Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
On climate mitigation potentials of growing trees in agricultural landscapes
On climate mitigation potentials of growing trees in agricultural landscapes
On climate mitigation potentials of growing trees in agricultural landscapes
On climate mitigation potentials of growing trees in agricultural landscapes
On climate mitigation potentials of growing trees in agricultural landscapes
On climate mitigation potentials of growing trees in agricultural landscapes
On climate mitigation potentials of growing trees in agricultural landscapes
On climate mitigation potentials of growing trees in agricultural landscapes
On climate mitigation potentials of growing trees in agricultural landscapes
On climate mitigation potentials of growing trees in agricultural landscapes
On climate mitigation potentials of growing trees in agricultural landscapes
On climate mitigation potentials of growing trees in agricultural landscapes
On climate mitigation potentials of growing trees in agricultural landscapes
On climate mitigation potentials of growing trees in agricultural landscapes
On climate mitigation potentials of growing trees in agricultural landscapes
On climate mitigation potentials of growing trees in agricultural landscapes
On climate mitigation potentials of growing trees in agricultural landscapes
On climate mitigation potentials of growing trees in agricultural landscapes
On climate mitigation potentials of growing trees in agricultural landscapes
On climate mitigation potentials of growing trees in agricultural landscapes
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

On climate mitigation potentials of growing trees in agricultural landscapes

231

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
231
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. • Large areas of Swedish agricultural land have been afforested• CO2 sequestration and fossil fuel substitution by trees• Will more afforestation be accepted?• Examples of environmentally friendly afforestation• Afforestation in suggestions for Roadmap 2050Karl-Ivar KummDispositionOn climate mitigation potentials ofgrowing trees in agricultural landscapesPhoto Annika Arnesson
  • 2. 01234561890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010MillionhaTotal agricultural landArable landSemi-natural grassland+ Grazed forestKarl-Ivar Kumm Agricultural land in Sweden
  • 3. Karl-Ivar Kumm‘We have very good reasons to regarddisappearance of the forest grazing asan insignificant loss to agricultureand a great advantage to forestry’(Sweden´s County Boards of Forestry, 1945)SkogsindustriernaAn example: Stopped forest grazing in the 1930s  natural regeneration  cleaning 2-3 thinnings final felling 2011 net felling income 3.9 MSEK/20 ha = 195 000 SEK/haForest grazing ended duringthe first decades of the 1900s
  • 4. Karl-Ivar Kumm Afforestation of the 1950-1960s
  • 5. Karl-Ivar KummAfforestation of the early 1990sSätunaHögestad
  • 6. Climate mitigation of spruce on forest landOld soil C ignoredEriksson et al., 2007. Can J. For. Res. 37:671-6817 m3, slash and stumps notharvested, wood replacingnatural gas10 m3 (fertilized), slash and stumps harvested,wood replacing concrete etc and coal
  • 7. Source/tree Tree biomass Substitution IncrementOlsson, 2010 conifer 600-800Örlander, 2010 conifer 1400 600-800Örlander, 2011 spruce 1400 600-800Örlander, 2011 birch 1700 750-1000Kumm, 2011 birch 1400 700Eriksson, 2011 spruce 13-16Eriksson, 2011 birch 9Kumm, 2011birch 8birch in pasture 2birch in agroforestry 4Sequestration in tree biomass and emission avoided due tosubstitution (kg CO2/m3) and annual increment (m3/year)
  • 8. Sequestration in tree biomass and emissionavoided due to substitution (kg CO2/ha/year)Tree biomass SubstitutionSpruce 13*1400=18200 13*700=9100Birch 8*1400=11200 8*700=5600Birch in pasture 2*1400=2800 2*700=1400Birch in agroforestry 4*1400=5600 4*700=2800Hybrid aspen 18*1000=18000 18*500=9000Afforested arable landEPA 2012 (4 Mton/0.4 Mha) 10000
  • 9. Sequestration in tree biomass and emissionavoided due to substitution (Mton CO2/Mha/year)Tree biomass SubstitutionSpruce or hybrid aspen 18 9Birch 11 6Birch in agroforestry 6 3Total emissions from agriculture 10 Mton (SBA, 2012).Sequestration of 0.6-0.9 Mha can compensate it
  • 10. 0 5 10 15 20 25Suckler cow + steer finishingSuckler cow + bull finishingSteer of dairy breedBull of dairy breedGrazing based lambIndoor raised lambPorkBroilerKg CO2e / kg meatGross emissions per kg of meat incl. boneKumm, 2011 (NBA Report 2011:21)
  • 11. -20 -10 0 10 20Suckler cow + bull finishingSteer of dairy breedGrazing based lambKg CO2e / kg meatGHG emission per kg of meat incl. boneGross Emission (GE)GE - sequestration in leyGE - sequestration in ley and 2m3sk/ha pastureGE - substitution by 2 m3sk/hapastureKumm, 2011 (SBA Report 2011:21)
  • 12. ’The climate goal must be achieved in such a way thatbiological diversity is preserved’ ( EPA Environmental Objectives)Photo Yngve HenrikssonKarl-Ivar KummSequestration of C in growing trees cancompensate the emissions of the cattle
  • 13. • If the single farm payment (1 100-2 400 SEK) is phased out traditional afforestation or energy forestry on ≥1 Mha (SBA,2007)• Genetically improved spruce with 46 years rotation and 3 %interest: NPV=66 000 SEK; NAV = 2 000 SEK• Birch planted and fenced (20 000 SEK) with 64 years rotationand 3 % interest: NPV – 11 000; NAV = 0 SEK• Birch naturally generated with 39+10 years rotation and 3 %interest: NPV = 50 000 SEK; NAV =1 500 SEK• Hybrid aspen with 29 years rotation and 3 % interest:NPV = 62 000 SEK; NAV =1 800 SEK (Eriksson et al., 2011)Growing trees in agricultural landscapescan be profitableKarl-Ivar Kumm
  • 14. • Large land owners have open minds for afforestation butsmaller ones are generally negative (Petrini, 1964)• WTP for wooded pastures and arable land instead of spruceis 4000 and 2000 SEK respectively (Drake, 1987 in 2010 VoM)• ‘Do not plant trees on land opened up by earlier generations’• Afforestation easier accepted if known that it mitigatesclimate change (Eriksson et al., 2011)• Broad-leaved trees ˃ spruce, but spruce accepted in remotelocations (Eriksson et al., 2011)• Silvipasture agroforestry ≈ arable land (Drake et al., 1991; Kumm etal., 1995)Karl-Ivar KummWill more trees in Swedish agriculturallandscapes be accepted ?
  • 15. DrawingsBjörn Lundkvist
  • 16. Carbon Farming: Farmers inAustralia and New Zealand canget paid (carbon credits) forsequestering carbon in treesincluding silvipastorial agroforestry.The same in Sweden would makeafforestation more profitable
  • 17. Windbreak trees and shrub canreduce wind erosion, sequester carbon,produce bioenergy, create wildlifehabitats and increase biodiversityPhoto Peter SylwanPhoto Peter SylwanPhoto Peter Sylwan
  • 18. Forested buffer strip (Iowa US)• Sequester C• Intercept sediment and nutrients• Create wildlife habitat• Increase biodiversity• Reduce wind erosion• Plug up covered drains?
  • 19. • Advisory services to farmers about perennial energycrops• Investigate taxes on fertilizers and meat consumption• Investigate increased support to biogas production frommanure• R&D about ways to reduce GHG emissions from animaland plant production and organic soils• Advisory services to farmers about profitability andclimate benefits of afforestation of arable land not in useAgricultural measures in the EPA´ssuggestions for ’Sweden withno net GHG emissions by 2050’Karl-Ivar Kumm
  • 20. • Without ended forest grazing and afforestation of ˃ 1 Mhaagricultural land Sweden’s climate footprints would havebeen much bigger• C-sequestration and fossil fuel substitution by trees inpastures can make beef and lamb production as climate-smart as pork and chicken production• C-sequestration of 0.6-0.9 Mha can fully compensate theGHG emissions from the Swedish agriculture for manydecades• Landscape friendly afforestation is necessary foracceptanceConclusionsKarl-Ivar Kumm

×