The Lake Kivu Learning Site (LKPLS) was established as a pilot site over three countries: Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Rwanda and Uganda. The LKPLS has been set to test the following hypotheses (Bekunda, et al., 2005): (i) Strong producer organizations have increased bargaining power and ability to collectively market produce and thus increase returns (income) to land and labor. (ii) Investments to sustain and maintain the natural resource base are more sustainable when they are linked to market-oriented production or when there are financial incentives for conserving natural resources and biodiversity. (iii) Increased livelihood options linked to markets including joint management for buffer zone inhabitants will decrease pressure on conservation areas and biodiversity and increase returns to land and labor. (iv) Investment in partnership arrangements that integrate research and development expertise and perspectives will achieve greater impact through scaling out islands of success. (v) Innovative information organization and sharing systems will enhance uptake of technologies and improve decision making. (vi) Strengthened local governance through improved community facilitation improves ability to influence development policy and advocate for support to local marketing and natural resource management initiatives. This study was conducted with the objective of establishing the baseline conditions of the socio-economic characteristics of the selected study sites. The baseline conditions will be used to test the stated hypotheses. This report is part of a larger study establishing the baseline conditions in the LKPLS.
In: World development: the multi-disciplinary international journal devoted to the study and promotion of world development, Band 40, Heft 2, S. 402-413
This is the final version. Available on open access from AGU via the DOI in this record ; The dataset associated with this article is located in ORE at: https://doi.org/10.24378/exe.2883 ; Variability in climate exerts a strong influence on vegetation productivity (gross primary productivity; GPP), and therefore has a large impact on the land carbon sink. However, no direct observations of global GPP exist, and estimates rely on models that are constrained by observations at various spatial and temporal scales. Here, we assess the consistency in GPP from global products which extend for more than three decades; two observation-based approaches, the upscaling of FLUXNET site observations (FLUXCOM) and a remote sensing derived light-use efficiency model (RS-LUE), and from a suite of terrestrial biosphere models (TRENDYv6). At local scales, we find high correlations in annual GPP amongst the products, with exceptions in tropical and high northern latitudes. On longer timescales, the products agree on the direction of trends over 58% of the land, with large increases across northern latitudes driven by warming trends. Further, tropical regions exhibit the largest interannual variability in GPP, with both rainforests and savannas contributing substantially. Variability in savanna GPP is likely predominantly driven by water availability, although temperature could play a role via soil moisture – atmosphere feedbacks. There is, however, no consensus on the magnitude and driver of variability of tropical forests, which suggest uncertainties in process representations and underlying observations remain. These results emphasise the need for more direct long-term observations of GPP along with an extension of in-situ networks in underrepresented regions (e.g. tropical forests). Such capabilities would support efforts to better validate relevant processes in models, to more accurately estimate GPP. ; European Union ; European Space Agency ; Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) ; NASA
Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere - the "global carbon budget" - is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (E-FF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land use change (E-LUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (G(ATM)) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (S-OCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (S-LAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (B-IM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as +/- 1 sigma. For the last decade available (2009-2018), E-FF was 9.5 +/- 0.5 GtC yr 1, E-LUC 1.5 +/- 0.7 GtC yr 1, G(ATM) 4.9 +/- 0.02 GtC yr(-1) (2.3 +/- 0.01 ppm yr(-1)), S-OCEAN 2.5 +/- 0.6 GtC yr(-1), and S-LAND 3.2 +/- 0.6 GtC yr(-1), with a budget imbalance B-IM of 0.4 GtC yr(-1) indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2018 alone, the growth in E-FF was about 2.1% and fossil emissions increased to 10.0 +/- 0.5 GtC yr 1, reaching 10 GtC yr(-1) for the first time in history, E-LUC was 1.5 +/- 0.7 GtC yr(-1), for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5 +/- 0.9 GtC yr(-1) (42.5 +/- 3.3 GtCO(2)). Also for 2018, G(ATM) was 5.1 +/- 0.2 GtC yr(-1) (2.4 +/- 0.1 ppm yr(-1)), S-OCEAN was 2.6 +/- 0.6 GtC yr(-1), and S-LAND was 3.5 +/- 0.7 GtC yr(-1), with a B-IM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 407.38 +/- 0.1 ppm averaged over 2018. For 2019, preliminary data for the first 6-10 months indicate a reduced growth in E-FF of +0.6% (range of -0.2% to 1.5 %) based on national emissions projections for China, the USA, the EU, and India and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. Overall, the mean and trend in the five components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959-2018, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr(-1) persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison among individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of observations shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land use change emissions over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2 variability by ocean models outside the tropics. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quere et al., 2018a, b, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013).
Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the "global carbon budget" – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land use and land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2008–2017), EFF was 9.4±0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.7±0.02 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN 2.4±0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.2±0.8 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.5 GtC yr−1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2017 alone, the growth in EFF was about 1.6 % and emissions increased to 9.9±0.5 GtC yr−1. Also for 2017, ELUC was 1.4±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM was 4.6±0.2 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 2.5±0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.8±0.8 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 405.0±0.1 ppm averaged over 2017. For 2018, preliminary data for the first 6–9 months indicate a renewed growth in EFF of +2.7 % (range of 1.8 % to 3.7 %) based on national emission projections for China, the US, the EU, and India and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. The analysis presented here shows that the mean and trend in the five components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period of 1959–2017, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison among individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of observations show (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land-use change emissions, (2) a persistent low agreement among the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2 variability by ocean models, originating outside the tropics. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2018, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013). All results presented here can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2018.
