The Global Forest and Agricultural
Sector Optimization Model
Uwe A. Schneider
Christine Schleupner
Kerstin Jantke
Erwin SchmidMichael Obersteiner
Energy Modeling Forum 22: Climate Policy Scenarios for Stabilizationand in Transition, Tsukuba, Japan, December 12-14, 2006

Why Global FASOM?
Global Trade
Pollution Leakage
Global Externalities
Heterogeneity– Soils– Land management

Methodological Developments
1. Regional Expansion (Global FASOM)
2. Soil State Dynamics
3. Biodiversity

1. Regional Expansion
Global FASOMFASOM History
US (1993-)
EU (2004-)
Global (2006-)

US/EU RegionsLimits
TradeResources
InputsSupplyFunctions

Land UseProducts

Markets

Technologies

Environmental
Impacts

Processing
Technologies

Capacities

DemandNon-US/EU Regions
LimitsResources
InputsSupplyFunctionsLand Use

SupplyTradeProducts

Markets

Technologies

Environmental
Impacts

Processing
Technologies
Capacities

DemandTasks
US + EU FASOM + others
Balance Regional Resolution
Land use in non-US / non-EU– Microeconomics (Data)– Environmental impacts (Simulation)

2. Soil State Dynamics

Why Soil State Dynamics?
Vulnerability (Humus, Salt)
Climate Mitigation
Productivity
Desertification, Salinization

Soil Carbon Determinants
Crop Choice
Tillage
Irrigation
Fertilization
Residue Mgt
Soil Carbon

SoilCarbon
Change3

Cereal Straw Removal

percentage change

21Yields

years

0102030-1-2-3-4-5

Soil Organic Carbon

4050

Soil Organic Carbon (tC/ha/20cm)

4540
35

Wheat-Lucerne 3/330
Wheat-Lucerne 6/3
25
20
No-till wheat-fallow

15

Tilled wheat-fallow

1050

1020
30
Time (years)

4050

Previous
Curse of Dimensionality
Use of constant emission/sequestration
coefficients

New Development
Markov chain using soil organic carbon asstate variable (Schneider, 2007)

Soil Carbon Transition Probabilities
SOC1 SOC2 SOC3 SOC4 SOC5 SOC6 SOC7 SOC8
SOC1 0.81 0.19
SOC21
SOC30.09 0.91
SOC40.31 0.69
SOC50.50.5
SOC60.74 0.26
SOC71
SOC80.04 0.96
No-till wheat-Fallow

Soil Organic Carbon (tC/ha/20cm)

45
40
Wheat-Lucerne 3/3

3530

Wheat-Lucerne 6/3

25
20

No-till wheat-fallow

1510

Tilled wheat-fallow

50102030Time (years)

4050

Extensions

Soil Carbon Types

Salt

3. Biodiversity

Previous Treatment
So far biodiversity is ignored in FASOM
Comparable models use biodiversity scores

New Development
Species or habitat requirements
Habitat supply
Currently limited to wetlands

Habitat Requirements
Vertebrate species as surrogates forbiodiversity– 16 amphibians– 4 reptiles– 9 mammals– 43 birds

72 wetland species ofEuropean conservation
concern

Habitat Requirements

Multiple species may require the same
habitatEligible habitats must be of minimum size

Habitat Supply
Ecosystem Type––––1. Mires (Bogs, Fens)
2. Wet forests (Alluvial Forests, Swamp Forests)
3. Natural Grasslands
4. Open waters (Running Waters, Standing Waters)

Ecosystem Quality
1.
2.
3.

Existing, Inhabited
Existing, Not inhabited
Potential

Peatland (Fens, Bogs)
Marshes, Reeds, Sedges
Open Waters
Wetforests

Peatland (Fens, Bogs)
Marshes, Reeds, Sedges
Open Waters
Wetforests

Existing Wetlands
Potential Wetlands
Open Waters

Existing Wetlands
Potential Wetlands
Open Waters

Conclusions
Land use (change) may play an importantnew role via climate change mitigation
However, land use impacts are complex
and affect multiple non-market goods
We should not solve today’s problem bycreating another one tomorrow
Land use under multiple environmental
objectives may be much different thanunder single (climate) objectives

Global Environmental Treaties
Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC, 1992)
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD,1992)
Convention to Combat Desertification(UNCCD, 1996)

References
Schneider, U. A. (2007). Soil organic carbonchanges in dynamic land use decisionmodels. Agriculture, Ecosystems andEnvironment. In print.