1. Brazilian Proposal - MATCH Project Terrestrial Carbon Fluxes From Land-Use Change and Forestry in the 1990s: A Multi-Model Study ○ Akinori Ito, Joyce Penner, Michael Prather, Christiano Pires de Campos, Richard Houghton, Tomomichi Kato, Atul Jain, Xiaojuan Yang, George Hurtt, Steve Frolking, Matthew Fearon, Loiuse Parsons Chini, Audrey Wang, and David Price Kteam1 meeting 12/04/2007

2. Contents 1.Introduction 2.Methods 3.Results 3.1.Land cover change area 3.2.Carbon pools 3.3.Carbon fluxes 3.4.Country analysis 3.5.Global and regional analysis for 1990s 3.6.Historical analysis 4.Summary and conclusion

3. Brazilian Proposal - MATCH Project 1997 As part of the negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol, the delegation of Brazil made a proposal, to set differentiated emissions reduction targets for Annex I Parties of the UNFCCC according to the impact of their historic emissions on temperature rise. 2002 After two expert meetings held under the auspices of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA), the SBSTA agreed that the work should be continued by the scientific community. Subsequently, further expert meetings were held on the initiative of the governments of UK, Brazil and Germany for the now called “Ad-hoc group for the modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change (MATCH)”. 2007 “In-session special side event” at SBSTA 27, the presentation of MATCH papers is delivered to UNFCCC delegations in Indonesia.

4. House et al. [2003] Global Estimates of Carbon Emissions From Land-Use Change

5. Purpose C ompare estimates of C fluxes due to LUCF. Identify the reasons for differences in estimates. Focus on land-use change activities and carbon pools over the 1990s.

6. Contents 1.Introduction 2.Methods 3.Results 3.1.Land cover change area 3.2.Carbon pools 3.3.Carbon fluxes 3.4.Country analysis 3.5.Global and regional analysis for 1990s 3.6.Historical analysis 4.Summary and conclusion

8. Net CO 2 emissions 1.Inventory approach United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) 2.Forward model Book-keeping models and Ecosystem models 3.Inverse model Comparison Analysis of Land-Use Change Emissions

11. Contents 1.Introduction 2.Methods 3.Results 3.1.Land cover change area 3.2.Carbon pools 3.3.Carbon fluxes 3.4.Country analysis 3.5.Global and regional analysis for 1990s 3.6.Historical analysis 4.Summary and conclusion

12. Global land-use change areas (10 2 km 2 yr -1 ) in forests SAGE HYDE SAGE HYDE SAGE Cropland Pastureland Afforestation (+) deforestation (-) HYDE; Klein Goldewijk, 2001, SAGE; Ramankutty and Foley, 1998, 1999 Brazil

13. Contents 1.Introduction 2.Methods 3.Results 3.1.Land cover change area 3.2.Carbon pools 3.3.Carbon fluxes 3.4.Country analysis 3.5.Global and regional analysis for 1990s 3.6.Historical analysis 4.Summary and conclusion

14. Global Carbon Pools (PgC) in 1990s SOC: Soil organic carbon + litter VC: Vegetation carbon USA

15. Contents 1.Introduction 2.Methods 3.Results 3.1.Land cover change area 3.2.Carbon pools 3.3.Carbon fluxes 3.4.Country analysis 3.5.Global and regional analysis for 1990s 3.6.Historical analysis 4.Summary and conclusion

16. Global LUCF Fluxes (TgC yr -1 ) in 1990s 1.Carbon pool 2.LUCF + environmental factors

17. Global LUCF Fluxes (TgC yr -1 ) in 1990s Each LUCF + environmental factors

18. Global Carbon stock changes (TgC yr -1 ) in 1990s

20. Global LUCF Fluxes (TgC yr -1 ) in 1990s LUCF ENV

21. Contents 1.Introduction 2.Methods 3.Results 3.1.Land cover change area 3.2.Carbon pools 3.3.Carbon fluxes 3.4.Country analysis 3.5.Global and regional analysis for 1990s 3.6.Historical analysis 4.Summary and conclusion

22. Carbon Pools (PgC) for USA in 1990s SOC + LIT VC LIT

23. USA Carbon Stock Change (TgC yr -1 ) in 1990s SOC + LIT VC LIT

24. USA Carbon Fluxes (TgC yr -1 ) in 1990s Inverse estimate [Baker et al., 2006]: −1100 ± 230 TgC yr‑1 Other sinks [Pacala et al., 2001]: −40 to −170 TgC yr‑1

25. Brazil LUC (10 2 km 2 yr -1 ) in forests Cropland Pastureland

26. Brazil Carbon Fluxes (TgC yr -1 ) in 1990s LUC ENV Pasture conversion

27. Inter-annual variability for Latin America in 1990s EMI5 EMI6 EMI8 EMI1 EMI7 Inverse estimate [Baker et al., 2006]: 0.43 ± 0.86 PgC yr‑1

28. Take Home Messages ●There are large differences between LUCF estimates at the regional level due to different reasons in different countries. Clearly, further work is required to reduce the differences between these estimates. –Our consolidated estimate of the global terrestrial carbon flux (–0.4 PgC/yr) is within the uncertainty range given in the AR4 assessment (which was derived from a combination of inverse models and observations) (–1.0 ± 0.6 PgC/yr). –Our consolidated estimate of terrestrial carbon flux yields a rather low result for Latin America (−0.17 PgC/yr) in 1990s but within the uncertainty range of inversion estimates (0.43 ± 0.86 PgC/yr) [Baker et al., 2006]. However, our consolidated estimate shows smaller interannual variability for Latin America and a weaker uptake than the inverse estimates for Temperate North America. The differences between the net fluxes estimated by the emissions models and by the atmospheric inversions can be caused by large uncertainties in LIT and SOC sinks for the USA and by significant uncertainties in short-term fluxes for Latin America, as well as by different responses to LUCF and ENV.