EGU24-1634, updated on 08 Mar 2024
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-1634
EGU General Assembly 2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Uncertainties in deforestation emission baseline methodologies and implications for carbon markets

Hoong Chen Teo1,2, Nicole Hui Li Tan1,2, Qiming Zheng1,2,3, Annabel Jia Yi Lim1,2, Rachakonda Sreekar1,2,4, Xiao Chen1,5, Yuchuan Zhou1,5, Tasya Vadya Sarira1,2,6, Jose Don T. De Alban1,2, Hao Tang1,5, Daniel A. Friess1,5,7, and Lian Pin Koh1,2,5
Hoong Chen Teo et al.
  • 1National University of Singapore, Centre for Nature-based Climate Solutions, Singapore (hcteo@u.nus.edu)
  • 2National University of Singapore, Department of Biological Sciences, Singapore
  • 3Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Department of Land Surveying and Geo-Informatics, Hong Kong SAR
  • 4University of Queensland, School of the Environment, Brisbane, Australia
  • 5National University of Singapore, Department of Geography, Singapore
  • 6Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment, Durham, NC, USA
  • 7Tulane University, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, New Orleans, LA, USA

Carbon credits generated through jurisdictional-scale avoided deforestation projects require accurate estimates of deforestation emission baselines, but there are serious challenges to their robustness. We assessed the variability, accuracy, and uncertainty of baselining methods by applying sensitivity and variable importance analysis on a range of typically-used methods and parameters for 2,794 jurisdictions worldwide. The median jurisdiction’s deforestation emission baseline varied by 171% (90% range: 87%-440%) of its mean, with a median forecast error of 0.778 times (90% range: 0.548-3.56) the actual deforestation rate. Moreover, variable importance analysis emphasised the strong influence of the deforestation projection approach. For the median jurisdiction, 68.0% of possible methods (90% range: 61.1%-85.6%) exceeded 15% uncertainty. Tropical and polar biomes exhibited larger uncertainties in carbon estimations. The use of sensitivity analyses, multi-model, and multi-source ensemble approaches could reduce variabilities and biases. These findings provide a roadmap for improving baseline estimations to enhance carbon market integrity and trust.

How to cite: Teo, H. C., Tan, N. H. L., Zheng, Q., Lim, A. J. Y., Sreekar, R., Chen, X., Zhou, Y., Sarira, T. V., De Alban, J. D. T., Tang, H., Friess, D. A., and Koh, L. P.: Uncertainties in deforestation emission baseline methodologies and implications for carbon markets, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-1634, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-1634, 2024.