Author
Listed:
- Simone Rossi
(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
The European Commission Joint Research Centre)
- Francesco N. Tubiello
(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)
- Paolo Prosperi
(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)
- Mirella Salvatore
(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)
- Heather Jacobs
(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)
- Riccardo Biancalani
(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)
- Joanna I. House
(University of Bristol)
- Luigi Boschetti
(University of Idaho)
Abstract
The Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED3) and the FAOSTAT Emissions database, containing estimates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from biomass burning and peat fires, are compared. The two datasets formed the basis for several analyses in the fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR5), and thus represent a critical source of information for emissions inventories at national, regional and global level. The two databases differ in their level of computational complexity in estimating emissions. While both use the same burned area information from remote sensing, estimates of available biomass are computed in GFED3 at tier 3 using a complex dynamic vegetation model, while they are computed in FAOSTAT using default, tier 1 parameters from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Over the analysis period 1997–2011, the two methods were found to produce very similar global GHG emissions estimates for each of the five GFED aggregated biomass fire classes: i) Savanna; ii) Woodland; iii) Forest; iv) Deforestation; v) Peatlands; with total emissions ranging 6–8 Gt CO2eq yr-1. The main differences between the two datasets were found with respect to peat fires, with FAOSTAT showing a lower 1997–1998 peak in emissions compared with GFED3, within an otherwise good agreement for the rest of the study period, when limited to the three tropical countries covered by GFED. Conversely, FAOSTAT global emissions from peat fires, including both boreal and tropical regions, were several times larger than those currently estimated by GFED3. Results show that FAOSTAT activity data and emission estimates for biomass fires offer a robust alternative to the more sophisticated GFED data, representing a valuable resource for national GHG inventory experts, especially in countries where technical and institutional constraints may limit access, generation and maintenance of more complex methodologies and data.
Suggested Citation
Simone Rossi & Francesco N. Tubiello & Paolo Prosperi & Mirella Salvatore & Heather Jacobs & Riccardo Biancalani & Joanna I. House & Luigi Boschetti, 2016.
"FAOSTAT estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from biomass and peat fires,"
Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 135(3), pages 699-711, April.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:climat:v:135:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-015-1584-y
DOI: 10.1007/s10584-015-1584-y
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:135:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-015-1584-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.