Search

This online repository includes all the relevant data used in the paper "Harmonizing the land-use flux estimates of global models and national inventories for 2000-2020" (Grassi et al. 2023), plus some additional methodological information, organised in the following files: 1) "Global models land CO2 data 2000-2020" (MS Excel Format), including for each country data for: a. Land-use CO2 fluxes from each of three Bookkeeping Models (BMs) used, and for different categories (net LULUCF, deforestation, forest, other transitions, organic soils). b. The ensemble mean of the ‘natural terrestrial sink’ estimated by 16 Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs), filtered with maps of intact/non-intact forest. The global model data included here are consistent with those included in the Global Carbon Budget 2022 (Friedlingstein et al., 2022). 2) “National inventories LULUCF data 2000-2020” (version Dec 2022, MS Excel Format), including a comprehensive collection of LULUCF CO2 data based on countries' submissions to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The data here represent a slight update of the dataset included in Grassi et al. (2022). 3) “Processing steps for DGVM results”, describing the protocol used to filter the results of DGVMs with maps of intact/non-intact forest and further details on the maps (PDF Format). 4) “Intact and non-intact forest maps”, available in two files with different resolutions (0.5 and 0.05 degrees) in NetCDF format. Grassi et al. (2023) used the 0.5 degree resolution. 5) "IntactAndNonIntactForest_0.5deg_script.js", the Google Earth Engine Java script to produce the forest maps (.js/text format) For further details, please refer to: Grassi et al. (2023) Harmonising the land-use flux estimates of global models and national inventories for 2000-2020. Earth Syst. Sci. Data. Other references: Friedlingstein et al. (2022) Global Carbon Budget 2022, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 4811–4900. Grassi et al (2022) Carbon fluxes fr

As the focus of climate policy shifts from pledges to implementation, there is a growing need to track progress on climate change mitigation at the country level, particularly for the land-use sector. Despite new tools and models providing unprecedented monitoring opportunities, striking differences remain in estimations of anthropogenic land-use CO2 fluxes between, on the one hand, the national greenhouse gas inventories (NGHGIs) used to assess compliance with national climate targets under the Paris Agreement and, on the other hand, the Global Carbon Budget and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports, both based on global bookkeeping models (BMs). Recent studies have shown that these differences are mainly due to inconsistent definitions of anthropogenic CO2 fluxes in managed forests. Countries assume larger areas of forest to be managed than BMs do, due to a broader definition of managed land in NGHGIs. Additionally, the fraction of the land sink caused by indirect effects of human-induced environmental change (e.g. fertilisation effect on vegetation growth due to increased atmospheric CO2 concentration) on managed lands is treated as non-anthropogenic by BMs but as anthropogenic in most NGHGIs. We implement an approach that adds the CO2 sink caused by environmental change in countries' managed forests (estimated by 16 dynamic global vegetation models, DGVMs) to the land-use fluxes from three BMs. This sum is conceptually more comparable to NGHGIs and is thus expected to be quantitatively more similar. Our analysis uses updated and more comprehensive data from NGHGIs than previous studies and provides model results at a greater level of disaggregation in terms of regions, countries and land categories (i.e. forest land, deforestation, organic soils, other land uses). Our results confirm a large difference (6.7 GtCO2 yr−1) in global land-use CO2 fluxes between the ensemble mean of the BMs, which estimate a source of 4.8 GtCO2 yr−1 for t

1.The search for healthy diets has led to a surge in the demand for functional foods or ‘superfoods’, which have now become popular among the middle- and high- income fractions of the society in developed regions of the world. ‘Superfoods’ are predominantly consumed far from their centres of origin and out of their cul- tural context with different environmental and social effects. 2. Here, we present a series of case studies to provide an overview of the different environmental impacts driven by superfood expansion. 3. We show that if these crops are to follow the path of other global commodities, then strong environmental impacts and large carbon footprints are expected in terms of land clearing, use of agrochemicals and transportation during times of high prices (boom) and social problems as farmers have to abandon their liveli- hoods when prices sink below the cost of production (bust). 4. We also showcase how a combination of management practices, consumer choices and policy changes could help in alleviating the ecological footprint of these crops.