Abstract

KeyWords

Introduction

Planning Biosequestration Projects

Traditionally, land has been assessed for planting by physically visiting potential sites and inspecting them. While there will always be a need to do this, the use of remotely sensed and airborne imagery provides a means of quickly and efficiently inspecting potential sites, thereby minimising the number of sites to be visited and the associated time and expense that this entails. When multiple spatial data sets are brought together, which may include rainfall and evaporation data, soil type and topography, and are presented in an online environment the task of selecting land suitable for biosequestration can be made logistically more simple and less time consuming.

Figure 1 shows an example of how spatial datasets may be presented in the online environment to facilitate the planning and site selection process. It shows an area of interest overlaid with maps of perennial vegetation (green) salinity and salinity risk (red and orange) and soil type (the brown line at the top of the figure indicates a soil type boundary). Associated datasets such as rainfall and a soil type description may be accessed in the online environment by clicking on the map which retrieves the dataset desired from a geodatabase.

Figure 1. Integration of spatial datasets for biosequestration project planning.

With the provision of associated imagery confirming adherence to criteria set out under the emerging Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS 2009) within Australia, the collection of information assembled by such an online tool as depicted in Figure 1 make proving the eligibility of a project against guidelines within a carbon trading scheme a more straight forward task. Once a suitable site has been determined and its eligibility to produce carbon offsets under an emissions trading scheme is confirmed the way is open design the optimal planting scheme and begin planting.

Checking Biosequestration Projects

There are both legal and science aspects of biosequestration projects which need to be addressed, often on an ongoing basis. Such monitoring or checking may be efficiently carried out with spatial data presented in an online environment. Importantly, both the legal and scientific/measurement requirements for producing carbon offsets from biosequestration projects need to be met before any economic gain can be realised from them.

The legal aspects include land ownership and registration of carbon rights. This can be simple or complex depending on the number of parties involved. For instance, in the case of large biosequestration plantings there may be different owners of the carbon rights to specific areas of the project. Where the registered details of the carbon right boundaries are integrated with remotely sensed imagery of the project individual project boundaries may be clearly defined. Importantly, only the carbon sequestration which occurs within the boundaries registered within the carbon right can be counted towards any production of carbon offsets. The spatial presentation of carbon sequestration within allotted boundaries is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2 depicts the application of remote sensing to the monitoring of biosequestration. Figure 2a shows black and white satellite imagery with a pixel size of 0.6m from the Quickbird satellite of rows of oil mallee trees. The imagery may be used to delineate individual tree crowns as well as estimate tree mortality. The boundaries drawn in Figures 2a and 2b are overlaid on the imagery based on information ingested into the online environment via the Landgate’s Shared Land Information Platform (SLIP) (Landgate 2009). In Figure 2a, the areas containing red cross hatching depict tree mortality. These areas can be summed and the result is useful for managing any replanting required. We present these here as an illustration of the type of information which can be obtained from remotely sensed data for project management purposes.

Figure 2. Application of remotely sensed data to the monitoring of biosequestration projects.

Figure 2b shows the same planted area as in Figure 2a, but depicts biosequestration within the registered carbon right boundaries. Estimates of biosequestration are obtained based a remotely sensed quantity called the Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). This quantity is related to plant growth and health. In this work we relate NDVI to carbon sequestration through a biophysical model (Landsberg and Waring 1997 ; Waring et al. 2009). In summary, we are able to determine how much solar energy trees absorb using the estimates of NDVI. The biophysical model estimates how much of the available energy may be utilised by the trees and turned into biomass/carbon given constraints on water and nutrient availability. The final result is a relationship between NDVI measurements and carbon sequestration in tonnes pf CO2 equivalent per hectare. This relationship is then applied to the m3easuremnst of NDVI made by the Quickbird satellite. In Figure 2b the maximum value of approximately 20 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per hectare occurs where there are red pixels. The area covered by the plantings is known from the registration information so the total amount of carbon sequestration within the registered carbon rights may be estimated.

Conclusion

The online tools described in this paper contribute to making planning and monitoring biosequestration projects a relatively simple task. Spatial data, incorporating both land title information and remotely sensed data sets, provide the information necessary the meet regulatory requirements for producing carbon offsets from biosequestration projects under a carbon trading scheme. Over large areas, remote sensing becomes a particularly cost effective tool for monitoring and quantifying biomass increase and carbon sequestration. The online tools presented in the paper demonstrate how

Three key learnings

• :The legal and science/measurement requirements for producing carbon offsets from biosequestration projects may be met with spatial data presented in an online environment.
• The ‘plan’ and ‘check’ stages within an EMS incorporating carbon management are well addressed by spatial data.
• When presented in an online environment as described in this paper such tools could be an important part of an EMS incorporating carbon management.

References

CPRS (2009). Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009. Part 10- Reforestation. p205

Landgate (2009). About the Sahred Land Information Platform. https://www2.landgate.wa.gov.au/slip/portal/about/about.html. Accessed 17 July 2009.

Landsberg J and Waring R (1997). A generalised model of forest productivity using simplified concepts of radiation-use efficiency, carbon balance and partitioning: Forest Ecology and Management 95, 209-228.

Sellers P (1985). Canopy reflectance, photosynthesis, and transpiration. International Journal of Remote Sensing 6, 1335-1372.

Toal B (2009). Carbon Management for Business: http://www.environmental-expert.com/resultEachArticlePDF.aspx?cid=23650&codi=50961

Waring R, et al. (2009). Improving predictions of forest growth using the 3-PGS model with observations made by remote sensing: Forest Ecology and Management doi:10:1016/j.foreco.2009.05.036