 2001 and 2020, the EO-derived estimates of all forest-related emissions and removals indicate that Brazil was a net sink of carbon (- 0.2 GtCO2yr-1), while Brazil's NGHGI reported a net carbon source (+ 0.8 GtCO2yr-1). After adjusting the EO estimate to use the Brazilian NGHGI definition of managed forest and other assumptions used in the inventory's methodology, the EO net flux became a source of + 0.6 GtCO2yr-1, comparable to the NGHGI. Remaining discrepancies are due largely to differing carbon removal factors and forest types applied in the two datasets. In Indonesia, the EO and NGHGI net flux estimates were similar (+ 0.6 GtCO2 yr-1), but in Malaysia, they differed in both magnitude and sign (NGHGI: -0.2 GtCO2 yr-1; Global EO: + 0.2 GtCO2 yr-1). Spatially explicit datasets on forest types were not publicly available for analysis from either NGHGI, limiting the possibility of detailed adjustments. CONCLUSIONS: By adjusting the EO dataset to improve comparability with carbon fluxes estimated for managed forests in the Brazilian NGHGI, initially diverging estimates were largely reconciled and remaining differences can be explained. Despite limited spatial data available for Indonesia and Malaysia, our comparison indicated specific aspects where differing approaches may explain divergence, including uncertainties and inaccuracies. Our study highlights the importance of enhanced transparency, as set out by the Paris Agreement, to enable alignment between different approaches for independent measuring and verification.

The carbon sink of secondary and degraded humid tropical forests.

The globally important carbon sink of intact, old-growth tropical humid forests is declining because of climate change, deforestation and degradation from fire and logging1-3. Recovering tropical secondary and degraded forests now cover about 10% of the tropical forest area4, but how much carbon they accumulate remains uncertain. Here we quantify the aboveground carbon (AGC) sink of recovering forests across three main continuous tropical humid regions: the Amazon, Borneo and Central Africa5,6. On the basis of satellite data products4,7, our analysis encompasses the heterogeneous spatial and temporal patterns of growth in degraded and secondary forests, influenced by key environmental and anthropogenic drivers. In the first 20 years of recovery, regrowth rates in Borneo were up to 45% and 58% higher than in Central Africa and the Amazon, respectively. This is due to variables such as temperature, water deficit and disturbance regimes. We find that regrowing degraded and secondary forests accumulated 107 Tg C year-1 (90-130 Tg C year-1) between 1984 and 2018, counterbalancing 26% (21-34%) of carbon emissions from humid tropical forest loss during the same period. Protecting old-growth forests is therefore a priority. Furthermore, we estimate that conserving recovering degraded and secondary forests can have a feasible future carbon sink potential of 53 Tg C year-1 (44-62 Tg C year-1) across the main tropical regions studied.

Getting the message right on nature-based solutions to climate change.

Nature-based solutions (NbS)-solutions to societal challenges that involve working with nature-have recently gained popularity as an integrated approach that can address climate change and biodiversity loss, while supporting sustainable development. Although well-designed NbS can deliver multiple benefits for people and nature, much of the recent limelight has been on tree planting for carbon sequestration. There are serious concerns that this is distracting from the need to rapidly phase out use of fossil fuels and protect existing intact ecosystems. There are also concerns that the expansion of forestry framed as a climate change mitigation solution is coming at the cost of carbon rich and biodiverse native ecosystems and local resource rights. Here, we discuss the promise and pitfalls of the NbS framing and its current political traction, and we present recommendations on how to get the message right. We urge policymakers, practitioners and researchers to consider the synergies and trade-offs associated with NbS and to follow four guiding principles to enable NbS to provide sustainable benefits to society: (1) NbS are not a substitute for the rapid phase out of fossil fuels; (2) NbS involve a wide range of ecosystems on land and in the sea, not just forests; (3) NbS are implemented with the full engagement and consent of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in a way that respects their cultural and ecological rights; and (4) NbS should be explicitly designed to provide measurable benefits for biodiversity. Only by following these guidelines will we design robust and resilient NbS that address the urgent challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss, sustaining nature and people together, now and into the future.

Which practices co-deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification?

There is a clear need for transformative change in the land management and food production sectors to address the global land challenges of climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, combatting land degradation and desertification, and delivering food security (referred to hereafter as "land challenges"). We assess the potential for 40 practices to address these land challenges and find that: Nine options deliver medium to large benefits for all four land challenges. A further two options have no global estimates for adaptation, but have medium to large benefits for all other land challenges. Five options have large mitigation potential (>3 Gt CO2 eq/year) without adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Five options have moderate mitigation potential, with no adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Sixteen practices have large adaptation potential (>25 million people benefit), without adverse side effects on other land challenges. Most practices can be applied without competing for available land. However, seven options could result in competition for land. A large number of practices do not require dedicated land, including several land management options, all value chain options, and all risk management options. Four options could greatly increase competition for land if applied at a large scale, though the impact is scale and context specific, highlighting the need for safeguards to ensure that expansion of land for mitigation does not impact natural systems and food security. A number of practices, such as increased food productivity, dietary change and reduced food loss and waste, can reduce demand for land conversion, thereby potentially freeing-up land and creating opportunities for enhanced implementation of other practices, making them important components of portfolios of practices to address the combined land challenges.

Tropical tree cover in a heterogeneous environment: A reaction-diffusion model.

Observed bimodal tree cover distributions at particular environmental conditions and theoretical models indicate that some areas in the tropics can be in either of the alternative stable vegetation states forest or savanna. However, when including spatial interaction in nonspatial differential equation models of a bistable quantity, only the state with the lowest potential energy remains stable. Our recent reaction-diffusion model of Amazonian tree cover confirmed this and was able to reproduce the observed spatial distribution of forest versus savanna satisfactorily when forced by heterogeneous environmental and anthropogenic variables, even though bistability was underestimated. These conclusions were solely based on simulation results for one set of parameters. Here, we perform an analytical and numerical analysis of the model. We derive the Maxwell point (MP) of the homogeneous reaction-diffusion equation without savanna trees as a function of rainfall and human impact and show that the front between forest and nonforest settles at this point as long as savanna tree cover near the front remains sufficiently low. For parameters resulting in higher savanna tree cover near the front, we also find irregular forest-savanna cycles and woodland-savanna bistability, which can both explain the remaining observed bimodality.

On the realistic contribution of European forests to reach climate objectives.

A recent article by Luyssaert et al. (Nature 562:259-262, 2018) analyses the climate impact of forest management in the European Union, considering both biogeochemical (i.e., greenhouse gases, GHG) and biophysical (e.g., albedo, transpiration, etc.) effects. Based on their findings, i.e. that additional net overall climate benefits from forest management would be modest, the authors conclude that the EU "should not rely on forest management to mitigate climate change". We first explain that most of the additional EU GHG mitigation effort by 2030 is expected to come from emission reductions and only a very small part from forestry, even when forest bioenergy is allowed for. Nevertheless, the inclusion of forest management in climate change mitigation strategies is key to identifying the country-specific optimal mix, in terms of overall GHG balance, between strategies focused on conserving and/or enhancing the sink and strategies focused on using more wood to reduce emissions in other GHG sectors. Then, while acknowledging the importance that biophysical effects have on the climate, especially at the local and seasonal scale, we argue that the net annual biophysical climate impact of forest management in Europe remains more uncertain than the net CO2 impact. This has not been adequately emphasized by Luyssaert et al. (2018), leading to conclusions on the net overall climate impact of forest management that we consider premature and applied to a partially biased perception of European policy towards forestry and climate change. To avoid further confusion in the debate on how forestry may contribute to mitigating climate change, a more constructive dialogue between the scientific community and policy makers is needed.

Science-based approach for credible accounting of mitigation in managed forests.

BACKGROUND: The credibility and effectiveness of country climate targets under the Paris Agreement requires that, in all greenhouse gas (GHG) sectors, the accounted mitigation outcomes reflect genuine deviations from the type and magnitude of activities generating emissions in the base year or baseline. This is challenging for the forestry sector, as the future net emissions can change irrespective of actual management activities, because of age-related stand dynamics resulting from past management and natural disturbances. The solution implemented under the Kyoto Protocol (2013-2020) was accounting mitigation as deviation from a projected (forward-looking) "forest reference level", which considered the age-related dynamics but also allowed including the assumed future implementation of approved policies. This caused controversies, as unverifiable counterfactual scenarios with inflated future harvest could lead to credits where no change in management has actually occurred, or conversely, failing to reflect in the accounts a policy-driven increase in net emissions. Instead, here we describe an approach to set reference levels based on the projected continuation of documented historical forest management practice, i.e. reflecting age-related dynamics but not the future impact of policies. We illustrate a possible method to implement this approach at the level of the European Union (EU) using the Carbon Budget Model. RESULTS: Using EU country data, we show that forest sinks between 2013 and 2016 were greater than that assumed in the 2013-2020 EU reference level under the Kyoto Protocol, which would lead to credits of 110-120 Mt CO2/year (capped at 70-80 Mt CO2/year, equivalent to 1.3% of 1990 EU total emissions). By modelling the continuation of management practice documented historically (2000-2009), we show that these credits are mostly due to the inclusion in the reference levels of policy-assumed harvest increases that never materialized. With our proposed approach, harvest is expected to increase (12% in 2030 at EU-level, relative to 2000-2009), but more slowly than in current forest reference levels, and only because of age-related dynamics, i.e. increased growing stocks in maturing forests. CONCLUSIONS: Our science-based approach, compatible with the EU post-2020 climate legislation, helps to ensure that only genuine deviations from the continuation of historically documented forest management practices are accounted toward climate targets, therefore enhancing the consistency and comparability across GHG sectors. It provides flexibility for countries to increase harvest in future reference levels when justified by age-related dynamics. It offers a policy-neutral solution to the polarized debate on forest accounting (especially on bioenergy) and supports the credibility of forest sector mitigation under the Paris Agreement.

The Contribution of Agriculture, Forestry and other Land Use activities to Global Warming, 1990-2012.

We refine the information available through the IPCC AR5 with regard to recent trends in global GHG emissions from agriculture, forestry and other land uses (AFOLU), including global emission updates to 2012. Using all three available AFOLU datasets employed for analysis in the IPCC AR5, rather than just one as done in the IPCC AR5 WGIII Summary for Policy Makers, our analyses point to a down-revision of global AFOLU shares of total anthropogenic emissions, while providing important additional information on subsectoral trends. Our findings confirm that the share of AFOLU emissions to the anthropogenic total declined over time. They indicate a decadal average of 28.7 ± 1.5% in the 1990s and 23.6 ± 2.1% in the 2000s and an annual value of 21.2 ± 1.5% in 2010. The IPCC AR5 had indicated a 24% share in 2010. In contrast to previous decades, when emissions from land use (land use, land use change and forestry, including deforestation) were significantly larger than those from agriculture (crop and livestock production), in 2010 agriculture was the larger component, contributing 11.2 ± 0.4% of total GHG emissions, compared to 10.0 ± 1.2% of the land use sector. Deforestation was responsible for only 8% of total anthropogenic emissions in 2010, compared to 12% in the 1990s. Since 2010, the last year assessed by the IPCC AR5, new FAO estimates indicate that land use emissions have remained stable, at about 4.8 Gt CO2 eq yr-1 in 2012. Emissions minus removals have also remained stable, at 3.2 Gt CO2 eq yr-1 in 2012. By contrast, agriculture emissions have continued to grow, at roughly 1% annually, and remained larger than the land use sector, reaching 5.4 Gt CO2 eq yr-1 in 2012. These results are useful to further inform the current climate policy debate on land use, suggesting that more efforts and resources should be directed to further explore options for mitigation in agriculture, much in line with the large efforts devoted to REDD+ in the past decade.