1. No category

LAND SECTOR SEQUESTRATION
Forum on Australia’s post-2020 emissions target
Canberra, 20 March 2015
Steve Hatfield-Dodds, Brett A. Bryan and Martin Nolan
CSIRO Integration Science and Modelling
The contribution of land sector carbon
1. CSIRO Land Use Trade Off model (LUTO) estimates the profitable volume of
carbon credits for three scenarios, based on carbon payments relative to
competing land uses
2. We find that payments based solely on carbon results in very modest conservation
benefits, and so model a ‘carbon focused’ and ‘balanced’ approach
(providing biodiversity benefits but lower sequestration per hectare)
3. National sequestration potential exceeds the requirement for offsets, and so
land sector sequestration is scaled down to meet the cumulative emissions budget
for the 100% renewables (4.3 GT) and CCS energy (4.8 GT) scenarios
4. This implies land sector credits could help achieve very ambitious abatement goals
(such as 80-100% reductions by 2050) without the use of international units,
with supportive policy settings.
5. These scenarios would involve significant land use change, raising challenges and
opportunities for rural land holders and communities and land
1
LUTO model

Calculate profit at full equity for

23 agricultural commodities

carbon forestry
(single species plantings)

biodiversity plantings
(mixed native species)

Intensive use zone: 85 Mha of
cleared agricultural land

Spatial resolution: 1.1 km2

Carbon values treated as 100 year
annuity payment, and accounts for
establishment costs, future climate
change, fire risk, and biodiversity
priorities
2
Three scenarios for land sector sequestration
Balanced
(carbon and biodiversity)
‘most profitable plantings’
unconstrained uptake
Carbon focused
Carbon focused
‘most profitable plantings’
constrained
‘most profitable plantings’
unconstrained uptake
3
Three scenarios – scaled to cover trajectory gap
Balanced
(carbon and biodiversity)
‘most profitable plantings’
unconstrained uptake
Carbon focused
Carbon focused
‘most profitable plantings’
constrained
‘most profitable plantings’
unconstrained uptake
SCALED
(74% of potential)
SCALED
(57% of potential)
4
Three scenarios – scaled to cover trajectory gap
Balanced
(carbon and biodiversity)
‘most profitable plantings’
unconstrained uptake
Carbon focused
Carbon focused
‘most profitable plantings’
constrained
‘most profitable plantings’
unconstrained uptake
5
This implies Australia could meet very ambitious long term targets,
without use of international credits
Exhibit 9.1, page 121, Targets and Progress Review Final Report, Climate Change Authority, February 2014
www.climateworksaustralia.org
6
… but land credits involve substantial land use change
80
Balanced
(carbon and biodiversity)
Carbon focused
Sequestration = 4.8 GT
for CCS energy scenario
Sequestration = 4.3 GT
for 100% renewables scenario
Balanced - delivering 4.8 GT
Carbon focused - delivering 4.3 GT
(57% of most profitable plantings, unconstrained)
60
(74% of most profitable plantings, constrained)
80
60
Environmental
plantings (biodiversity)
Carbon forestry (single
species)
80
80
60
60
Cattle
40
40
20
0
2010
20
2020
2030
2040
0
2050
Sheep
Dairy
Grains and other
agriculture
En
pla
Ca
spe
Ca
40
40
She
20
0
2010
20
2020
2030
0
2050
2040
7
Da
Gr
ag
Total area of profitable new land use
Balanced
(carbon and biodiversity)
‘most profitable plantings’
unconstrained uptake
Carbon focused
2030
2050
‘most profitable plantings’
unconstrained uptake
(three times the scaled
area required to meet
the CCA budget)
2030
2050
8
Insights: What are the implications?

Zero carbon is achievable – including for an energy and minerals superpower

Land sector sequestration could help Australia could meet very ambitious targets
by 2050, without relying on ‘investment in cost effective abatement in other
countries’ (in combination with abatement from all major sources)
–
The DDPP scenarios only require a fraction of our sequestration potential
–
Carbon plantings could provide substantial potential co-benefits, reversing
habitat loss in Australia and reducing biodiversity extinction risk
–
But land use change brings challenges as well as opportunities
…. Including careful attention to water governance (and balance between
health of our rivers and landscapes)

Land sequestration outcomes in 2050 would require policy clarity well before 2030

Achieving near-zero or negative emissions would imply Australia’s per capita
emissions are well below thee global average in2050
9
Professor Steve Hatfield-Dodds
Australian National Outlook / Integration Science and Modelling
Black Mountain Laboratories, Canberra
CSIRO
[email protected]
10