An integrated assessment of land use change in the Border Rivers-Gwydir catchment - Jonathan Moss

  • 111 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
111
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
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
  • So if this is where we really stand, we need to look at several ways of reducing/mitigating these emissions. In 2008, Ross Garnaut released a report that he had prepared for the Rudd government on climate change and its impact on Australia. One of the chapters in this review was on agriculture. Several different ways in which agricultural and rural areas may be used to mitigate or reduce greenhouse gases include, reduced livestock emissions. Methane emissions from livestock accounts for about 67% of the GHG emissions from agriculture in Australia. Therefore there is scope to change to low methane emitting livestock or for technological advances to develop low methane emitting stock.
  • It was highlighted in Garnaut’s 2008 report that there is considerable potential for biosequestration in rural Australia.
  • What is the potential supply of carbon mitigation services from land-use change of Australian farmers?What are the abatement and transaction costs for the supply of these services, and how they vary spatially?What economic incentives are necessary to realise this supply?
  • A farmer j will participate in a carbon sequestration or abatement project is the incentives they receive are greater than the sum of the abatement costs and the transaction costs.
  • Carbon sequestration potential varies significantly based on geographical location

Transcript

  • 1. An Integrated Assessment of Land-useChange in the Border Rivers-GwydirCatchment Jonathan Moss, Oscar Cacho, Stuart Mounter
  • 2. Acknowledgement Primary Industry Adaptation Research Network (PIARN) 2
  • 3. Presentation outline Potential for GHG reduction from farmers Objectives of research Methodology Results Conclusions 3
  • 4. Australian farming sector Potential for GHG mitigation: ◦ Reduce emissions ◦ Increase soil carbon ◦ Bioenergy ◦ Second-generation biofuels ◦ Wood or carbon plantations ◦ Conservation forests 4
  • 5. Land-use change for climatemitigation Considerable potential for biosequestration Realisation may greatly reduce the costs of mitigation (Garnaut 2008) Incentives required 5
  • 6. Objectives of research What is the potential supply of carbon mitigation services? What are the abatement and transaction costs? What economic incentives are necessary? How will different policy arrangements affect this supply? 6
  • 7. Methodology For the supply of land-use changes from landholders: Abatement + Incentive s > transaction costs 7
  • 8. Abatement costs Calculated as opportunity cost Dependent on:  Location  Current land use  Soil type  Climatic variables 8
  • 9. Simulations Developed model of LUC in Border Rivers-Gwydir catchment Modelled current land uses and 4 proposed land uses Calculated carbon sequestration using FullCAM model Abatement costs calculated from a variety of secondary sources 9
  • 10. Carbon sequestration (t C ha-1) 10
  • 11. Carbon sequestration Av. change from current land use Av. change from current land use to mixed spp. environmental to Eucalyptus globulus plantings plantation 50 20 Carbon biomass (tC ha-1)Carbon biomass (tC ha-1) 40 30 10 20 10 0 0 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 Year Year 11
  • 12. Average additional carbonsequestration (t C ha-1) 12
  • 13. Abatement costs ($ tCO2e-1) Discount rateProposed land use 1% 3% 5% 7% 9%Pinus radiata 55 48 44 43 41Mixed env. planting 38 28 22 19 17Eucalyptus globulus 89 88 87 87 85Eucalyptus cladocalyx 187 -18 -149 -227 -271 13
  • 14. Sequestration potential vs. opp.cost• Regions with the highest sequestration potential do not necessarily provide the lowest-cost strategy 14
  • 15. Carbon sequestration supply (in absence of transaction costs) 15
  • 16. Carbon sequestration supply (in absence of transaction costs) 16
  • 17. Supply with price caps Discount ratePrice cap 1% 3% 5% 7% 9%($k tCO2 e-1) 10 358 296 227 155 505 20 378 431 589 1,342 1,963 30 503 692 979 1,808 2,409 40 704 872 1,266 2,006 2,532 50 800 1,088 1,369 2,077 2,610 Unlimited 1,397 1,432 1,573 2,215 2,688 17
  • 18. Conclusions Additional carbon can be sequestered from LUC Mixed species plantings and Pinus radiata plantations have the highest sequestration potential Targeting regions with the highest sequestration potential is not necessarily lowest-cost strategy Results are sensitive to discount rate 18