VICTORIAN PARLIAMENT’S SOIL SEQUESTRATION ......What does biochar do to soil organic carbon...

Inquiry into soil sequestration in Victoria Submission no. 1

Received ENRC

22 October 2009

VICTORIAN PARLIAMENT’S SOIL SEQUESTRATION INQUIRY

SUBMISSION Lawyers for Forests Inc ("LFF") is a not for profit organisation incorporated in October 2000. It is an association of voluntary legal professionals working towards the protection and conservation of Australia's remaining old growth and high conservation value forests. We are pleased to support this inquiry however we have grave concerns regarding the potential outcomes. We are well aware that soil sequestration in the form of “biochar” (aka charcoal) is currently being touted as the “magic bullet” that will reinvigorate our agricultural lands and save us from global warming. These claims are predominantly coming from the coal lobby, who view the process as allowing the continued burning of fossil fuels well into the future, and the logging industry, which sees soil sequestration as a lifeline to that struggling industry (along the lines of burning native forests for electricity). Most of the downsides to the process are set out in the attached articles but LFF would like to stress that its members and supporters would never permit the increased logging of our native forests to create biochar. For decades now, the logging industry has deceptively claimed only logging residues (they call them forest "waste”) are woodchipped, and that woodchips are a “by-product” of timber production. Time and again this has been shown to be patently false, with whole trees, metres in diameter regularly being clearfelled and trucked to the chip mills. Only a tiny fraction of the biomass removed in a clearfell coupe ends up as furniture or useful pieces of timber, despite the industry’s spurious claims. Biochar will simply be used to continue the highly destructive logging practices occurring right now in Victoria’s forests. It is clear the industry will claim (and has claimed) that soil sequestration via biochar will only see the use of forest and other agricultural “wastes”. Accordingly, the Committee needs to guard against these claims in formulating its recommendations. Recent studies by the likes Dr Brendan Mackey from the ANU (see attached) have shown the carbon sequestering potential of Australia’s temperate and other native forests is massive and many times the estimates from the IPCC for forests of that type. If we end native forest logging and land clearing we will immediately reduce Australia's

GHG emissions by around 20%. Cutting down such forests (or clearing such forests to establish plantations) to burn for charcoal and return to the soil, makes no sense and would clearly be counter-productive of efforts to reduce our GHG emissions. Sincerely Glenn Osboldstone LFF Executive (See attached file: biocharbriefing[1].pdf)(See attached file: ANU Green Carbon report.pdf) http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/SBSTA-biochar-presentation.ppt#256,1,Biochar: Climate change solution or threat? To help the environment, only print this email if absolutely necessary IMPORTANT - (1) The contents of this email and its attachments may be confidential and privileged. Any unauthorised use of the contents is expressly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please contact us, and then delete the email. (2) Before opening or using attachments, check them for viruses and defects. The contents of this email and its attachments may become scrambled, truncated or altered in transmission. Please notify us of any anomalies. (3) Our liability is limited to resupplying the email and attached files or the cost of having them resupplied. (4) We collect personal information to enable us to perform our functions. For more information about the use, access and disclosure of this information, refer to our privacy policy at our website. (5) Please consider the environment before

printing.


ATTACHMENT 1 Lawyers for Forests

Biochar: Climate change solution or threat?

Biofuelwatch

www.biofuelwatch.org.uk

1st June 2009

What is really known about it'simpact on soil carbonand soil fertility?

What will the new demand for a global biochar programme mean for climate and people?

Biochar

Claims made about biochar

“By driving, you will be saving the planet. And the more you drive, the more you prevent catastrophic climate change.” Biopact (founders of Biochar Fund)‏

“Biochar could be a solution for:· Hunger and Food Insecurity· Deforestation and Biodiversity Loss· Excess Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere· Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions from

soil· Renewable Energy”

replantingtherainforests.org

What is biochar?

BEST Energies pyrolysis plant at Somersby, New South Wales

Biochar is fine-grainedcharcoal which is applied to soils. It is derived as a by-product of pyrolysis(heating biomass with little or no oxygen) ‏

Picture: Biochar Fund

What evidence exists on biochar?

• Comparisons with terra preta – fertile and carbon rich soils created by indigenous farmers in Central Amazonia 500-2,500 years ago.

• Results from laboratory studies and greenhouse studies, some of which use sterile soils.

• One single published field studywhich looked at biochar impacts on both soil carbon and soil fertility.

Field studies in agriculture are the equivalent of clinical studies in medicine.

In medicine, no drug could be released or promoted without comprehensive clinical studies.

The Congo Basin Forest Fund has awarded fundingto Biochar fund and ADAPEL to replace 'slash and burn' farmingwith biochar.

Will the biochar keep the soil fertile for longer than the ash from vegetation burning?

Nobody knows – the only published field study, in Brazil showed that after two harvests soil to whichonly biochar had been added sustained no plants at all.

Fertiliser field trial,www.agri.life.ku.dk

Terra preta and biochar - 1

Terra preta – Amazonian Dark Earths,Brazilwww.fao.org/sd/giahs/other_brazil.asp

Terra preta is carbon rich and highly fertile soil created by communities in Central Amazonia 500-2500 years ago.

It is characterised by

- highly diverse biomass residues (compost, manure, fish bones, animal bones, weeds, etc)linked to high agro-biodiversity;

- organic phosphorous and calcium additions;

- charcoal additions

FAO: The knowledge systems and culture linked to the Terra Pretamanagement are unique but have unfortunately been lost.

Terra preta and biochar 2

Field installation for biochar trial, Photo: C. Hyland,www.css.cornell.edu

Biochar involves taking one elementout of the terra preta system and ignoring the rest:

- diverse organic residues- soil formation over a longtime scale

- no agro-chemical use- adaptation to local soil andclimate conditions

Chemical analyses have shown that soil with modern biochar is not identical to terra preta

Can we rely on biochar carbon to stay in the soil?

Laboratory studies show that 1-20% of the carbon in biochar is 'labile' and will soon

be turned into CO2. The rest is supposed to be very stable.

BUTOne study shows that if this much charcoal

from wildfires was retained in soils, far more charcoal would be found in soils and marine sediments. Nobody knows what

happens to the rest.

What does biochar do to soil organic carbon

Biochar needs to betilled into soil. Tillage causesthe loss of soil organic carbon.

In a study which looked atthe fate of biochar in borealforest soil suggested significant losses of soilorganic carbon.

Other research shows thatchrcoal and boost soil microbes which turn carbonin the soil into CO2.

The central argument for promoting the burning of biomass to make charcoal to putinto soil is based on totally false assumptions These assumptions go against all scientific evidence that shows that organic farming increases soil carbon, and the carbon stays in the soil.

“Soils need Humus”, Vandana Shiva April 2009

Potential impacts on Albedo

Representation of an image for a studyby BlueLeaf Inc, published at www.dynamotive.com

According to James Hansen theglobal warming potential of blackcarbon in soot is 500 times thatof carbon dioxide.

Black carbon particlesin biochar are on average larger than those in soot,however pictures from a recent trial show large clouds of charcoal dust. 30% of the biochar was blown away.

Dust can travel over largedistances, for example from theSahara to the Amazon Basin.

The likely impacts of a large-scale biochar programme havenot been assessed.

Where will all the biomass come from?

Biochar lobbyists like to speak of 'agricultural and forest residues'.

Some also speak of 'degraded and marginal land'.

Scientific studies show that, to meet ambitious biochar targets, at least 500 million hectares of plantations will be needed (1 ½ times the size of India).

The reality of industrial charcoal production

Plantar's eucalyptus plantations for charcoal as fuel for pig iron in Minais Gerais,Brazil:

Deforestation, Erosion,Water Pollution, Evictions

Photos: World Rainforest Movement, www.wrm.org.uy

Forest 'residues'?

Removal of dead wood and 'residues' for bioenergy in GermanyPhoto: Peter Wohlleben

Industrial removal of dead wood and other forest 'residues' causes

- serious damage to soils through compaction and removal of nutrients: This may be irreversible

- higher risk of drought and flooding, as the soil absorbs less water

- insects, fungi, birds and other species facing extinction.

The myth of “marginal and degraded lands”

West Kalimantan, Indonesia: A mansits on land that was once his rubbergarden – classed as 'degraded' and 'unproductive and bulldozed to makeway for an oil palm plantation.Photo: Marianne Klute, Watch Indonesia!

We strongly challenge the myth that there is plenty of free land, going spare in Africa.

Farmers, pastoralists and indigenouspeoples use these so-called 'marginal' territories but their existence and rights are often not recognised by their own governments”

African Biodiversity Network

According to the FAO, marginal lands provide key subsistence function to the rural poor and are often farmed by women.

500 million hectares of biochar plantations?

Shiselweni plantation, Swaziland Burnt Western Shores Plantation, SouthAfrica

Burnt tree plantation,St Lucia

Photos: Wally Menne

The biochar blueprint: Unprecedented land conversion

www.biopact.com

“Biochar can take 6 billion tonnesof carbon out of the atmosphere every year”

Tim Flannery, keynote speaker at the 2008 International Biochar Initiative conference.

“Land use improvements on the scale envisaged – on average, an area the size of France in warmer regions and of Germany in temperate zones each year for 25 years – is a daunting organisational prospect”

Peter Read, contributor to IPCC Assessment Report 4, 2007, member of the International Biochar Initiative

The Draft Negotiating Next states:

"Agriculture

134. Parties shall cooperate in R&D of mitigation technologies for the agriculture sector, recognizing the necessity for international cooperative action to enhance and provide incentives for mitigation of GHG emissions from agriculture, in particular in developing countries. Consideration should be given to the role of soils in carbon sequestration, including through the use of biochar and enhancing carbon sinks in drylands."

If adopted, this is likely to result in CDM credits for biochar.

Biochar and UNFCCC

“We are well positioned to win the current land-grab in next-

generation fuels”

Best Energies, a leading company involved in pyrolysis and the development and patenting of biochar.- represented on the International Biochar Initiative Science Advisory Committee

Declaration by 156 organisations urges caution

and opposes inclusion of soils in carbon trading

'Biochar', a new big threat to people, land, and ecosystems

Keep 'biochar'; and soils out of carbon trading

Caution urged against proposald for large scale use of charcoal in soils for climate change mitigation and soil reclamation

ATTACHMENT 2 Lawyers for Forests


Biochar for Climate Change Mitigation:

Fact or Fiction?

Almuth Ernsting and Rachel Smolker, February 2009

INTRODUCTION

Soils are extremely diverse and dynamic, playing a fundamental role in supporting communities of plants, detritivores (which break down organic matter) and microbial communities, interacting with the atmosphere, regulating water cycles and much more. As we face the catastrophic impacts of climate change, efforts to “engineer” the climate are proliferating. Among these is a proposal to use soils as a medium for addressing climate change by scaling up the use of biochar. Unfortunately, like other such schemes to engineer biological systems, it is based on a dangerously reductionist view of the natural world, which fails to recognize and accommodate ecological complexity and variation.

Research on biochar is clearly indicating that there simply is no “one-size-fits-all” biochar solution, that many critically important issues remain poorly understood, and that there are likely to be serious and unpredictable negative impacts if this technology is adopted on a large scale. Yet proponents still do not hesitate to make unsubstantiated claims and to lobby for very significant supports to scale up their technology.

Thus far there has been little public awareness or debate over the large-scale application of biochar. The speed with which lobbying efforts are moving forward at national and international levels is alarmingly similar to the situation observed with agrofuels several years ago; poorly considered, based on unsubstantiated claims and accompanied by an effective “greenwash”, the industry grew very rapidly and secured policy and financial support measures which even the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization has proclaimed a mistake. It is imperative that we do not repeat the errors by embracing yet another technology that is poorly understood, inherently risky and will likely encourage further land conversion and expansion of industrial monocultures.

WHAT IS BIOCHAR AND HOW IS IT PRODUCED?

The term “biochar” was invented by Peter Read (one of the most outspoken lobbyists for vast ‘biochar’ plantations) to describe charcoal used as a soil amendment for agriculture. Some

Logs cut from Amazon rainforest to be turned into charcoal near Ulianopolis, Brazil (www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/

forests/ amazon_destruction_speeds_up.htm)

Biochar for Climate Change Mitigation: Fact or Fiction?

- 2 -

companies use the word ‘biochar’ to describe any use of charcoal, even for fuel or industry, because the word ‘biochar’ sounds more ‘clean and green’ than charcoal.

Charcoal is made by burning organic matter like wood, grasses, manure or residues from sugar cane or palm oil production under conditions of low oxygen. Low oxygen burning is referred to as pyrolysis. A number of different pyrolysis techniques are possible, depending on speed, temperature and oxygen delivery. In addition to the charcoal byproduct, this form of pyrolysis also produces “bio-oil” and “syngas”, both of which can be further refined into road transport or, potentially, aviation fuels. Pyrolysis can be used to generate electricity, fuel ships, boilers, aluminum smelters and cooking stoves.

“MAGICAL CHARCOAL”? The biochar lobby’s blueprint for solving the climate, food and energy crises

Companies like Eprida, Dynamotive, Best Energies, Heartland Bioenergy, Shell, Brazil’s Embrapa, JP Morgan Chase, Biochar Engineering, the executive director of the Indonesian palm oil association (GAPKI) and the Bolivian Agribusiness company Desarollos Agricolas, among others, claim that ‘biochar’ production is “carbon negative:” Firstly, carbon emitted during pyrolysis is supposedly offset by the carbon absorbed by new plant growth, and therefore “carbon-neutral,” the same (false) claim made for other plant-based energy technologies. But in addition, during pyrolysis, a portion of the plant carbon is retained in the charcoal. If the carbon-rich charcoal is then tilled into soils, that portion, it is claimed, can be sequestered away, thus reducing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, this accounting completely ignores the numerous ecological and social impacts from land use changes that occur when massive demands for plant biomass are created, and is not supported by current scientific understanding of the fate of charcoal in soils.

Proponents claim that charcoal can not only sequester carbon, on a globally significant scale, but also improve soil fertility, and thereby reduce demand for synthetic fertilizers and emissions of the powerful greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O) , and can conserve and purify water, prevent runoff of chemicals from farm lands, reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur oxide (SOx) from coal burning power plants, reduce emissions of black carbon from biomass cooking fires, reduce methane emissions from decomposing organic waste piles and more. Sound too good to be true?

The claims on behalf of ‘biochar’ are based in large part from the observation of “Terra Preta”. Thousands of years ago, indigenous peoples in Central Amazonia developed methods for creating highly fertile and carbon rich soil by mixing charcoal from a variety of biomass sources with other diverse organic materials and using those in their gardens and fields. Amazonian rainforest soils normally lack nutrients and contain little organic matter. But the soils tended and enriched by these peoples still to this day retain much of the original carbon-

Charcoal Production in Brazil (FAO/ R.Faidutti, www.fao.org/docrep/008/y5918e/y5918e13.htm)


- 3 -

rich charcoal and are much more fertile than surrounding soils. The question is: can we replicate their success using industrial production?

WHAT THE INDUSTRY AND LOBBYISTS WANT

Modern day applications and proposals for ‘biochar’ range in size and scope: small-scale operations are promoted as providing people living on forest frontiers with a means of maintaining soil fertility and hence reducing deforestation. Charcoal-making cooking stoves are promoted as a means for reducing the problems of black soot, and respiratory illness created by open cooking fires. Large scale use of pyrolysis, which produces charcoal as a byproduct, aims to contribute significantly to addressing the energy demands in industrialized countries. Finally, scientists such as James Hansen, Johannes Lehmann, Peter Read, Tim Flannery advocate climate geoengineering, using “carbon negative” bioenergy technologies including ‘biochar’ from hundreds of millions of hectares of “energy crops” and trees.

Prior to any genuine and open public debate, well-connected lobbyists are hard at work promoting ‘biochar’: Their main international forum, the International Biochar Initiative, was present at the recent United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) climate conference in Poznan. There the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, (UNCCD), and the government of Micronesia succeeded in getting biochar included in the draft agenda for the Copenhagen climate negotiations in 2009. UNCCD is calling for the inclusion of biochar into the “dialogue for the post 2012 climate regime”, alongside “afforestation and reforestation”. They also seek revision of CDM guidelines, (claiming that additionality can be directly and accurately measured for ‘biochar’), and the abolition of the 1% limit for credit that currently applies to “afforestation and reforestation”. A recommendation could be made to the Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) in June 2009, followed by endorsement in Copenhagen UNFCCC, December 2009.

At a recent high level conference by IES, GLOBE-EU, GLOBE-EUROPE, the European Economic and Social Committee and EurActiv considered requests not just for ‘biochar’ CDM credits, but double CDM credits. Biochar Europe, which includes Shell, JP Morgan, a carbon offsetting company, and the Centre for Rural Innovations (organisers of the First International Conference on Sharing Innovative Agribusiness Solutions), is strongly lobbying for the inclusion of ‘biochar’ into the EU Emission Trading Scheme, and also for establishment of a Biochar Technology Platform. In the US, the ‘biochar’ lobby is well connected with the new administration. The new secretary of the Interior, Salazar, previously submitted an amendment to the Farm Bill to support ‘biochar’ research and development. One of the main US groups behind ‘biochar’ is Renew the Earth, which is very well connected nationally and internationally. In Australia, the opposition Liberal Party supports large-scale charcoal use as a soil amendment, in New Zealand the Forestry Ministry has voiced its support, Embrapa in Brazil is represented in the International Biochar Initiative. ‘Biochar’ lobby forums have been set up elsewhere, for example in Canada and in Mongolia.

Tree plantation, Brazil, photo: World Rainforest Movement


- 4 -

PROMISES VERSUS EVIDENCE

Before national and international financial supports are put in place, and before we scale up production of charcoal for use as a soil amendment, shouldn’t we make sure the proclaimed benefits are in fact valid? While it is true that Terra Preta was incredibly successful, the indigenous peoples in pre-colonial Amazonia developed their technique over a long period based on small-scale, biodiverse farming techniques and a knowledge base that is now largely lost. Charcoal was only part of their technique. Modern techniques, based on industrial monocultures and seeking instantaneous economic rewards are quite different. How do the claims hold up?

DOES BIOCHAR INCREASE SOIL FERTILITY? A CLOSE LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE

The farmers who created Terra Preta added diverse types of biomass to the soil, thus building up humus as well as charcoal. ‘Biochar’ advocates, on the other hand, promote stripping the land of ‘agricultural and forestry residues’, which would greatly reduce humus. Done on a large scale, this would to replace at least some humus with biologically ‘dead’ charcoal, an untested but potentially very dangerous strategy.

As farmers practicing swidden agriculture have long known, adding some charcoal to the soil can help to make some soils temporarily more fertile, not least because ‘fresh’ charcoal retains nutrients essential for plant growth. This is different from the long-term fertile Terra Preta. Studies have shown that soil recently amended with charcoal has been shown to have quite different properties from Terra Preta1. Soil scientist Bruno Glaser has suggested that it may take 50-100 years for interactions between soil microbes and charcoal to create soils resembling Terra Preta2. A recent field study near Manaus, Brazil (one of the few published in peer reviewed journals) found that charcoal mixed with synthetic fertilizer enhanced yields more than synthetic fertilizer alone, but the highest reported yields were obtained using solely chicken manure instead. Charcoal alone, actually suppressed plant growth completely after two harvests!3 Other studies have shown that charcoal amendments can, in the short term, either increase or decrease plant yields, depending amongst other things on the quantities of charcoal added, soil type and crop tested.4 There are no longer-term field studies and so it is not known whether the increased plant growth sometimes observed with the addition of charcoal would be sustained over the longer term. The much touted fertility effect of biochar is thus dangerously unfounded.

In fact much of the industry and research focus is on producing fertilizer made from a combination of charcoal and synthetic nitrogen fertilizer (ammonium bicarbonate). This technology was pioneered by US company Eprida. They use pyrolysis to produce hydrogen and charcoal which is then used as a medium for scrubbing the flue-gases from coal burning facilities. NOx, SOx and CO2, adhere to the charcoal. For every kg of carbon thus ‘captured’ from a coal power plant, 33 kg of dry biomass would need to be burned. Little is known about

Removal of ‘forest residues’ for bioenergy in Germany:

(Peter Wohlleben)


- 5 -

the fate of this flue-gas carbon in soils, even less than is known about the fate of charcoal carbon. Nonetheless, Eprida claim that this could allow coal power plants “to reach target [CO2] reductions without reducing plant efficiencies”.5 This “enriched” biochar is then used as a slow-release fertilizer. An innovative means for using biomass to create fertilizer, perhaps, but the underlying result is a so-called carbon capture and sequestration technology which will perpetuate the use of coal and dangerously places absolute faith in the retention of carbon in soils.

Moreover, nitrogen fertilizers lead to emissions of nitrous oxide, which is about 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Proponents claim that adding charcoal to fertilizers could reduce nitrous oxide emissions from soil and reduce the quantity of nitrogen fertilizers used, if such fertilizers become more efficient as a result of charcoal amendments. However, soil scientist and chair of the International Biochar Initiative Johannes Lehmann has stated that it is not yet known whether charcoal reduces nitrous oxide emissions and, that overall the impact of charcoal on soil nitrogen is poorly understood.6

CAN WE RELY ON ‘BIOCHAR’ TO SEQUESTER CARBON?

There is no question that the carbon in biochar will eventually end up back in the atmosphere at some point in the future. It is biological carbon: free to circulate between the atmosphere, soils, plants, oceans etc. and thus capable of contributing to climate change. Fossil carbon, on the other hand, is permanently and safely sequestered within the earth’s crust. The problem of climate change is caused by the dual impacts of both extracting fossil carbon and dumping it into the above ground biological pool, and at the same time, damaging ecosystems so severely that their capacity to store carbon is compromised. ‘Biochar’, like other bio-sequestration technologies does nothing to stem the flow of fossil carbon into the biosphere. Instead, it seeks to address the problem by manipulating “sink capacity” of the biosphere. Worse yet, the close link between the coal industry and biochar production models of companies such as Eprida and Carbon Crucible suggests that ‘biochar’ will further perpetuate fossil fuel burning. This would also be the case if biochar is included in carbon trading mechanisms where it would be used to “offset” and legitimize further fossil fuel burning.

Can charcoal act as a reliable carbon sink? Amazonian indigenous peoples succeeded in designing a method which has maintained soil carbon for thousands of years. Elsewhere, some charcoal remains in soil have been dated as far back as 23,000 years ago. According to Lehmann et al., modern large scale charcoal application could sequester as much as 9.5 billion tons of carbon per year, which would necessitate over 500 millions of hectares of dedicated plantations. Even if we could duplicate the success of Terra Preta on a small scale, the climate impacts of converting large parts of the planet to ‘charcoal plantations’ would be devastating and involve large-scale deforestation and other ecosystem destruction.

Tree plantation, Ecuador, photo World Rainforest Movement


- 6 -

The carbon contained in the charcoal might be sequestered for a while, but how long is “a while”? What if we fail? What if modern charcoal remained in soils for a hundred years or even less, but then suddenly released its’ carbon back into the atmosphere? Proponents are confident enough that they argue ‘biochar’ should be classed as a “permanent” carbon sink, at least permanent enough to be included in a post 2012 climate agreement. So far the results from small scale soil-science studies paint a very different picture.

In order for ‘biochar’ to be properly deemed a ‘carbon sink’, two conditions must be fulfilled: First, we must be sure that the carbon in the charcoal will not end up being broken down and emitted to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Second, we must also be sure that adding charcoal does not cause large quantities of the pre-existing carbon in the soil to degrade and release CO2. Neither can be guaranteed at present.

Can ‘biochar’ become a carbon source? The success of Terra Preta proves that under certain environmental conditions, some black carbon (the type of carbon found in charcoal) can remain in the soil for very long periods. But there is equally clear evidence that black carbon can be, and frequently is, lost from soil. Worldwide, far more black carbon is produced by wildfires every year than remains in soils or, through erosion, ends up in the oceans. A recent peer-reviewed study of black carbon remains from swidden agriculture in Western Kenya revealed that 72% of the carbon was lost in the first 20-30 years.7

The processes through which black carbon is lost are not well understood. Johannes Lehmann of Cornell University, chair of the IBI, has confirmed that very little is known about how long charcoal will remain in the soil and that this will depend on various factors, including soil type and climate, type of biomass used and temperature at which it is charred.8 It is not certain that all of the black carbon lost from soil ends up in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, but there is worrying evidence that at least a significant proportion of it does.

Wildfires may play a role in the loss of soil carbon from charcoal, and an ongoing study is underway to examine whether fires can cause the carbon in charcoal to be degraded and released into the atmosphere.9 Meanwhile there is good evidence that soil microbes can and do metabolize black carbon, which results in the carbon being emitted into the atmosphere.10 In fact, one concern is that the large scale application of charcoal could create an expanded ecological niche for black-carbon degrading microbes.11 There is also strong evidence that charcoal can increase soil microbial activity which degrades pre-existing (non charcoal) soil organic carbon into carbon dioxide. A 2008 peer-reviewed study suggests that placing charcoal into boreal forest soil led to the loss of substantial amounts of soil organic carbon over ten years.12

Several other ongoing studies13,14 are looking at whether biochar might increase carbon dioxide from soil. One short term study in Colombia revealed a large increase (31%) in carbon losses following biochar addition. It was not possible to ascertain for certain the source of the carbon, but the author, (personal communication) assumes the losses are a reflection of increased plant biomass growth that resulted in the first year following biochar addition and then declined.

Initial results from a study by Danish scientists suggest that biochar increases carbon dioxide flows from soils. The authors pose the question whether this is due to the charcoal increasing microbial activity and breaking down existing soil organic carbon, or whether carbon in the charcoal is being lost through oxidation. In short, this critical and complicated question remains unanswered.

In sum, there is little basis for confidence that charcoal will retain carbon in soils. The charcoal itself can be degraded, and charcoal encourages microbial activity that in some cases degrades either the charcoal carbon or other soil organic carbon or both. In other words,


- 7 -

charcoal in soil has the potential to become a carbon source, rather than a carbon sink. This is especially true if the carbon emissions associated with large scale land conversion, discussed below, are included in the equation.

OTHER GLOBAL WARMING IMPACTS OF ‘BIOCHAR’

Airborne black carbon, or soot, is the second greatest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide, according to James Hansen. It is emitted from fossil fuel and biomass burning. ‘Biochar’ proponents claim that charcoal-making stoves can play a major role in reducing black soot emissions which is also true for many different types of ‘clean’ biomass stoves. A review by Dominic Woolf warns that, if the charcoal is not transported, stored and added to the soil with care, the black carbon content could become airborne and thus contribute to global warming.15 This raises the question of how biochar is to be integrated into soils. Images from an Australian biochar trial suggest Best Energies, for example, simply lays the biochar on top of soil and vegetation without incorporating it.16 But to avoid the problem of airborne black carbon, it will likely be essential that biochar be tilled deep into soils, a disruptive process which results in carbon emissions from soil.

CLAIMS ABOUT SOIL WATER RETENTION AND NUTRIENT LEACHING

Biochar proponents argue that biochar can increase the water retention of soils, reducing the need for irrigation, resulting in greater plant growth, decreasing water run-off and thereby reducing soil erosion and leaching of agricultural nutrients (a major cause of freshwater and marine pollution).

There is evidence that biochar does indeed increase the water retention of soils – as in the case of Terra Preta. But this has been shown most clearly for sandy soils, and does not appear to hold true for loamy or clayey soils. In loamy soil, it does not change water retention while in clayey soil it actually reduces it. Additionally, there is some concern that charcoal has properties which over time and particularly after a fire could result in soils actually becoming water-repellent.17

The evidence regarding biochar and nutrient leaching is, once again, far from uniform, with Johannes Lehmann confirming that far more research is needed. One study found that when synthetic fertilizers are used on Terra Preta, nutrient leaching increases dramatically, well beyond what happens when synthetic fertilizers are added to lower carbon soils. In the same experiment, modern charcoal as well as synthetic fertilizers were applied to soil and this resulted in lower nutrient leaching compared to using synthetic fertilizers alone. This study again shows that soils with modern charcoal behave differently from Terra Preta and that serious uncertainties remain. Although in that particular experiment, modern charcoal did reduce nutrient leaching caused by synthetic fertilizers, the results cannot be extrapolated to all different soil types.18

“GOOD FOR THE POOR”?

Some biochar initiatives are presented as “pro-poor” strategies to improve livelihoods, charcoal-making stoves, for example. Indeed, finding efficient and cleaner alternatives to open fire cooking is critical. Emissions of black soot from open cooking fires contribute to global warming while particulate matter is a major cause of respiratory disease. Collecting fuel wood for cooking fires is often time-consuming and a major energy drain, especially for women and children.


- 8 -

Unfortunately, while charcoal producing cooking stoves reduce soot and particulate emissions, they are considerably less efficient than other ‘clean’ biomass stoves in that a portion of the biomass collected and burned is retained as charcoal, hence unavailable as cooking energy. This means that a family will need to collect 20-30% more wood or ‘residues’ for cooking than they would need for a more efficient stove that does not produce charcoal. Proponents of charcoal-making stoves justify the added demand on the basis that the charcoal can be used as a soil amendment, improving yields and reducing the expense of purchasing fertilizer a claim which, as we have been above, is highly questionable. The IBI is supporting charcoal-making stove projects in a number of countries, including India and Mongolia. It is however not clear whether local people are presented with a choice between charcoal-making stoves and other more efficient ones.19

Another “pro-poor” initiative encourages charcoal production as a means of maintaining soil fertility for farmers on the “forest frontier” where soils are weak and generally cannot support farming for more than a few years at best. Proponents, such as the company Biochar Fund, claim that “slash and char” will enable the enrichment of soils and hence reduce the need for farmers to clear new land. Promoting biochar to small farmers means using them to test a technique that is far from proven. If it fails, farmers will be left with crop failures and debt. Meanwhile, the more promising ammonium bicarbonate fertilizer will be patented and thus will benefit companies rather than poor farmers.

The inclusion of biochar in carbon trade schemes will further reduce benefits to the poor. As Larry Lohmann has shown: “The CDM’s market structure biases it against small community-based projects, which tend not to be able to afford the high transaction costs necessary for each scheme.”20 In the case of biochar, concerns over air pollutants created during pyrolysis, and introduction of toxic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) to soils will likely indicate mandatory testing before credits are granted, further pricing farmers out of carbon markets.

INDUSTRIAL ‘BIOCHAR’ FOR GEO-ENGINEERING?

Any technology that increases demand for plant biomass must be very carefully scrutinized in light of 1) greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the conversion of land, and 2) the already unsustainable demand for agricultural and forest products, soil, freshwater and biodiversity. 3) impacts on people’s access to land. Some ’biochar’ advocates focus on the use of “wastes and residues” and crops grown on “marginal and idle” lands. The same claims have been made for other bioenergy technologies, but the reality is that there are no large quantities of wastes and residues lying around unclaimed; not on a scale that can supply facilities over time and substantially contribute to energy demands. Furthermore, removing residues and dead wood dangerously depletes soil nutrients, makes land more vulnerable to drought and reduces biodiversity. Nor are there vast expanses of “marginal and idle” lands. Such terminology dangerously excludes land uses that are not formally recognized as contributing to global markets. Traditional uses, where formal title is unclear, are considered “marginal”, even when they are critical to the livelihoods of rural smallholder farmers, pastoralists and others. This is already resulting in unprecedented

Charred forest remains


- 9 -

displacement, often violent, as countries, corporations and private investors increasingly seek access to land for food, energy and secure, profitable investments.21

When large scale energy crops are required, as would certainly be the case if biochar is adopted as a strategy to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, emissions from land use change become very concerning. Clearing of forests or grasslands to make way for energy crop monoculture results in large quantities of emissions, reduces future sink capacity and causes further collapse of ecosystems and the biodiversity on which we depend for climate regulation. As widespread freshwater shortages are predicted, the regulation of rainfall by healthy forests and soils becomes increasingly critical, and the allotment of water for irrigation of energy crops increasingly unsustainable.

For a more detailed discussion about the impact of large-scale bioenergy production for geo-engineering and for the experience with first generation agrofuels, see www.globalforestcoalition.org/img/userpics/File/publications/Therealcostofagrofuels.pdf, www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/cnbe/cnbe.html and www.econexus.info/pdf/Agrofuels.pdf.

CONCLUSION

Lobbying is underway for a massive scaling up of biochar production, and yet there is little to substantiate the many proclaimed benefits. It is critical that we address this issue with caution, especially given the many dire consequences associated with any technology that involves large biomass demand and manipulation of poorly understood soil ecosystems!

1 Nutrient availability and leaching in an archaeological Anthrosol and a Ferralsol of the Central Amazon basin: fertilizer, manure and charcoal amendments, J Lehmann et al, Plant and Soil 249: 343–357, 2003 2 Special Report: Inspired by Ancient Amazonians, a Plan to Convert Trash into Environmental Treasure, Anne Casselman, Scientific American, 15th May 2007 3 Long term effects of manure, charcoal and mineral fertilization on crop production and fertility on a highly weathered Central Amazonian upland soil, Christoph Steiner et al, Plant Soil (2007) 291:275–290 4 Effect of charcoal, coal and peat on the yield of moong, soybean and pea, Iswaran V et al, 1980. Soil Biol. Biochem.12, 191–192 and Charcoal as a soil conditioner, Kishimoto S and Sugiura G 1985, Symposium on Forest Products Research International Achievements for the Future 5: 12/23/1-12.23.15 5 www.eprida.com/hydro/2004doc.pdf 6 Bio-energy in the black, Johannes Lehmann, Front Ecol Environ 2007; 5(7): 381–387 7 Long-term black carbon dynamics in cultivated soil, Binh Tanh Nguyen et al, Biogeochemistry, Volume 89, Number 3 / July, 2008 8 See Ref 6 9 USGS Soil Carbon Research, M Waldrop, US Geological Survey 10 Interactive priming of black carbon and glucose mineralisation, Ute Hamer et al, Organic Geochemistry 35, no. 7 (July:823-830). 11 Biochar as a soil amendment: A review of the environmental implications, Dominic Woolf, January 2008 12 Fire-Derived Charcoal Causes Loss of Forest Humus, David A. Wardle et al, Science 2 May 2008: Vol. 320. no. 5876, p. 629; also see Comment by J Lehmannan and Sohi, 10.1126/science.1160005 and authors’ response. 10.1126/science.1160750


- 10 -

13 For example: Fate of biochar applied to a Colombian savannah Oxisol during the first and second years, Julie Major et al, 2007 International Agrichar Conference (The figure of a 60% increase in carbon losses from soil on that poster is an error, as confirmed by the lead author.) 14 Biochar in fertile clay soil: impact on carbon mineralization, microbial biomass and GHG emissions, Esben Wilson Bruun et al, DTU/RSO, www.biochar-international.org/images/Biochar_in_fertile_clay_soil-Esben_Bruun,_Denmark.pdf 15 see Ref 10 16 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nzmpWR6JUZQ 17 see Ref 10 18 See Ref 1 19 Reference for details on efficiency and pollution: A Study on improved institutional biomass stoves, S.C. Bhattacharya, www.retsasia.ait.ac.th/Publications/An%20Improved%20Gasifier%20Stove%20for%20 Institutional%20Cooking.pdf 20 Carbon Trading: A critical conversation on climate change, privatisation and power, Larry Lohmann, 2006, p. 257 21 Agrofuels and the Myth of the Marginal Lands, Joint briefing published by Gaia Foundation, September 2008, www.gaiafoundation.org/documents/Agrofuels&MarginalMyth.pdf

ATTACHMENT 3


Part 1. a green carbon account of australia’s south-eastern eucalyPt forests, and Policy imPlications

Brendan G. Mackey, Heather Keith, Sandra L. Berry and David B. LindenmayerThe Fenner School of Environment & Society, The Australian National University

Green CarbonTHE roLE oF NATUrAL ForESTS iN cArBoN STorAGE

Published by ANU E Press The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200, Australia Email: [email protected] Web: http://epress.anu.edu.au Online version available at: http://epress.anu.edu.au/green_carbon_citation.html

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry

Title: Green carbon : the role of natural forests in carbon storage. Part 1, A green carbon account of Australia’s south-eastern Eucalypt forest, and policy implications / Brendan Mackey ... [ et al.].

ISBN: 9781921313875 (pbk.) 9781921313882 (pdf.)

Subjects: Carbon--Environmental aspects. Forests and forestry--Environmental aspects. Plants--Effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide on. Carbon dioxide mitigation.

Other Authors/Contributors: Mackey, Brendan.

Dewey Number: 577.3144

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Printed by University Printing Services, ANU

This edition © 2008 ANU E Press

Design by ANU E Press

Cover photograph: Eucalyptus regnans, Central Highlands Victoria © 2007 Sarah Rees

This book has been printed on 9Lives 80 Silk 115gsm paper.

9lives 80 has strong environmental credentials including 80% post-consumer fibre and 20% Totally Chlorine Free (TCF) Fibre. 9lives 80 is a certified mixed source FSC Certified paper.

3

Table of ConTenTs

executive summary 5

introduction 9

the significance of green carbon 11

What is green carbon? 11

What is the role of forests in the carbon cycle? 13

Are green carbon stocks reliable? 14

What about industrialized forests? 17

the green carbon baseline problem 19

south-eastern australia eucalypt forest case study 21

introduction 21

Summary of methods 23

results 27

comparison with existing carbon accounts 29

implications for carbon policy 33

The importance of carbon carrying capacity 33

Deforestation and forest degradation 34

Green carbon and mitigation 36

concluding comments 39

acknowledgments 41

references 43

5

the international community has now recognized the need for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (redd) as a vital comPonent of a comPrehensive solution to the climate change Problem.

Only since the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali (UNFCCC CoP 13) have international negotiations focused on the role of natural forests in storing carbon.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified the need for forest-based mitigation analyses that account for natural variability, that use primary data and that provide reliable baseline carbon accounts. In response, we are conducting a series of investigations into the carbon stocks of intact natural forests over large geographical areas, inclusive of environmental factors operating at landscape and regional scales. We are also considering the carbon impacts of land-use activities, including commercial logging. The key question we are asking in our research is ‘How much carbon can natural forests store when undisturbed by intensive human land-use activity?’

This report presents a summary of results from case studies in the eucalypt forests of south-eastern Australia. We use these results to frame a discussion of REDD and we make policy recommendations to help promote a scientific understanding of the role of natural forests in the global carbon cycle and in solving the climate change problem.

in understanding the role of natural forests in the global carbon cycle, and climate change mitigation Policies, the colour of carbon matters.

It is the biological, ecological and evolutionary dimension that distinguishes the ‘green’ carbon in natural forests from the ‘brown’ carbon of industrialized forests, especially monoculture plantations. Drawing on the same poetic licence, we refer to the inorganic carbon in the atmosphere (carbon dioxide) and the oceans (carbonate) as ‘blue’ carbon.

Natural forests are more resilient to climate change and disturbances than plantations because of their genetic, taxonomic and functional biodiversity. This resilience includes regeneration after fire, resistance to and recovery from pests and diseases, and adaptation to changes in radiation, temperature and water availability (including those resulting from global climate change). While the genetic and taxonomic composition of forest ecosystems changes over time, natural forests will continue to take up and store carbon as long as there is adequate water and solar radiation for photosynthesis.

The green carbon in natural forests is stored in a more reliable stock than that in industrialized forests, especially over ecological time scales. Carbon stored in industrialized forests has a greater

exeCuTive summary

Leaves: E. delegatensis, Bago State Forest, southern NSW. Photo: Claudia Keitel.

E. nitens, Erinundra, East Gippsland (620 t C ha-1 of biomass carbon). Photo: Ern Mainka.

6

susceptibility to loss than that stored in natural forests. Industrialized forests, particularly plantations, have reduced genetic diversity and structural complexity, and therefore reduced resilience to pests, diseases and changing climatic conditions.

The carbon stock of forests subject to commercial logging, and of monoculture plantations in particular, will always be significantly less on average (~40 to 60 per cent depending on the intensity of land use and forest type) than the carbon stock of natural, undisturbed forests. The rate of carbon fixation by young regenerating stands is high, but this does not compensate for the smaller carbon pools in the younger-aged stands of industrialized forests compared with those of natural forests. Carbon accounts for industrialized forests must include the carbon emissions associated with land use and associated management, transportation and processing activities.

australian natural forests have far larger carbon stocks than is recognized.

Our analyses showed that the stock of carbon for intact natural forests in south-eastern Australia was about 640 t C ha-1 of total carbon (biomass plus soil, with a standard deviation of 383), with 360 t C ha-1 of biomass carbon (living plus dead biomass, with a standard deviation of 277). The average net primary productivity (NPP) of these natural forests was 12 t C ha-1 yr-1 (with a standard deviation of 1.8). The highest biomass carbon stocks, with an average of more than 1200 t C ha-1 and maximum of over 2000 t C ha-1, are in the mountain ash (Eucalyptus regnans) forest in the Central Highlands of Victoria and Tasmania. This is cool temperate evergreen forest with a tall eucalypt overstorey and dense Acacia spp. and temperate-rainforest tree understorey.

carbon-accounting models must be carefully calibrated with aPProPriate ecological field data in order to generate reliable estimates for natural forests.

Access to appropriate ecological field data is critical for accurate carbon accounting in natural forests, as otherwise erroneous values will be generated. Models must be designed and calibrated to reflect the fact that the carbon dynamics of natural forests are significantly different to those of industrialized forests, especially monoculture plantations. Among other things, the carbon in natural forests has a longer residence time. We demonstrated this point by comparing our data with values of forest carbon accounts calculated from two commonly referenced sources.

In terms of global biomes, Australian forests are classified as temperate forests. The IPCC default values for temperate forests are a carbon stock of 217 t C ha-1 of total carbon, 96 t C ha-1 of biomass carbon, and a NPP of 7 t C ha-1 yr-1. The IPCC default values for total carbon are approximately one-third, and for biomass

7

carbon approximately one-quarter that of the average values for south-eastern Australian eucalypt forests, and one-twentieth of the most biomass carbon dense eucalypt forests. We calculate the total stock of carbon that can be stored in the 14.5 million ha of eucalypt forest in our study region is 9.3 Gt(1), if it is undisturbed by intensive human land-use activities; applying the IPCC default values would give only 3.1 Gt.

The difference in carbon stocks between our estimates and the IPCC default values is the result of us using local data collected from natural forests not disturbed by logging. Our estimates therefore reflect the carbon carrying capacity of the natural forests. In heavily disturbed forests, the current carbon stocks reflect land-use history. The difference between the two is called the ‘carbon sequestration potential’—the maximum carbon stock that can be sequestered as the forest re-grows.

We also tested the Australian Government’s National Carbon Accounting System (NCAS) (Australian Greenhouse Office 2007a) and found it underestimated the carbon carrying capacity of natural forests with high biomass stocks. NCAS was designed to model biomass growth in plantations and afforestation/reforestation projects using native plantings. The empirically based functions within NCAS were calibrated using data appropriate for that purpose. But, this meant that NCAS was unable to accurately estimate the carbon carrying capacity of carbon dense natural forests in south eastern Australia. However, the kinds of field data used in our study could be used to recalibrate NCAS so that it can generate reliable estimates of biomass carbon in these forests.

the remaining intact natural forests constitute a significant standing stock of carbon that should be Protected from carbon emitting land-use activities.

there is substantial Potential for carbon sequestration in forest areas that have been logged if they are allowed to re-grow undisturbed by further intensive human land-use activities.

Our analysis shows that in the 14.5 million ha of eucalypt forests in south-eastern Australia, the effect of retaining the current carbon stock (equivalent to 25.5 Gt CO

2 (carbon dioxide)) is equivalent to avoided

emissions of 460 Mt(2) CO2 yr-1 for the next 100 years. Allowing logged

forests to realize their sequestration potential to store 7.5 Gt CO2 is

equivalent to avoiding emissions of 136 Mt CO2 yr-1 for the next 100

years. This is equal to 24 per cent of the 2005 Australian net greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors; which were 559 Mt CO

2 in that year.

1 Gigatonne (Gt) equals one billion or 1.0 x 109 tonnes.

2 Megatonne (Mt) equals one million or 1.0 x 106 tonnes

8

If, however, all the carbon currently stored in the 14.5 million ha of eucalypt forest in south-eastern Australia was released into the atmosphere it would raise the global concentration of carbon dioxide by 3.3 parts per million by volume (ppmv). This is a globally significant amount of carbon dioxide; since 1750 AD, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by some 97 ppmv.

reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (redd) is imPortant in all forest biomes — boreal, troPical and temPerate — and in economically develoPed as well as develoPing countries.

From a scientific perspective, green carbon accounting and protection of the natural forests in all nations should become part of a comprehensive approach to solving the climate change problem. Current international negotiations are focussed on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries only. However, REDD is also important in the natural forests of countries such as Australia, Canada, the Russian Federation, and the USA.

Part of the ongoing international climate change negotiations involves debate on the technical definition of key terms. ‘Forest degradation’ should be defined to include the impacts of any human land-use activity that reduces the carbon stocks of a forested landscape relative to its natural carbon carrying capacity. The definition of ‘forest’ should also be revised to recognize the differences between the ecological characteristics of natural forests and industrialized forests, especially plantations. These differences include the higher biodiversity, ecosystem resilience, and carbon residence time of natural forests.

E. regnans, Dandenong Ranges National Park, Victoria (900 t C ha-1 of biomass carbon). Photo: Sandra Berry.

9

inTroduCTion

Gum bark: E. pauciflora, Brindabella Range. Photo: Heather Keith.

Natural forests play a significant role in the global carbon cycle. Biomass and soil store approximately three times the amount of carbon that is currently found in the atmosphere, and the annual exchange of carbon between the atmosphere and natural forests is 10 times more than the annual global carbon emissions from humans burning fossil fuels. Despite natural forests storing such significant amounts of carbon, to date there has been scant consideration given by policymakers to the role of forests in addressing the climate change problem. At the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali (UNFCCC CoP 13), however, the international community recognized the need to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) as a vital component of a comprehensive solution to the climate change problem.

The significance to the climate change problem of achieving REDD can be appreciated when we consider that about 35 per cent of greenhouse gases stored in the atmosphere is due to past deforestation, and about 18 per cent of annual global emissions is the result of continuing deforestation (IPCC 2007). Furthermore, even when forest is not cleared to make way for other land uses, there are significant and continuing emissions of carbon dioxide from commercial logging and other land-use activities that reduce the stock of carbon stored in the ecosystem. Consequently, there is now great interest in, and indeed an urgent need to develop and apply, methods that better quantify the carbon stored in natural forests and how these pools change as the result of human land-use activities.

While international attention is now focused on REDD in developing countries, the laws of nature that account for the global carbon cycle operate irrespective of political boundaries. Therefore, a unit of carbon emitted due to deforestation and forest degradation in Australia, the United States, Canada or Russia has exactly the same impact on atmospheric greenhouse gas levels as a unit of carbon emitted from deforestation and degradation of forests in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, the Congo Basin or Brazil. From a scientific perspective, solving the climate change problem requires, among others things, that REDD be accounted for in all forest biomes, irrespective of the host nation’s economic status.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified the need for forest-based mitigation analyses that account for natural variability, use primary data and provide reliable baseline carbon accounts (Nabuurs et al. 2007). In response, we are conducting a series of investigations into the carbon stocks of intact natural forests over large geographical areas, inclusive of environmental factors operating at landscape and regional scales. We are also considering the carbon impacts of land-use activities, including commercial logging.

In Australia, a number of studies have examined carbon stocks at continental scales (Barrett 2002) and using fine-resolution land-cover data (Brack et al. 2006). There is, however, a lack of baseline

10

carbon accounts for natural forests undisturbed by intensive human land-use activities. Such baselines are essential if we are to value accurately the carbon stored in natural forests, and in order to account properly for the carbon emissions from land-use activities.

An approach to estimating the carbon stocks of intact natural forests was developed and tested by Roxburgh et al. (2006). Our study extends this approach by applying it over entire regions. The approach is based on estimating what we call the ‘natural carbon carrying capacity’ of a landscape. The natural carbon carrying capacity is defined as the mass of carbon able to be stored in a forest ecosystem under prevailing environmental conditions and natural disturbance regimes, but excluding disturbance by human activities (Gupta and Rao 1994). This estimate provides an appropriate baseline for estimating the impacts on carbon stocks of intensive human land-use activities. Once the natural carbon carrying capacity is established, it is possible to calculate the potential increase in carbon storage that would occur if land-use management were changed and carbon-emitting land-use ceased. This potential increase in the carbon stored in the forest is called the ‘carbon sequestration potential’.

The key question we are asking in our research is ‘How much carbon can natural forests store when undisturbed by intensive human land-use activity?’ This report presents a summary of results from case studies in the eucalypt forests of south-eastern Australia. We use these results to frame a discussion of REDD and we make policy recommendations to help promote a scientific understanding of the role of natural forests in the global carbon cycle and in solving the climate change problem.

This report was prepared in response to the considerable public interest in the issue of REDD. An earlier version was written as preparatory material for the Bali 2007 Climate Change Conference. A technical paper that details the source data, the methods used and the full results is being prepared for a scientific journal. In the interim, any technical questions regarding data and methods should be directed to the authors.

E. dalrympleana, E. pauciflora, subalpine forest, Kosciuszko National Park, NSW (325 tC ha-1 of biomass carbon). Photo: Ian Smith.

11

The siGnifiCanCe of Green Carbon

Decorticating bark: E. dalrympleana, Kosciuszko National Park. Photo: Ian Smith.

what is green carbon?

It is useful to consider the ‘colour’ of carbon when considering the role of natural forests in the global carbon cycle.

Grey carbon(3) is the carbon stored in fossil fuel (coal, oil and gas deposits in the lithosphere).

Green carbon is the carbon stored in the biosphere. We call it ‘green’ because carbon is taken up from the atmosphere by plants through the process of photosynthesis, which is dependent on the green chlorophyll pigment found in plant leaves(4). Here, we use the term green carbon to refer to the carbon sequestered through photosynthesis and stored in natural forests. Natural forests are defined here as forests that have not been disturbed by intensive human land-use activities, including commercial logging.

Brown carbon is the carbon stored in industrialized forests. These are forests that are logged commercially for their wood, which is used as a source of raw material for industrial manufacturing processes. There are two types of industrialized forests: 1) where tree regrowth is from the naturally occurring tree stock and seed bank; and 2) where the trees are planted by humans and usually comprise a single tree species, much like a monoculture crop. Industrialized forests constitute a stock of organic carbon and are therefore part of the biosphere; however, we consider this carbon to be ‘brown’ in colour rather than ‘green’ in order to stress the fact that industrialized forests are a ‘mix’ of green and grey carbon(5). Fossil fuel is expended and therefore grey carbon emitted in managing these forestry operations and from the associated industrial processes.

Blue carbon refers to the inorganic carbon stored in the atmosphere (carbon dioxide, CO

2) and oceans (carbonate, CO

32-). While there

are significant stocks of marine green carbon in the ocean(6), here we are concerned with the green carbon stored in terrestrial ecosystems, and natural forests in particular.

The significance of natural forests to mitigating the climate change problem is a hotly debated topic. Some commentators argue that forest protection is a secondary issue and the primary focus of discussion should be on approaches to reducing emissions of grey carbon from burning fossil fuels. We can, however, no longer afford the luxury of ignoring any one of the components of the

3 In greenhouse literature, the term ‘black carbon’ has been used to refer to

charcoal in soil and soot in the atmosphere.

4 Carbon is taken up from the atmosphere by photosynthesising bacteria and algae,

in addition to plants.

5 We have of course taken some poetic licence in using these colours to describe

the different states of carbon. The colour brown is in reality produced from a mix of the

three primary colours and not from simply mixing green and grey.

6 There is also biological uptake in the oceans, but the carbon dioxide first physically

dissolves from the atmosphere into the ocean, then the dissolved inorganic carbon can

be taken up by photosynthesising phytoplankton.

12

global carbon cycle that are being disrupted by human activity.

Solving the climate change problem requires that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases be reduced and stabilized to a level that prevents dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system (UNFCCC). What constitutes a ‘safe level’ is a critical question that is being debated actively among scientists and policy advisors. Evidence from glacial ice cores has revealed that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide ranged between 180 and 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv) in the past 650 000 years (with typical maximum values of 290 ppmv) (Petit et al. 1999; IPCC 2007). Assuming this natural variability revealed by the ice-core records persisted(7), we should assume a maximum safe level is 300 ppmv. In the language of thermodynamics: through the interactions of various natural processes, Earth’s average planetary temperature has been maintained in a state of dynamic equilibrium in the past 650 000 years where the temperature varies but within a well-defined ‘ceiling’ and ‘floor’.

As a result of humans burning fossil fuels and causing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (especially in the past 100 years), the current level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is about 380 ppmv (IPCC 2007). We have therefore already exceeded a safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide as defined by the natural variability of the past 650 000 years. Stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide at between 350 and 400 ppmv will require that emissions are reduced to approximately 85 per cent of 2000 levels by 2050, and that the peak year for emissions is not later than 2015 (IPCC 2007). Meeting this target will still result in a projected temperature increase of 2 to 2.4ºC and a sea-level rise of 0.4 to 1.4 m. Given the current trajectory of emissions, the scientific community is now discussing the consequences of atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide reaching up to 790 ppmv by 2100 (IPCC 2007), which is predicted to result in a temperature increase of up to 6.1ºC and a sea-level rise of 1.0 to 3.7 m.

We can no longer afford to ignore emissions caused by deforestation and forest degradation from every biome (that is, we need to consider boreal, tropical and temperate forests) and in every nation (whether economically developing or developed). We need to take a fresh look at forests through a carbon and climate change lens, and reconsider how they are valued and what we are doing to them.

7 The ice-core records confirm that the Earth has experienced a long sequence of

cool and warm periods associated with oscillations in the planetary orbit around the

sun. A very long cooling phase (about 100 000 years) culminates in a glacial maximum

followed by a rapid warming to reach a temperature maximum (about 10 000 years)

(Berger and Loutre 2002).

13

what is the role of forests in the carbon cycle?

Terrestrial ecosystems—especially natural forests—play a critical role in regulating greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and therefore must be part of a comprehensive response to the climate change problem. An appreciation of the significance of natural forests in the carbon cycle requires understanding of how Earth functions as a system. Because Earth is a closed system in terms of chemical elements, the atomic components of the major greenhouse gases (water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane) are neither created nor destroyed. Rather, they reside in and move between reservoirs (also called ‘stocks’ or ‘pools’) within the global carbon and hydrological cycles. As they move between reservoirs, carbon and water change state: water from a liquid, to gas or ice; and carbon from inorganic gases in the atmosphere, to organic compounds in living and dead organisms on land and in the sea, to inorganic substances in the oceans and the Earth’s crust.

A simplified diagram of the global carbon cycle is shown in Figure 1. The estimates of global carbon stocks and fluxes are only approximate due to lack of data. The annual uptake of carbon (as carbon dioxide) by plants (through photosynthesis) from the atmosphere to the plant and soil reservoir (organic carbon) is about 120 Gt yr-1. Through the respiration of living organisms (including humans and their livestock), and oxidative combustion

figure 1: global carbon cycle

Approximate global carbon cycle stocks (boxes) and fluxes (arrows). (Adapted from Houghton 2007). Units are Gt of carbon, and fluxes are per year. The colours of the arrows correspond to the definition of colour of carbon. * Deforestation contributes ~2 Gt c yr-1.

14

by fire, a little less than 120 Gt yr-1 of ‘plant and soil’ reservoir carbon is emitted to the atmosphere. The biosphere is estimated to be a small carbon sink. Approximately 2 Gt of carbon emissions by the plant and soil reservoir is due to deforestation. This acts to increase the loss of carbon and decrease the uptake of carbon by the plant and soil reservoir. Over time, therefore, the size of the reservoir of carbon in plants and the soil is decreasing. The coal/oil/gas reservoir (which supplies most of the energy requirements of industry) is also decreasing by approximately 6 Gt yr-1. If there is less carbon in the plant and soil pool, and in the coal/oil/gas pool, there must be more in the atmospheric and ocean pools. To date, humans have released about 300 Gt of grey carbon, but there is over 5000 Gt remaining in the lithosphere that potentially can be accessed for human use (Archer 2005). About 2000 Gt of carbon is estimated to reside currently in terrestrial ecosystems (plant and soil reservoirs), with about 75 per cent of this stored in natural forest ecosystems. However, about 50 per cent of the world’s forests have been cleared so that current terrestrial carbon stocks are substantially below their natural carbon carrying capacity (Archer 2005; MEA 2005; Houghton 2007).

Carbon cycles between the lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere and biosphere, but its residence time in each of these reservoirs varies significantly(8). The concentration of carbon in the atmosphere due to the release of carbon from the lithosphere reservoir will remain at elevated levels for a long time even if grey carbon emissions are stopped immediately (Archer 2005). The two pathways for transfer of carbon out of the atmosphere are: 1) dissolution in river and ocean water and, eventually, incorporation into carbonate rock; and 2) uptake of carbon by plants and storage in the biosphere. The terrestrial biosphere–atmosphere fluxes operate on a faster time scale and are under a greater degree of human control than the fluxes of the hydrosphere. Solving the climate change problem will require both reducing grey-carbon emissions and maximising the uptake of carbon in the biosphere. A healthy biosphere provides a buffering capacity for changes in the carbon cycle.

are green carbon stocks reliable?

The argument is commonly heard that forests are an unreliable carbon sink because of their vulnerability to fire, pests, diseases and drought, which can reduce the standing stock of carbon and inhibit forest growth. Another argument is that climate change might cause conditions to be less conducive to forest growth, for example, by reducing water available for photosynthesis or increasing temperatures beyond the thermal tolerance of tree species, thereby causing forests to become a source of rather than a sink for carbon. It is also argued that the stock of green carbon

8 Residence time is the average time a unit of carbon spends in a given reservoir,

that is, carbon stock or pool. It is calculated by dividing the reservoir volume by the rate

of flow.

15

is too small to make a significant contribution to greenhouse gas mitigation and is therefore not an important policy consideration.

As noted earlier, green carbon in the biosphere has a significantly different residence time compared with grey carbon in the lithosphere. Therefore, in terms of the global carbon cycle, green and grey carbon should not be treated as equivalent with respect to policy options. In terms of preventing harmful change to the climate system, it is important to avoid emissions of grey carbon from burning fossil fuels, and leave oil, gas and coal stored in the lithosphere. Additionally, the uptake and storage of carbon by natural forests has a powerful and relatively rapid negative feedback on the enhanced greenhouse effects from emissions. Feedbacks are the key to understanding how relatively minor increases in greenhouse gas concentrations can result in massive changes in Earth’s climate system (Hansen et al. 2007).

Generally, a greenhouse-enhanced world is a warmer and wetter world—albeit with changing regional patterns (Zhang et al. 2007). Water is essential for photosynthesis (the uptake of carbon by plants from the atmosphere) and production of new biomass. When water is plentiful (and the soil is not degraded), atmospheric carbon will continue to be sequestered in new biomass. In addition, as atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide increase, photosynthesis becomes more efficient as plants can fix more carbon dioxide using the same amount of water (Farquhar 1997). Increased cloud cover (associated with increased rainfall) is not necessarily an impediment as photosynthesis utilizes diffuse as well as direct solar energy (Farquhar and Roderick 2003), and it could even enhance photosynthesis in multi-layered vegetation canopies (Hollinger et al. 1998).

The stock of green carbon in an ecosystem is the result of the difference between the rates of biomass production and decomposition. Like the global carbon cycle, green carbon cycles between pools: living biomass, dead biomass and soil. The residence time of a unit of carbon in each pool varies—the longest is for woody biomass and soil (Roxburgh et al. 2006). Rates of decomposition scale with increasing temperature and moisture (Golley 1983). An excess of soil water, however, leads to anaerobic conditions, a decrease in decomposition and a build-up of dead organic matter. This is why tropical peat forests and boreal forests have large pools of soil organic carbon, while tropical and temperate forests have proportionally more living biomass carbon.

Various processes enable forests to persist in the face of changing environmental conditions, including climate change. Natural forests are characterized by a rich biodiversity at all levels: genetic, taxonomic and ecosystem. This is obvious especially when, in addition to the diversity of plants and vertebrate animals, we consider the invertebrates, bacteria and fungi, and the vast webs of ecological and coevolving interactions that together constitute a functioning ecosystem (Odum and Barret 2005; Thompson 2005). The genetic diversity found within species provides the capacity

16

for, among other things, micro-evolution whereby populations can become rapidly adapted to local conditions (Bradshaw and Holzapfel 2006). High taxonomic diversity provides a pool of species with different life histories and niche tolerances from which natural selection can reveal the plant or animal best suited to new conditions (Hooper et al. 2005). Natural selection, acting on the rich biodiversity found in natural forests, can also result in the optimisation of plants’ physiological processes (Cowan and Farquhar 1977) and in the optimization of trophic interactions (Brown et al. 2004) in response to environmental change. Natural forests are therefore more resilient to climate change and disturbances than plantations because of their genetic, taxonomic and functional biodiversity. This resilience includes regeneration after fire, resistance to and recovery from pests and diseases and adaptation to changes in radiation, temperature and water availability.

Oxygenic/photosynthetically based ecosystems have persisted on Earth for at least 2.8 billion years (Des Marais 2000), due in no small measure to the kinds of biological, ecological and evolutionary processes noted above. While the genetic and taxonomic composition of forest ecosystems changes over time, forests will continue to uptake and store carbon as long as there is adequate water and solar radiation for photosynthesis. From this perspective, the carbon in natural forests is stored in a more reliable stock than in industrialized forests, especially over ecological time scales. Carbon stored in industrialized forests has a greater susceptibility to loss than that stored in natural forests. Regrowth forests and plantations have reduced genetic diversity and structural complexity, and therefore reduced resilience to pests, diseases and changing climate conditions (Hooper and Vitousek 1997; Hooper et al. 2005, McCann 2007). The risk of fire in industrialized forests is greater than in natural forests because of the associated increase in human activity in the area, the use of machinery and public access.

Given the resilience of natural ecosystems, the green carbon stocks in forest biomes are more likely in the longer term to expand than to shrink under enhanced greenhouse conditions, and in the absence of perturbations from human land-use activities(9). Indeed, the negative feedback (with respect to increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide) provided by enhanced plant

9 This statement must, however, be qualified by the high level of uncertainty about

regionally scaled climate change predictions of rainfall and evaporation—the main

variables controlling water availability.

E. obliqua, Mt. Wellington, Tasmania. Photo: Rob Blakers.

17

growth has been argued to be critical to the long-term stability of Earth’s environment within the bounds conducive to life (Gorshkov et al. 2000).

what about industrialized forests?

There are important distinctions between the carbon dynamics of natural forests and industrialized forests, especially monoculture plantations. The majority of biomass carbon in natural forests resides in the woody biomass of large old trees. Commercial logging changes the age structure of forests so that the average age of trees is much younger. The result is a significant (more than 40 per cent) reduction in the long-term average standing stock of biomass carbon compared with an unlogged forest (Roxburgh et al. 2006; Brown et al. 1997). Plantations are designed to have all of their above-ground biomass removed on a regular basis. The rotation period between harvests varies from 10 to 70 years globally, depending on species and commercial purposes (Varmola and Del Lungo 2003). The carbon stock of forests subject to commercial logging—and of monoculture plantations in particular—will therefore always be significantly less on average than the carbon stock of natural, undisturbed forests.

It is argued by some industry advocates that commercial logging is greenhouse gas neutral because: a) young trees have high rates of growth and carbon fixation; and b) some of the biomass removed from the forest is used for wood-based products with a substantial residence time. Regarding the first point, it is true that the rate of carbon uptake by young trees in plantations and regrowth forests is high. However, this carbon uptake over a rotation would not compensate for the amount of carbon presently stored in natural forests that would be lost if they were harvested (Harmon et al. 1990; Schulze et al. 2000). Responding to the second point, it is critical from a carbon-mitigation perspective to account for all carbon gains and losses associated with logging and associated industrial processes. Comprehensive carbon accounting is needed that includes carbon uptake and emissions from all human activities associated with commercial logging and processing of the associated wood-based products, as well as carbon storage in products.

Emissions that need to be accounted for include grey carbon from burning fossil fuels for energy to do work and green carbon from killing living biomass and accelerating the rate of decomposition of dead biomass. When considering the carbon accounts associated with industrialized forests, it is therefore necessary to include carbon emissions resulting from: a) forest management (for example, the construction and maintenance of roads, post-logging regeneration burns); b) harvesting (including use of machinery, and wastage from collateral damage to living woody biomass and soil carbon); c) transportation of logs, pulpwood and woodchips; and d) manufacturing. All of these emissions must be subtracted

18

from the carbon stored in wood-based products. Also, it needs to be demonstrated that the carbon in wood-based products will remain in the terrestrial biosphere carbon reservoir for a longer period than it would have if it had remained in an unlogged natural forest.

Ideally, a comprehensive carbon audit should be conducted using the energy audit method of Odum (1981). We cannot find any such comprehensive accounts of the grey carbon emitted from commercial logging and wood-products manufacturing inclusive of all stages in the product life cycle: forest management, harvesting, transportation and manufacturing. Of these, the most critical are likely to be: 1) collateral damage to forest biomass and soil carbon (also called ‘wastage’); and 2) the differences between the residence time of carbon in the natural forest pools and the wood-product pools. In natural forests with large carbon stocks, the wastage of biomass due to commercial logging is significant. For example, commercial logging in tropical natural forests has been shown to dramatically reduce carbon stocks. In Papua New Guinea, commercial logging has been found to result in about 27 per cent of stem volume being removed, another 13 per cent being killed and half of the trees with a stem diameter of more than 5 cm destroyed (Abe et al. 1999). The residence time of the wood-based products is also a critical factor given the longevity of woody stems, coarse woody debris and soil carbon pools in natural forest (Roxburgh et al. 2006). An additional critical consideration is the loss of green carbon from natural forest pools when industrialized forests and plantations are first established, and the time it will take for this biomass to be regrown (Fargione et al. 2008).

In summary, forest protection is an essential component of a comprehensive approach to mitigating the climate change problem for a number of key reasons. These include:

For every hectare of natural forest that is logged or degraded, •there is a net loss of carbon from the terrestrial carbon reservoir and a net increase of carbon in the atmospheric carbon reservoir. The resulting increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide exacerbates climate change.

Given the long time that grey carbon will remain in the •atmosphere–biosphere–hydrosphere system, maintaining the natural processes that regulate atmosphere–biosphere fluxes will be critical for moderating carbon levels in the atmosphere in the short to medium term. If natural forests are able to expand then the increased buffering capacity will act as a negative feedback on the accumulation of greenhouse gasses.

The carbon dynamics of natural forests are significantly •different to those of industrialized forests, especially monoculture plantations. The carbon in natural forests has a longer residence time, the system is more resilient to environmental perturbations and natural processes enable ecological systems and their component species to respond to changing conditions.

19

The Green Carbon baseline problem

Rough bark: E. delegatensis, Bago State Forest, southern NSW. Photo: Heather Keith.

In recognizing the importance of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD), the international community is now exploring appropriate mechanisms that will provide the financial investments needed to protect natural forests and keep them intact. Irrespective of the mechanism, it will be essential to have reliable estimates of baseline carbon accounts against which changes in carbon stocks can be gauged. Two kinds of baselines are needed: 1) the current stock of carbon stored in forests; and 2) the natural carbon carrying capacity of a forest (the amount of carbon that can be stored in a forest in the absence of human land-use activity). The difference between the two is called the carbon sequestration potential—the maximum amount of carbon that can be stored if a forest is allowed to grow given prevailing climatic conditions and natural disturbance regimes.

The greater the carbon sequestration potential of a forest, the more the carbon stock has been degraded by human land-use activities. It follows that stopping the carbon-degrading land-use activities will allow the forest to regrow carbon stocks to their potential—assuming the natural regenerative capacity of the ecosystem is maintained. Most carbon accounting schemes focus simply on the current carbon stocks in a landscape and do not consider a forest’s natural carbon carrying capacity. This is partly because the concept is not widely appreciated but also because its calculation is difficult.

E. fraxinoides, Deua National Park, NSW (400 t C ha-1 of biomass carbon). Photo: Ian Smith.

20

It is not possible to predict the carbon carrying capacity of a natural forest reliably from process-based simulation models. This is because the carbon stock is the result of a complex set of multi-scaled natural processes, some of which can be modelled reliably (for example, gross primary productivity), while others cannot because they are understood only poorly (in particular, allocation of biomass components, turnover times of components and rates of decomposition). Consequently, estimating carbon carrying capacity relies on empirical data gathered from natural forests largely undisturbed by human land-use activity. Natural disturbances, however, have to be taken into account. As noted above, commercial logging significantly reduces the standing stock of carbon below the natural carbon carrying capacity because most of the biomass carbon in a forest is in the woody stems of large trees (more than 70 cm diameter at breast height; Brown et al. 1997), which are removed over time. In contrast, tree mortality by natural processes such as wind, fire or pests removes more of the small, weaker trees and a smaller proportion of large trees. The role of fire in natural forests is complex and must be considered on a landscape-wide basis in terms of the pattern of fire events over time (so-called ‘fire regimes’) (Mackey et al. 2002). It follows that estimating natural carbon carrying capacity requires data that sample the range of ecosystem conditions found in a natural forest.

Conventional approaches to estimating biomass carbon stocks are based on stand-level commercial forestry inventory techniques. These data are not, however, suitable for calculating the carbon carrying capacity of natural forests. In industrialized forests, mensuration is focused mainly on estimating regrowth rates in logged stands. Consequently, the most commonly available field-survey data about the standing crop of carbon in forests are from regrowth stands. These data cannot be used to estimate the carbon stocks of ecologically mature natural forests. To estimate the carbon carrying capacity of a natural forest, field data are needed from sites that have not been subjected to commercial logging and that sample all carbon pools in the ecosystem (living biomass, dead biomass and soil) at appropriate space/time scales. As natural forests can take 200 to 400 or more years to reach their mature biomass levels (Saldarriaga et al. 1988; Dean et al. 2003), carbon accounts must reflect such long-term dynamics.

In the next section, we present some results from our continuing investigations into baseline green carbon accounts using the eucalypt forests of south-eastern Australia as our case study. We present estimates of the natural carbon carrying capacity of these forest ecosystems. We then use these results to consider some of the policy implications for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.

21

souTh-easTern ausTralia euCalypT foresT Case sTudy

Canopy leaves: Lamington National Park, Queensland. Photo: Heather Keith.

introduction

The location of the study region is shown in Figure 2. Our approach draws on existing methods plus some innovations necessary to deal with various problems that arise, including: a) stand ages are often unknown and stands are commonly multi-aged; b) disturbance and land-use history might be unknown; c) forests that have remained undisturbed by human land-use activity usually occur in rugged topography; and d) little information exists about the growth curves over time of many tree species. Analyses drew on a range of inputs: remote sensing data, spatially explicit environmental variables and site data that sampled carbon pools.

The analytical framework developed to estimate the carbon carrying capacity of eucalypt forests in south-eastern Australia was based on knowledge of ecological processes as represented in Figure 3. Gross primary productivity (GPP) is the annual rate of carbon uptake by photosynthesis. Net primary productivity (NPP) is the annual rate of carbon accumulation in plant tissues after deducting the loss of carbon dioxide by autotrophic (plant) respiration (R

a). This

carbon is used for production of new biomass components—leaves, branches, stems, fine roots and coarse roots—which increments the carbon stock in living plants. Mortality and the turnover time of carbon in these components vary from weeks (for fine roots), months or years (for leaves, bark and twigs) to centuries (for woody stem tissues). Mortality produces the dead biomass components that provide the input of carbon to the litter layer and soil through decomposition. The carbon that is consumed by herbivores and micro-organisms is emitted as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by the process of heterotrophic respiration (R

h). The remaining

carbon contributes to accumulation in the soil. Accumulation

figure 2: location of the case study region, and the natural eucalyPt forests in south-eastern australia

22

carbon Pools in natural forests

(pools as an average per cent of total carbon stock)

Living aboveground biomass (43%): Corymbia maculata, south coast NSW. Photo: Sandra Berry.

Dead biomass in stags (6%): E. regnans, central highlands, Victoria. Photo: Luke Chamberlain.

Coarse woody debris (7%): E. obliqua, Mt. Wellington, Tasmania. Photo: Rob Blakers.

Litter layer (2%): E. fastigata forest, Shoalhaven catchment. Photo: Sandra Berry.

Root biomass (8%): E. delegatensis, Bago State Forest, southern NSW. Photo: Heather Keith.

Soil profile (34%): Red Dermosol, Bago State Forest, southern NSW. Photo: Heather Keith.

23

of carbon in the plant and soil reservoir is highly dependent on the residence time of each of the components of living and dead biomass and soil. Little information about these processes exists for natural forests. Therefore, our empirical approach to estimate carbon carrying capacity used site-specific data from natural forests largely undisturbed by human land-use activity.

The outcome of our analyses was an estimate of the carbon carrying capacity of the natural eucalypt forests in south-eastern Australia(10), which are shown in Figure 2. Analyses were restricted to forested land with environmental conditions that were within the numerical ranges sampled by our site data—yielding an area of approximately 14.5 million ha.

summary of methods

Gross primary productivity (GPP) was calculated using the method of Roderick et al. (2001), as applied by Berry et al. (2007; see also Mackey et al. 2008). The source data were a continental time series of GPP modelled from the NASA MODIS (MOD13Q1) satellite data (Barrett et al. 2005) at a resolution of 250 m. The value of GPP used was the maximum annual value for the period from 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2005 (the maximum was used in order to exclude periods of major disturbance such as the 2003 bushfires).

10 These forests were defined as Major Vegetation Groups 2 and 3 in the National

Vegetation Information System (NVIS 2003), where tree height is greater than 10 m

and canopy cover is greater than 30%.

figure 3: framework illustrating the ecological Processes involved in estimating the carbon carrying caPacity of natural forests (that is, green carbon stocks).

Boxes represent stocks of carbon, and arrows represent fluxes (movement) of carbon.

24

figure 4: estimated gPP for the study region and the location of field sites

The distribution of GPP by area is shown in the histogram, with a range of 12 to 33 t c ha-1 yr-1.

figure 5: sPatial distribution of total soil carbon

The distribution of soil carbon by area is shown in the histogram, with a range of <50 to 2000 t c ha-1.

25

figure 6: sPatial distribution of the total biomass carbon Predicted from the model

The distribution of total biomass carbon by area is shown in the histogram with a range of <50 to 2500 t c ha-1.

figure 7: sPatial distribution of total carbon Predicted from the model (that is, the carbon carrying caPacity)

The distribution of total carbon by area is shown in the histogram, with a range of <50 to 2500 t c ha-1.

26

The proportion of carbon uptake used for biomass production is represented by the ratio of NPP:GPP. Relationships between GPP, NPP and biomass have been assumed to have constant coefficients in many modelling studies in the literature (for example, Waring et al. 1998). There has, however, been controversy about this issue (Keeling and Phillips 2007). We reviewed a global data set of 28 forest sites where NPP and GPP were measured and found that the ratio varied from 0.29 to 0.61. We statistically related NPP:GPP ratios with the corresponding environmental conditions for each site. This relationship improved the prediction of the proportion of carbon uptake used for biomass production compared with using a constant fraction of 0.47, which is used commonly in the literature. NPP was then estimated spatially by multiplying GPP for each grid cell in the GIS database by the NPP:GPP ratio predicted for that cell(11).

The living biomass carbon stock represents the balance between carbon accumulation from NPP and loss by mortality to the dead biomass carbon stock. The relationship between NPP and biomass carbon stock was investigated empirically using data from 240 sites in south-eastern Australia. These sites were in undisturbed mature forests and the data were collated from a range of sources and ecological studies. These field data were converted to spatial estimates of living biomass using appropriate allometric equations. Dead biomass includes the litter layer, coarse woody debris and standing dead trees. These components were measured only at some sites and, where there were no data, averages for forest types were used from a synthesis of information in the literature.

11 As noted in the introduction, full details of methods will be made available in a

scientific paper currently in preparation.

Coarse woody debris, central highlands, Victoria. Photo: Peter Halasz.

27

The relationship between NPP and biomass stock is confounded by other factors that influence allocation and turnover rates. We investigated the use of environmental variables in conjunction with remotely sensed estimates of NPP as correlates to predict biomass. We used available spatial data for a selection of climatic, substrate and topographic environmental variables. A water availability index was also calculated and used as an ecologically meaningful expression of the interaction between precipitation and radiation. The effect of the environmental variables was described by a multiple regression model that accounted for 47 per cent of the variance in predicting total biomass in south-eastern Australian forests.

Soil carbon estimates were calculated from spatial data layers of soil depth, bulk density and soil carbon concentration as mapped by the Australian Soil Resource Information System (CSIRO 2007), and compared with site data where they existed. These values are for soil organic carbon only and would be higher if estimates of soil charcoal were available.

The analyses resulted in spatial predictions of living and dead biomass carbon and soil carbon, given prevailing environmental conditions, and assuming that the forests were ecologically mature and had not been disturbed by human activities. If the input field-site data have sampled landscape variability adequately, the effect of differences in climate, substrate, topography, wildfires and other natural disturbances should be reflected in these estimates. The statistical models enable the mean and standard deviation of carbon values to be calculated, where the latter can be interpreted in part to reflect the natural variability of conditions that affect forest growth in the region.

In this way, we were able to estimate and generate maps of the study region’s natural carbon carrying capacity, thereby producing for the first time a baseline green carbon account for these natural forests.

results

The spatial distributions of the main components of the green carbon budget for the eucalypt forests of south-eastern Australia are shown for GPP (Figure 4), soil carbon (Figure 5), total biomass carbon (Figure 6) and total carbon (Figure 7) and are summarised in Table 1. Areas of rainforest are marked on these maps, but the carbon stock has not been predicted for them because there were insufficient site data from rainforests available for this study to predict biomass accurately. Predictions of carbon stocks have been made only within the numerical range of the input site data.

28

table 1: summary of the carbon stock of each comPonent of the carbon carrying caPacity of the eucalyPt forests of south-eastern australia

carbon component soil living biomass

total biomass total carbon

Total carbon stock for the region (Mt c)

4060 4191 5220 9280

carbon stock ha-1 (t c ha-1)

280

(161)

289

(226)

360

(277)

640

(383)

carbon stock per hectare is represented as a mean and standard deviation (in parentheses), which represents the variation in modelled estimates across the region. The study region covers an area of 14.5 million ha, representing 2 279 358 pixels at 250 m resolution.

Accumulation of carbon in biomass is related positively to NPP. Wide variance occurs, with many sites having a lower biomass for a given NPP than this maximum. This high spatial variability reflects the influence of environmental variables and natural disturbance regimes on the residence time of carbon in biomass components. The high spatial variability in carbon stocks across the region is represented as high standard deviations in Table 1, with particularly high values of carbon stocks covering only relatively small geographic areas.

The highest biomass carbon stocks (more than 1500 t C ha-1) are in the mountain ash (Eucalyptus regnans) forest in the Central Highlands of Victoria (based on the forest types where data were available). This is cool temperate evergreen forest with a tall eucalypt overstorey and dense Acacia spp. and temperate-rainforest tree understorey. Environmental conditions are ideal for plant growth and accumulation of biomass, with high rainfall, moderate temperatures, moderately fertile and deep soils and in a sheltered valley. Highest biomass occurs in stands with two or three age cohorts of overstorey trees and rejuvenated understorey trees, which have resulted from partial stand-replacing wildfires (see Lindenmayer et al. 1999; Mackey et al. 2002).

Forest types where biomass is relatively low for a high NPP occur in the subtropics of northern coastal New South Wales and southern Queensland, where tree longevity is relatively lower and decomposition rates are higher than in temperate forests, resulting in lower accumulation of living and dead biomass. Sites with limiting environmental conditions—such as low water availability, infertile or shallow soils—also have lower biomass for a given NPP. Additionally, some forest stands might not be at maximum age and hence biomass, because the site history was uncertain.

29

Comparison wiTh exisTinG Carbon aCCounTs

Soil matrix with fine roots: Red Dermosol, Brindabella Ranges. Photo: Heather Keith.

One way to understand the significance of our estimates of the carbon carrying capacity of the natural forests of south-eastern Australia is to compare them with values estimated from other sources. Two widely used sources of forest carbon data are the default values published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and estimates derived from the Australian Government’s National Carbon Accounting System (NCAS).

The IPCC recommends default values for estimating green carbon stocks in the absence of local data (Watson et al. 2001). Mean carbon stock and flux values are provided for the world’s major biomes(12), as detailed in Table 2. Our analyses (Table 1) showed that the stock of carbon for intact natural forests in our study area is about 640 t C ha-1 and the average NPP of natural forests is 12 t C ha-1 yr-1 (with a standard deviation of 1.8). In terms of global biomes, Australian forests are classified as temperate forests. The IPCC default values for temperate forests are a carbon stock of 217 t C ha-1 and an NPP of 7 t C ha-1 yr-1.

table 2: estimated average uPtake and carbon stocks in the world’s main forest biomes

forest biome nPP (t c ha-1 yr - 1)

carbon stock (t c ha-1)

soil biomass total

Boreal forests

2.1 296 53 349

Temperate forests

7.0 122 96 217

Tropical forests

10.0 122 157 279

Source: Watson, r. T., Noble, i. r., Bolin, B., ravindranath, N. H., Verardo, D. J. and Dokken, D. J. (eds) 2001, Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry, intergovernmental Panel on climate change (iPcc), cambridge University Press, Third Assessment report, Table 3.2.

Comparing the values in Tables 1 and 2, it can be seen that the IPCC default values represent only one-third of the natural carbon carrying capacity of the eucalypt forests of south-eastern Australia, and only 27 per cent of the biomass carbon stock. Using our figures, the total stock of carbon that can be stored in the 14.5 million ha of eucalypt forest in our study region is 9.3 Gt, if it is undisturbed by intensive human land-use activity and allowed to reach its natural carbon carrying capacity; applying the IPCC default values would give only 3.1 Gt. Note that while our model estimates the average total carbon stock of natural eucalypt forests at 640 t C ha-1, real site values range up to 2500 t C ha-1 . This range reflects the natural variability found across landscapes in the environmental conditions and disturbance regimes that affect forest growth.

12 Biomes are large areas that have a similar climate and vegetation structure—that

is, the vegetation has a similar height and density, even though the floristic composition

might differ.

30

How can we explain the difference in total carbon between our estimates and the IPCC default values? The answer lies in the fact that current approaches to carbon accounting have been designed to estimate carbon stocks and flows in industrialized forests, including plantations. That is, they are designed to measure what we call brown carbon, not green carbon. As we discussed earlier, current approaches generally use field data from forestry mensuration plots. These plots are designed to provide estimates of growth rates in regenerating trees of commercial importance, which store much less carbon than unlogged natural forests. This is the main reason why carbon accounting methods that are calibrated using field data from industrialized forests significantly underestimate a landscape’s carbon carrying capacity. There is also the problem of definition of forest and how different average values are compared. The definition of forest used in the Australian classification is trees taller than 10 m and canopy cover greater than 30 per cent, whereas the definition of forest used for the IPCC default values is trees taller than 2 m and canopy cover greater than 10 per cent (UNFCCC 2002). Additionally, the forests of south-eastern Australia have high GPP relative to typical default values.

Green carbon accounting tools for natural forests need to be calibrated using ecological field data obtained from sites that have not been disturbed by intensive human land-use activity, especially commercial logging. We made a special effort to find such ecological field data for our study region so that our estimates of carbon stocks were calibrated appropriately to represent the landscape’s carbon carrying capacity.

Further insight into the requirements of green carbon accounting can be gained by comparing our estimates with those generated from the NCAS (Australian Greenhouse Office 2007a). The NCAS was designed to model biomass growth in plantations and afforestation/reforestation projects using native plantings. The empirically based calculations within the NCAS were calibrated using data appropriate for that purpose. Consequently, the NCAS was not designed to estimate the carbon carrying capacity of undisturbed natural forests.

To illustrate the need to calibrate carbon models using data that are appropriate for the purpose of a study, we used the NCAS to calculate carbon stocks at the locations for which we had obtained field data. Figure 8 shows the results of this analysis and compares the biomass estimates from the NCAS with our modelled predictions and with the real biomass calculated at each of the field sites used in our study (see Figure 4).

The NCAS generally underestimates biomass in natural forests that are largely undisturbed by human land-use activity—that is, the NCAS underestimates the carbon carrying capacity of natural forests. This is not surprising because it was not developed with this purpose in mind. The NCAS is a well-designed carbon accounting tool that represents the main ecological processes shown in

31

Figure 3. It is theoretically and technically possible to modify this program by calibrating it with data and empirical relationships—such as those we have used to develop our model—appropriate for the purpose of estimating the natural carbon carrying capacity of forests.

figure 8: comParison of gPP and biomass

GPP was calculated by the methods used in this report and biomass estimates were derived from: i) the NcAS (orange open circles); ii) field sites (blue triangles); and iii) our modelled relationships between NPP and environmental variables (green open diamonds).

33

impliCaTions for Carbon poliCy

Lichen: Lamington National Park, Queensland. Photo: Michael Hodda.

E. obliqua, Mt. Wellington, Tasmania. Photo: Rob Blakers.

the imPortance of carbon carrying caPacity

We noted in the introduction that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified the need for forest-based mitigation analyses that account for natural variability in forest conditions, use primary forest structure and composition data and provide reliable baseline carbon accounts (Nabuurs et al. 2007). The approach we document in this study provides the means to generate such reliable baseline green carbon accounts for natural forests.

Once estimates of the carbon carrying capacity for a landscape have been derived, it is possible to calculate a forest’s future carbon sequestration potential. This is the difference between a landscape’s current carbon stock (under current land management) and the carbon carrying capacity (the maximum carbon stock when undisturbed by humans).

The current carbon stocks reflect the impact of human land-use activities in removing woody biomass from the forest, in some cases degrading soil carbon, and reducing residence time of organic carbon pools in the ecosystem. Some human activities also lead to an increase in fire, which again reduces current stocks, especially if there is post-fire salvage logging (Mackey et al. 2002).

The carbon sequestration potential is the amount of green carbon that potentially can be sequestered and stored in a landscape, if no further carbon-degrading land-use activity occurs and prevailing natural disturbance regimes persist. If a natural forest has not been subjected to intensive human land-use activity, the current carbon stock should be equal to the estimated carbon carrying capacity. When the carbon carrying capacity is known, the limiting factor in calculating the carbon sequestration potential of a landscape is the availability of data needed to calculate current carbon stocks, especially data about: 1) land-use history, and 2) the carbon stocks in dead and living woody biomass and soil. All of these data are needed on a landscape-wide basis.

The correct baseline to use when undertaking green carbon accounting is the carbon carrying capacity, against which the significance of changes in carbon stocks can be gauged. The calculation of most practical significance is the carbon sequestration potential. The approach developed by Roxburgh et al. (2006) includes a simulation model that, once calibrated properly, can estimate the carbon sequestration potential of natural forests. Such analyses are part of our continuing research activities.

Given the extensive impact of human land-use activities, particularly land clearing and all forms of commercial logging, carbon carrying capacity has to be estimated carefully in many landscapes from the best available data. If the carbon carrying capacity is not considered explicitly, the current carbon stock will be taken as representing the baseline against which future changes are gauged. Assuming there is a history of intensive

34

land use, the result will be an underestimate of the green carbon account. The landscape’s potential for carbon storage will have been undervalued.

deforestation and forest degradation

After the 2007 Bali Climate Change Conference, the international community formally recognized the need to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation as part of a comprehensive approach to solving the climate change problem. Deforestation is the result of a complex process reflecting the interaction of many factors such as national development priorities, local community needs and aspirations, the concerns of civil society organisations and commercial interests. Land and its resources are factors in production, and usually end up being allocated to the highest market-based economic value, unless governments intervene to protect non-market values through special conservation policies and legislation.

Clearing natural forests for bio-fuel plantations currently gives the highest economic return in many situations. Unfortunately, international rules defining forests and government carbon trading do not prevent natural forests in developing countries from being cleared for bio-fuel plantations. For example, in Indonesia, natural forests are being cleared for monoculture plantations of oil palms (Fargione et al. 2008). The international rules also do not prevent natural forests in developed countries being cleared for monoculture plantations (see Milne 2007).

Clearing natural forests to establish plantations does not reflect a scientific understanding of the difference between natural and industrialized forests. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, the international rules that govern carbon trading and national-level policies do not distinguish between what we call in this report grey, brown and green carbon. Ignoring the difference between these forms of carbon can create ecologically perverse incentives for changing the land use and land cover.

It has now been shown that converting natural ecosystems to produce food-based bio-fuels creates a ‘bio-fuel carbon debt’ by releasing 17 to 420 times more carbon dioxide than the annual greenhouse gas reductions these bio-fuels provide by displacing fossil fuels (Fargione et al. 2008). The larger the natural carbon carrying capacity of a forest ecosystem (and the more intact the forest’s carbon stocks), the greater will be the carbon debt from clearing to grow plantations. For eucalypt forests, recovery of the carbon debt from clearing intact natural forest through afforestation or reforestation takes more than 100 years (Roxburgh et al. 2006).

Forests are defined under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as woody vegetation of at least 2 m in height and 10 per cent canopy cover. It is therefore

35

a simple structural definition based on the height and density of woody plants in an area (UNFCCC 2002)(13). One reason for the perverse outcomes we are now witnessing in forests is the limitation of this definition and associated rules that do not reflect: 1) an understanding of green carbon accounting as presented here; and 2) an ecological and evolutionary scientific understanding about how a natural forest differs from an industrialized forest. To appreciate this difference, we need to consider the web of ecological and evolutionary processes that sustain the system within which the green carbon is stored.

In addition to the dominant tree canopy layer, natural forests contain a vast array of other plant species that support, through the biomass they produce from photosynthesis, an extraordinary diversity of animal species (mammals, birds, reptiles, invertebrates), fungi and a multitude of microbial organisms. A natural forest contains genetic information that is being copied continually (through reproduction), corrected (through the failure to survive of organisms with faulty copies), replaced (by the survivors) and revised (through proliferation of organisms possessing favourable modifications to the genome). Most importantly, this revision of the genome allows populations to adapt to environmental changes, including the climate change that we are currently experiencing.

Maintenance of the genetic diversity of natural forests, and therefore the capacity of the organisms contained therein to continue to adapt to environmental change, requires a self-perpetuating system. When land is deforested, this store of genetic information is reduced and the capacity of the remaining population of the species to adapt to environmental change is compromised. Clearing of natural forest reduces the population viability of the biota in the remaining unmodified forest (Lindenmayer and Fischer 2006). The living information in the genetic material of the forest biota regulates the bio-geochemical and ecosystem processes (Gorshkov et al. 2000). As natural forest is self-sustaining, it is able to persist without the need for management inputs from humans. Consequently, carbon accounting in natural forests need consider only the carbon gains and losses associated with biological processes; photosynthesis, respiration and oxidative combustion by wildfire and the production of charcoal.

In contrast with natural forests, industrialized forests comprise a very small number of species. Plantations are not self-sustaining systems; they consist of copies of genetic information and require a succession of energy inputs (mostly sourced from fossil fuels) during their lifetime, from seedling propagation to harvest. These include: site preparation (removal of existing vegetation), seed collection, growth trials to test the potential survival of species, seedling nursery inputs to grow seedlings for planting, planting of seedling

13 In addition to tree crown cover (>10-30%) and height (2-5 m) at maturity, the

IPCC definition of forest includes consideration of the minimum area (0.05-1.0 ha) and

width of land.

36

trees, application of herbicides to suppress competition from weed species, measures to prevent animal species (vertebrates and invertebrates) from browsing on the seedlings, fertilizer application (most soils in Australia are nutrient impoverished) and continuing maintenance to suppress plant and animal pest species and fire.

As plantations are not self-sustaining systems, when the trees are harvested or die, energy inputs (again, sourced mostly from fossil fuels) are required to establish a new crop of trees. All of these fossil-fuel inputs, including those required for the manufacture of consumables such as fertilizer and pesticides, need to be taken into account, along with the biological processes, when assessing the carbon sequestration potential of tree plantations (and other agricultural crops). As plantations are eventually harvested, the fossil-fuel inputs, such as those required for road-making and upgrading, transport of the saw-logs for processing, the energy needs (and carbon dioxide emissions) for processing of timber or woodchips, and other industrial processes, should also be deducted from the gross pre-harvest carbon stock.

Despite the progress we are now seeing in the development of international policy responses to the problem of deforestation, there remains a lack of clarity about the kinds of human activities that contribute to forest degradation. From a climate change perspective, forest degradation needs to be defined to include the impact of all human land-use activity that reduces the current carbon stock in a natural forest compared with its natural carbon carrying capacity. The impact of commercial logging on natural forests must therefore also be considered when accounting for forest degradation. As discussed earlier, commercially logged forests have substantially lower carbon stocks and reduced biodiversity than intact natural forests, and studies have shown carbon stocks to be 40 to 60 per cent lower depending on the intensity of logging (Brown et al. 1997; Dean et al. 2003; Roxburgh et al. 2006). In Brazilian Amazon, the area of natural forest that is logged commercially resulting in degraded carbon stocks is equivalent to that subject to deforestation and represents approximately 0.1 Gt of green carbon emissions to the atmosphere (Asner et al. 2005).

While clearing for agriculture (either intensive or subsistence) can be a major cause of deforestation and forest degradation (especially in tropical forests), commercial logging can also be the initial causal factor. Depending on the prevailing regulatory framework, a succession of planned and unplanned, legal and illegal land-use activities can be introduced into a landscape facilitated by the logging infrastructure—in particular, the road network. The end point of this process can be broad-scale degradation and deforestation, with associated increased carbon dioxide emissions.

green carbon and mitigation

Given the scale and urgency of the climate change problem, we need to take a fresh look at the contribution natural forests can

37

make to mitigating rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. We can illustrate the implications of taking a fresh approach by considering again the carbon carrying capacity we have calculated for the eucalypt forests in south-eastern Australia (Figure 7). Our comments here, however, can be of a preliminary nature only as we have not yet calculated the carbon sequestration potential of these forests—a task that remains part of our continuing research.

About 30 per cent of Australia’s forests have been cleared and the land converted to agricultural or other land uses. Of the 14.5 million ha of eucalypt forest shown in Figure 7 (which is about half of Australia’s remaining eucalypt forests), about 4.9 million ha are in some kind of protected area, while 9.6 million ha are on either public or private land. Of the unprotected natural forest, about 8.1 million ha (about 56 per cent) have been logged commercially.

Protecting natural forests can be part of a comprehensive mitigation strategy in two ways:

keeping the carbon in the forest ecosystem—that is, in the 1. biomass and bound to soil particles

allowing the forests that have been logged previously to re-2. grow and reach their carbon sequestration potential.

The carbon carrying capacity of the 14.5 million ha of eucalypt forest in our study area is about 9 Gt C (equivalent to 33 Gt CO

2).

About 44 per cent of the area has not been logged and can be considered at carbon carrying capacity, which represents about 4 Gt C (equivalent to 14.5 Gt CO

2). About 56 per cent of the area

has been logged, which means these forests are substantially below their carbon carrying capacity of 5 Gt C. If it is assumed that logged forest is, on average, 40 per cent below carbon carrying capacity (Roxburgh et al. 2006), the current carbon stock is 3 Gt C (equivalent to 11 Gt CO

2). The total current carbon stock of the 14.5 million ha

is 7 Gt C (equivalent to 25.5 Gt CO2). If logging in native eucalypt

forests was halted, the carbon stored in the intact forests would be

E. regnans in Mt. Baw Baw, Victoria. Photo: Chris Taylor.

38

protected and the degraded forests would be able to regrow their carbon stocks to their natural carbon carrying capacity. Based on the assumptions above, the carbon sequestration potential of the logged forest area is 2 Gt C (equivalent to 7.5 Gt CO

2).

Costa and Wilson (2000) have derived an equivalence factor to relate the stock of carbon in the biosphere to the effect of the emitted carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, stated as “the effect of keeping 1 t CO

2 out of the atmosphere for 1 year”. This is based

on the inference that “removing 1 t CO2 from the atmosphere

and storing it for 55 years counteracts the radiative forcing effect, integrated over a 100 year time horizon, of a 1 t CO

2 emission pulse”.

Applying this equivalence factor, every 1 t CO2 sequestered as a

biosphere stock for 55 years is equal, in a radiative forcing context, to 0.0182 t CO

2 yr-1 (for 100 years) of avoided emissions, and every

1 Gt CO2 stored is equivalent to 18.2 Mt CO

2 yr-1 (for 100 years) of

avoided emissions. The effect of retaining the current carbon stock of 25.5 Gt CO

2 in our study area is therefore equivalent to avoided

emissions of 460 Mt CO2 yr-1 for the next 100 years. Allowing logged

forests to realize their sequestration potential to store 7.5 Gt CO2

is equivalent to avoiding emissions of 136 Mt CO2 yr-1 for the next

100 years. This amount of emissions is equal to 24 per cent of the 2005 Australian net greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors (559 Mt CO

2 yr-1) (Australian Greenhouse Office 2007b). This

approach is assuming a 100 year lifetime for most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, Archer (2005) considers a better approximation of the lifetime of fossil fuel carbon dioxide might be “300 years plus 25% that lasts forever”.

Another way of appreciating the relative importance of the carbon stock in forests is to compare it with the stock in the atmosphere. If the entire carbon stock was released from the forests in our study area into the atmosphere, it would raise the global concentration of carbon dioxide by 3.3 ppmv(14). This is a globally significant amount of carbon dioxide; since 1750 AD, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by some 97 ppmv.

It is possible to achieve protection of the carbon stocks in natural forests by switching to timber sourced from existing plantations and, if necessary, from new plantations on previously cleared land. In this way, the commercial demand for wood fibre can be met and the contribution of natural forests to greenhouse gas mitigation can be maximized. Currently, about 68 per cent of wood fibre is sourced from the plantation estate, but current plantation stocks are sufficient to meet nearly all the national demand for wood and paper products (Ajani 2007).

14 1 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere is equivalent to 2.13 Gt C (Carbon Dioxide

Information Analysis Center).

39

ConCludinG CommenTs

Canopy leaves: E. delegatensis, Bago State Forest, southern NSW. Photo: Heather Keith.

In considering the role of natural forests in the climate change problem, we must avoid the temptation to take a reductionist approach in which all we see is a measure of carbon with a fungible, market value. Much of what distinguishes natural forests from industrialized forests cannot be measured let alone assigned a market value. We are just beginning to understand the powerful ways in which micro-evolutionary processes enable local adaptations in very dynamic ways and over what were previously considered to be ecological time scales (Bradshaw and Holzapfel 2006). Molecular analyses are also revealing the extraordinary complexity, persistence and geographic patterning of coevolutionary relationships between populations and across communities (Thompson 2005). Indeed, it is these elusive biological, ecological and evolutionary attributes that underpin the qualities that make green carbon in natural forests a more reliable and resilient stock compared with the brown carbon of industrialized forests. Green carbon is not analogous to the grey carbon of coal; it emerges from and is part of complex, adaptive ecosystems.

Carbon accounting models must be calibrated specifically with appropriate ecological field data before they can generate reliable estimates for natural forests. Default Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) values and accounting tools developed for industrialized forests will not generate reliable estimates for natural forests. Green carbon accounting for natural forests is needed, based on reliable estimates of: 1) the carbon carrying capacity; 2) current carbon stocks; and 3) the carbon sequestration potential. With these data, it is possible to evaluate the carbon uptake from, or emission to, the atmosphere from changing land-use activities and land cover. Our approach to green carbon accounting enables these essential calculations to be undertaken. It addresses the IPCC’s call for the need for forest-based mitigation analyses that account for natural variability, use primary data and provide reliable baseline carbon accounts.

Forest degradation should be defined from a climate change perspective to include any human land-use activity that reduces the carbon stocks of a forested landscape relative to its carbon carrying capacity. The climate change imperative demands that we take a fresh look at our forest estate. The carbon impacts of all land uses, including commercial logging, must be brought explicitly into our calculations in terms of their direct and indirect effects on forest degradation.

The remaining intact natural forests constitute a significant standing stock of carbon that should be protected from carbon-emitting land-use activities. There is substantial potential for carbon sequestration in forest areas that have been logged commercially, if allowed to regrow undisturbed by further intensive human land-use activities.

As the world community begins the difficult and complex task of negotiating the terms for the post-2012 commitment period under

40

the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), various mechanisms are being proposed to provide the incentives and investments necessary for forest protection, particularly in developing countries. The international regulatory framework being developed to help reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation needs to be based on a scientific understanding of natural forests and the ecological differences between natural forests and industrialized forests, especially monoculture plantations. Protecting existing natural forests from deforestation is important because it prevents the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels that will necessarily result. The imperative to protect what is left of the world’s natural forests (in addition to their intrinsic and other non-market values) comes from recognising their role in the global carbon cycle and the need to keep intact an essential component of Earth’s life-support systems. The green carbon stored in natural forests is a significant component of the global carbon cycle, and about 18 per cent of annual greenhouse gas emissions come from deforestation.

More reliable estimates of baseline green carbon will enable the contribution of natural forests to the global carbon cycle to be valued properly. Our analyses show that in Australia and probably globally, the carbon carrying capacity of natural forests is underestimated and therefore misrepresented in economic valuations and in policy options. Scientifically, it is important to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in all forest biomes—boreal, tropical and temperate—and in economically developed as well as developing countries. Green carbon accounting and forest protection of all natural forests in all nations must become part of a comprehensive approach to the climate change problem.

E. regnans in Styx valley, Tasmania (1300 t C ha-1 of biomass carbon). Photo: Geoff Law.

41

aCknowledGmenTs

Moss on fallen log: E. obliqua, Mt Wellington, Tasmania. Photo: Rob Blakers.

The provision of unpublished data from Andrew Claridge, Phil Gibbons, Kris Jacobsen and Charlie Mackowski is gratefully acknowledged. In collaboration with these researchers, a technical paper is in preparation, detailing methods and results, for submission to a scientific journal. Any errors in this report, however, and the comments on the results’ policy implications, are solely the responsibility of Mackey, Keith, Berry and Lindenmayer.

We are grateful to The Wilderness Society Australia for a research grant that supported the analyses presented in this report. Thanks also to Clive Hilliker, Luciana Porfirio and Andrew Wong for their assistance in the technical production of this report, and Michael Roderick and Henry Nix for helpful comments on a draft. We thank the photographers, Sarah Rees, Luke Chamberlain, Rob Blakers, Chris Taylor, Ern Mainka, Geoff Law, Andrew Wong, Ian Smith, Michael Hodda and Peter Halasz, for the use of their images. These analyses also drew on data and models developed as part of an Australian Research Council Linkage grant, LP0455163.

Natural forest of multi-aged E. regnans with rainforest understorey in the O’Shannassy catchment, central highlands, Victoria. (1800 t C ha-1 of biomass carbon). Photo: Luke Chamberlain.

43

referenCes

Fungi in the litter layer: E. fastigata forest, Shoalhaven catchment. Photo: Sandra Berry.

Corymbia maculata, south coast NSW. Photo: Andrew Wong.

Abe, H., Sam, N., Niangu, M., Vatnabar, P. and Kiyono, Y. 1999, ‘Effect of logging on forest structure at the Mongi-Busiga forest research plots, Finschhafen, Papua New Guinea’, Proceedings of the PNGFRI–JICA International Forestry Seminar, 4–7 October 1999, PNGFRI Bulletin No. 18, Papua New Guinea Forest Research Institute.

Ajani, J. 2007, The Forest Wars, Melbourne University Press, Carlton.

Archer, D. 2005, ‘Fate of fossil fuel CO2 in geologic time’, Journal of

Geophysical Research, 110, pp. 1–6.

Asner, G., Knapp, D. E., Broadbent, E. N., Oliveira, P. J. C., Keller, M. and Silva, J. N. 2005, ‘Selective logging in the Brazilian Amazon’, Science, 310, pp. 480–2.

Australian Greenhouse Office 2007a, National Carbon Accounting System, Australian Greenhouse Office, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, <http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas >

Australian Greenhouse Office, 2007b, National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, Australian Greenhouse Office, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, <http:/www.greenhouse.gov.au/inventory>

Barrett, D. J. 2002, ‘Steady state turnover time of carbon in the Australian terrestrial biosphere’, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 16 (4), p. 1108, doi:10.1029/2002GB001860.

Barrett, D. J., Byrne, G. and Senarath, U. 2005, ‘The 250m 16-day vegetation index product (MOD13Q1) for Australia’, CSIRO Land and Water Technical Report, 05/05, CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra.

Berger, A. and Loutre, M. F. 2002, ‘CLIMATE: An exceptionally long interglacial ahead?’, Science, 297, pp. 1287–8.

Berry, S., Mackey, B. and Brown, T. 2007, ‘Potential applications of remotely sensed vegetation greenness to habitat analysis and the conservation of dispersive fauna’, Pacific Conservation Biology, 13, pp. 120–7.

Brack, C. L., Richards, G. and Waterworth, R. 2006, ‘Integrated and comprehensive estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from land systems’, Sustainability Science, 1, pp. 91–106.

Bradshaw, W. E. and Holzapfel, C. M 2006, ‘Evolutionary response to rapid climate change’, Science, 312, pp. 147–8.

Brown, J. H., Gillooly, J. F., Allen, A. P., van Savage, M. and West, G. B. 2004, ‘Toward a metabolic theory of ecology’, Ecology, 85, pp. 1771–89.

Brown, S., Schroeder, P. and Birdsey, R. 1997, ‘Aboveground biomass distribution of US eastern hardwood forests and the use of large trees as an indicator of forest development’, Forest Ecology and Management, 96, pp. 37–47.

44

Costa, P. M. and Wilson, C. 2000, ‘An equivalence factor between CO

2 avoided emissions and sequestration—description and

applications in forestry’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 5, pp. 51–60.

Cowan, I. R. and Farquhar, G. D. 1977, ‘Stomatal function in relation to leaf metabolism and environment’, Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology, 31, pp. 471–505.

CSIRO 2007, Australian Soil Resource Information System, <http://www.asris.csiro.au/index_ie.html>

Dean, C., Roxburgh, S. and Mackey, B. 2003, ‘Growth modelling of Eucalyptus regnans for carbon accounting at the landscape scale’, in A. Amaro, D. Reed and P. Soares (eds), Modelling Forest Systems, CABI, Oxon, pp. 27–39.

Des Marais, D. J. 2000, ‘Evolution: When did photosynthesis emerge on Earth?’, Science, 289, pp. 1703–5.

Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. and Hawthorne, P. 2008, ‘Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt’, Science, 319, pp. 1235–8.

Farquhar, G. D. 1997, ‘Climate change: Carbon dioxide and vegetation’, Science, 21, p. 1411.

Farquhar, G. D. and Roderick, M. L. 2003, ‘Pinatubo, diffuse light, and the carbon cycle’, Science, 299, pp. 1997–8.

Golley, F. B. 1983, ‘Decomposition’, in F. B. Golley (ed.), Ecosystems of the World 14A—Tropical Rainforest Ecosystems—Structure and Function, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp. 157–66.

Gorshkov, V. G., Gorshkov, V. V. and Makarieva, A. M. 2000, Biotic Regulation of the Environment: Key issues of global change, Springer Praxis Books, UK.

Gupta, R. K. and Rao, D. L. N. 1994, ‘Potential of wastelands for sequestering carbon by reforestation’, Current Science, 66, pp. 378–80.

Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., Russell, G., Lea, D. W. and Siddall, M. 2007, ‘Climate change and trace gases’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 365, pp. 1925–54.

Harmon, M. E., Ferrell, W. K. and Franklin, J. F. 1990, ‘Effects on carbon storage of conversion of old-growth forests to young forests’, Science, 247, pp. 699–702.

Hollinger, D. Y., Kelliher, F. M., Schulze, E.-D., Bauer, G., Arneth, A., Byers, J. N., Hunt, J. E., McSeveny, T. M., Kobak, K. I., Milukova, I., Sogatchev, A., Tatarinov, F., Varlargin, A., Ziegler, W. and Vygodskaya, N. N. 1998, ‘Forest–atmosphere carbon dioxide exchange in eastern Siberia’, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 90, pp. 291–306.

45

Hooper, D. U. and Vitousek, P. M. 1997, ‘The effects of plant composition and diversity on ecosystem processes’, Science, 277, pp. 1302–5.

Hooper, D. U., Chapin, F. S., Ewel, J. J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., Lawton, J. H., Lodge, D. M., Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Schmid, B., Setala, H., Symstad, A. J., Vandermeer, J. and Wardle, D. A. 2005, ‘Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge’, Ecological Monographs, 75, pp. 3–35.

Houghton, R. 2007, Balancing the global carbon budget. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 35, pp. 313 - 347.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, The Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change 2007: Synthesis report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, <http://www.ipcc.ch/>

Keeling, H. C. and Phillips, O. L. 2007, ‘The global relationship between forest productivity and biomass’, Global Ecology and Biogeography, 16, pp. 618–31.

Lindenmayer, D. B., Incoll R. D., Cunningham, R. B. and Donnelly, C. F. 1999, ‘Attributes of logs on the floor of Australian mountain ash (Eucalyptus regnans) forests of different ages’, Forest Ecology and Management, 123, pp. 195–203.

Lindenmayer D.B. and Fischer J. 2006, Habitat fragmentation and landuse change: An ecological and conservation synthesis. Island Press, Washington, USA.

McCann, K. 2007, ‘Protecting biostructure’, Nature, 446, p. 29.

Mackey, B., Berry, S. and Brown, T. 2008, ‘Reconciling approaches to biogeographic regionalization: a systematic and generic framework examined with a case study of the Australian continent’, Journal of Biogeography, 35, pp. 213–29.

Mackey, B. G., Lindenmayer, D. B., Gill, A. M., McCarthy, A. M. and Lindesay, J. A. 2002, Wildlife, Fire and Future Climate: A forest ecosystem analysis, CSIRO Publishing.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) 2005, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity synthesis, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Milne, C. 2007, Land clearing on the Tiwi Islands, Speech to the Australian Senate, <http://www.christinemilne.org.au/500_parliament_sub.php?deptItemID=163>

Nabuurs, J-G. et al. 2007, ‘Forestry’, in E. Metz, O. R. Robinson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave and L. A. Meyer (eds), Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

46

NVIS 2003, National Vegetation Information System, version 6.0. <http://www.environment.gov.au/erin/nvis>

Odum, E. P. and Barret, G. W. 2004, Fundamentals of Ecology, Thomson Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA.

Odum, H. T. 1981, Energy Basis for Man and Nature, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

Petit, J. R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N. I., Barnola, J.-M., Basile, I., Bender, M., Chappellaz, J., Davis, M., Delaygue, G., Delmotte, M., Kotlyakov, V. M., Legrand, M., Lipenkov, V. Y., Lorius, C., Pépin, L., Ritz, C., Saltzman, E. and Stievenard, M. 1999, ‘Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica’, Nature, 399, pp. 429–36.

Roderick, M. L., Farquhar, G. D., Berry, S. L. and Noble, I. R. 2001, ‘On the direct effect of clouds and atmospheric particles on the productivity and structure of the vegetation’, Oecologia, 129, pp. 21–31.

Roxburgh, S. H., Wood, S. W., Mackey, B. G., Woldendorp, G. and Gibbons, P. 2006, ‘Assessing the carbon sequestration potential of managed forests: a case study from temperate Australia’, Journal of Applied Ecology, 43, pp. 1149–59.

Saldarriaga, J. G., West, D. C., Thorpe, M. L. and Uhl, C. 1988, ‘Long-term chronosequence of forest succession in the upper Rio Negro of Colombia and Venezuela’, Journal of Ecology, 76, pp. 938–58.

Schulze, E.-D., Wirth, C. and Heimann, M. 2000, ‘Managing forests after Kyoto’, Science, 289, pp. 2058–9.

Thompson, J. N. 2005, The Geographic Mosaic of Coevolution, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf>

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2002, Biome-Specific Forest Definitions—Technical paper, Report to the UNFCCC Secretariat, <http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y417e/Y4171E52.htm>

Varmola, M. and Del Lungo, A. 2003, ‘Planted forests database (PFDB): structure and contents’, Planted Forests and Trees Working Papers, 25, Forest Resources Development Service, Forest Resources Division, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome.

Waring, R. H., Landsberg, J. J. and Williams, M. 1998, ‘Net primary production of forests: a constant fraction of gross primary production?’, Tree Physiology, 18, pp. 129–34.

47

Watson, R. T., Noble, I. R., Bolin, B., Ravindranath, N. H., Verardo, D. J. and Dokken, D. J. (eds) 2001, Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press.

Zhang, X, Zwiers, F. W., Hegerl, G. C., Lambert, F. H., Gillet, N. P., Solomon, S., Stott, P. A. and Nozwa, T. 2007, ‘Detection of human influence on twentieth-century precipitation trends’, Nature, 448, pp. 461–5.

Corymbia maculata, south coast NSW (580 t C ha-1 of biomass carbon). Photo: Sandra Berry.

E. regnans, East Gippsland (700 t C ha-1 of biomass carbon). Photo: Ern Mainka. (Overleaf)

Date post:	07-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

VICTORIAN PARLIAMENT’S SOIL SEQUESTRATION ......What does biochar do to soil organic carbon...

Documents