1. Theme 2 – From policy to impact Celso von Randow, Ana Paula Aguiar, Kirsten Thonicke, Eloi Dalla-Nora, Dorian Frieden, + DGVM groups

2. Outline Introduction: LUC modeling approaches, international vs regional factors LuccME projections: inputs from stakeholders; qualitative effects of international policies (e.g. biofuel targets) DGVM runs Analysis of impacts on provision of ecosystem services

3. CST 401/2011 3 General structure of LUC models  Despite the diversity of land use models found in the literature it is possible to identify a common functional structure that is valid for most of the available cases; Dalla-Nora et al., (no prelo)

4. CST 401/2011 4 LUC MODELS FOR THE AMAZON Laurance et al., 2001 2020 2050 2030 2050 Aguiar et al., 2006 Lapola et al., 2011 Nepstad et al., 2008 Soares-Filho et al., 2006

5. CST 401/2011 5 Quantity of change in LUC models  None of the previous studies were able to plausibly capture the general trajectory of land cover change observed in this region during the last decade; Dalla-Nora et al., (no prelo)

6. CST 401/2011 6 Model results and Amazon LUC dynamics  If Amazon deforestation was a result of price movements, we would expect that the slowdown in deforestation would be conjunctural and temporary; Dalla-Nora et al., (no prelo)

7. CST 401/2011 7 Model results and Amazon LUC dynamics Protected areas (PAs)  240 new PAs from 2004  +65% over 2000-2004  55% of the remaining forests. Credit access  All lines of rural credit  -65% (all rural municipalities)  -77% (MT, PA, RO) Command and control  Monitoring and enforcement  +8.823 fines  70 times more over 2000-2004 Dalla-Nora et al., (no prelo)

8. CST 401/2011 8 Model results and Amazon LUC dynamics  Previous modeling studies were not able to integrate the global and regional forces that shape land use dynamics in the Amazon;  Scenarios' formulation was also quite simplistic which compromised their ability to explore contrasting pathways;  It's necessary to adopt an innovative modeling framework to represent land use systems as open systems;

9. CST 401/2011 9 Amount of change LUCCME Demand (scenarios) MAGNET global model Stakeholder Spatial Patterns LUCCME Potential/Allocation (scenarios) Visions – Stakeholder inputs Biophisical, socioeconomic and institutional factors affect the Demand and Allocation Global: population, GDP and production growth + biofuels targets Regional: roads, protected areas, credit Regional: roads, protected areas, law enforcement Storylines and contrasting rates of change

10. CST 401/2011 10 Premises Scenario C 19500 km2yr-1 (until 2100) (ave 1996-2005) Scenario B: 3900 km2 in 2020 (20% 19500 km2) Scenario A: “Zero” Deforestation Scenario D? 10000km2

11. CST 401/2011 11 (A) Scenario A: Deforestation in 2050 (B) Scenario B: Deforestation in 2050 (C) Scenario C: Deforestation in 2050 (D) Scenario A: Secondary Vegetation in 2050 (G) Scenario A: Agriculture in 2050 (H) Scenario B: Agriculture in 2050 (I) Scenario C: Agriculture in 2050 (E) Scenario B: Secondary Vegetation in 2050 (F) Scenario C: Secondary Vegetation in 2050

12. Yearly anomalies intermodel comparison DGVM runs

13. Use DGVM results in quantifying changes in ESS provision Kirsten Thonicke, Alice Boit, Fanny Langerwisch, Anja Rammig, Ariane Walz PIK Potsdam

14. area of degraded ES in nature conservation areas = conservation area – areas with decrease by one „degradation class“ area of degraded ES in nature conservation areas = conservation area – areas with decrease by one „degradation class“ Regional Climate Regulation Accessibility (Obidos) Global Climate Regulation NEP in t C = NPP-r h -fire-harvest-deforested over all pfts and cfts NEP in t C = NPP-r h -fire-harvest-deforested over all pfts and cfts rainwater recycling in mm/m 2 = transpiration over all PFTs in natural vegetation (and cfts?) rainwater recycling in mm/m 2 = transpiration over all PFTs in natural vegetation (and cfts?) accessibility = number of month with sufficient discharge for shipping (to Opidos) accessibility = number of month with sufficient discharge for shipping (to Opidos) Area with ecosystems of integrity Which DGVM other than LPJmL can provide basin-wide data? Overlay with current shape-files of protected areas Calculate habitat from fractional cover per PFT and biomass Make selection of 3-5 Ecosystem Services carbon storage in t C = VegC + LitterC + Soilc t of wood extractable with road extention = C in wood biomass t of wood extractable with road extention = C in wood biomass Potential Timber Extraction

15. Multi-model ESS projection Ecosystem ServiceMoore protocol Model variables neededUnitsDGVMs LPJmL JULES ORCHIDEE INLAND Global climate regulation (NEP) NEE, RAGBfire, RAGBlu NPP, heterotr. respiration, fire/disturbance, deforestation flux gC/m²XXXXXXXX Total carbon storageAGBCarbon stored in AGB, litter and soil gC/m²x Regional climate regulation evapotrans piration Transpiration from all PFTsmm/m²x Potential timber extraction AGBWoodWood biomassgC/m²x Accessibility for transport (no. month with sufficient discharge for shipping) Total runoff rate River discharge  seasonalitymonthx Area of degraded ES in nature conservation areas (overlay w current conservation areas) LAI (FPC) and AGB Changes in PFT coverage  forest degradation km²x Please add!

16. Regulation of Flooding Which DGVM other than LPJmL can provide basin-wide data? Overlay with current shape-files of protected areas Calculate habitat from fractional cover per PFT and biomass Ecosystem Services: further options regulation of flooding as change in regular flooding = |mean area of flooding in km 2 (1990-2009) - flooded area in km 2 | Land suitable for indigenous lifestyles area of heavily degraded ES in areas protected for indigenous people = protected area – area with decrease by two „degradation classes“ area of heavily degraded ES in areas protected for indigenous people = protected area – area with decrease by two „degradation classes“ Interesting for stakeholder dialogue?