Abstract. Land-use change has been the dominant source of anthropogenic carbon emissions for most of the historical period and is currently one of the largest and most uncertain components of the global carbon cycle. Advancing the scientific understanding on this topic requires that the best data be used as input to state-of-the-art models in well-organized scientific assessments. The Land-Use Harmonization 2 dataset (LUH2), previously developed and used as input for simulations of the 6th Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6), has been updated annually to provide required input to land models in the annual Global Carbon Budget (GCB) assessments. Here we discuss the methodology for producing these annual LUH2-GCB updates and extensions which incorporate annual wood harvest data updates from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations for dataset years after 2015 and the History Database of the Global Environment (HYDE) gridded cropland and grazing area data updates (based on annual FAO cropland and grazing area data updates) for dataset years after 2012, along with extrapolations to the current year due to a lag of 1 or more years in the FAO data releases. The resulting updated LUH2-GCB datasets have provided global, annual gridded land-use and land-use-change data relating to agricultural expansion, deforestation, wood harvesting, shifting cultivation, regrowth and afforestation, crop rotations, and pasture management and are used by both bookkeeping models and dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) for the GCB. For GCB 2019, a more significant update to LUH2 was produced, LUH2-GCB2019 (https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1851, Chini et al., 2020b), to take advantage of new data inputs that corrected cropland and grazing areas in the globally important region of Brazil as far back as 1950. From 1951 to 2012 the LUH2-GCB2019 dataset begins to diverge from the version of LUH2 used for the World Climate Research Programme's CMIP6, with peak differences in Brazil in the year 2000 for grazing land (difference of 100 000 km2) and in the year 2009 for cropland (difference of 77 000 km2), along with significant sub-national reorganization of agricultural land-use patterns within Brazil. The LUH2-GCB2019 dataset provides the base for future LUH2-GCB updates, including the recent LUH2-GCB2020 dataset, and presents a starting point for operationalizing the creation of these datasets to reduce time lags due to the multiple input dataset and model latencies.

Abstract. Reliable quantification of the sources and sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), including that of their trends and uncertainties, is essential to monitoring the progress in mitigating anthropogenic emissions under the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. This study provides a consolidated synthesis of estimates for all anthropogenic and natural sources and sinks of CO2 for the European Union and UK (EU27 + UK), derived from a combination of state-of-the-art bottom-up (BU) and top-down (TD) data sources and models. Given the wide scope of the work and the variety of datasets involved, this study focuses on identifying essential questions which need to be answered to properly understand the differences between various datasets, in particular with regards to the less-well-characterized fluxes from managed ecosystems. The work integrates recent emission inventory data, process-based ecosystem model results, data-driven sector model results and inverse modeling estimates over the period 1990–2018. BU and TD products are compared with European national greenhouse gas inventories (NGHGIs) reported under the UNFCCC in 2019, aiming to assess and understand the differences between approaches. For the uncertainties in NGHGIs, we used the standard deviation obtained by varying parameters of inventory calculations, reported by the member states following the IPCC Guidelines. Variation in estimates produced with other methods, like atmospheric inversion models (TD) or spatially disaggregated inventory datasets (BU), arises from diverse sources including within-model uncertainty related to parameterization as well as structural differences between models. In comparing NGHGIs with other approaches, a key source of uncertainty is that related to different system boundaries and emission categories (CO2 fossil) and the use of different land use definitions for reporting emissions from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) activities (CO2 land). At the EU27 + UK level, the NGHGI (2019) fossil CO2 emissions (including cement production) account for 2624 Tg CO2 in 2014 while all the other seven bottom-up sources are consistent with the NGHGIs and report a mean of 2588 (± 463 Tg CO2). The inversion reports 2700 Tg CO2 (± 480 Tg CO2), which is well in line with the national inventories. Over 2011–2015, the CO2 land sources and sinks from NGHGI estimates report −90 Tg C yr−1 ±  30 Tg C yr−1 while all other BU approaches report a mean sink of −98 Tg C yr−1 (± 362 Tg of C from dynamic global vegetation models only). For the TD model ensemble results, we observe a much larger spread for regional inversions (i.e., mean of 253 Tg C yr−1 ± 400 Tg C yr−1). This concludes that (a) current independent approaches are consistent with NGHGIs and (b) their uncertainty is too large to allow a verification because of model differences and probably also because of the definition of “CO2 flux” obtained from different approaches. The referenced datasets related to figures are visualized at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4626578 (Petrescu et al., 2020a).

Brazil is currently the largest contributor of land use and land cover change (LULCC) carbon dioxide net emissions worldwide, representing 17%–29% of the global total. There is, however, a lack of agreement among different methodologies on the magnitude and trends in LULCC emissions and their geographic distribution. Here we perform an evaluation of LULCC datasets for Brazil, including those used in the annual global carbon budget (GCB), and national Brazilian assessments over the period 2000–2018. Results show that the latest global HYDE 3.3 LULCC dataset, based on new FAO inventory estimates and multi-annual ESA CCI satellite-based land cover maps, can represent the observed spatial variation in LULCC over the last decades, representing an improvement on the HYDE 3.2 data previously used in GCB. However, the magnitude of LULCC assessed with HYDE 3.3 is lower than estimates based on MapBiomas. We use HYDE 3.3 and MapBiomas as input to a global bookkeeping model (bookkeeping of land use emission, BLUE) and a process-based Dynamic Global Vegetation Model (JULES-ES) to determine Brazil’s LULCC emissions over the period 2000–2019. Results show mean annual LULCC emissions of 0.1–0.4 PgC yr−1, compared with 0.1–0.24 PgC yr−1 reported by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation System of land use changes and forest sector (SEEG/LULUCF) and by FAO in its latest assessment of deforestation emissions in Brazil. Both JULES-ES and BLUE now simulate a slowdown in emissions after 2004 (−0.006 and −0.004 PgC yr−2 with HYDE 3.3, −0.014 and −0.016 PgC yr−2 with MapBiomas, respectively), in agreement with the Brazilian INPE-EM, global Houghton and Nassikas book-keeping models, FAO and as reported in the 4th national greenhouse gas inventories. The inclusion of Earth observation data has improved spatial representation of LULCC in HYDE and thus model capability to simulate Brazil’s LULCC emissions. This will likely contribute to reduce uncertainty in global LULCC emissions, and thus better constrains GCB assessments.

Abstract. The carbon flux due to land-use and land-cover change (net LULCC flux) historically contributed to a large fraction of anthropogenic carbon emissions while at the same time being associated with large uncertainties. This study aims to compare the contribution of several sensitivities underlying the net LULCC flux by assessing their relative importance in a bookkeeping model (Bookkeeping of Land Use Emissions, BLUE) based on a LULCC dataset including uncertainty estimates (the Land-Use Harmonization 2 (LUH2) dataset). The sensitivity experiments build upon the approach of Hurtt et al. (2011) and compare the impacts of LULCC uncertainty (a high, baseline and low land-use estimate), the starting time of the bookkeeping model simulation (850, 1700 and 1850), net area transitions versus gross area transitions (shifting cultivation) and neglecting wood harvest on estimates of the net LULCC flux. Additional factorial experiments isolate the impact of uncertainty from initial conditions and transitions on the net LULCC flux. Finally, historical simulations are extended with future land-use scenarios to assess the impact of past LULCC uncertainty in future projections. Over the period 1850–2014, baseline and low LULCC scenarios produce a comparable cumulative net LULCC flux, while the high LULCC estimate initially produces a larger net LULCC flux which decreases towards the end of the period and even becomes smaller than in the baseline estimate. LULCC uncertainty leads to slightly higher sensitivity in the cumulative net LULCC flux (up to 22 %; references are the baseline simulations) compared to the starting year of a model simulation (up to 15 %). The contribution from neglecting wood harvest activities (up to 28 % cumulative net LULCC flux) is larger than that from LULCC uncertainty, and the implementation of land-cover transitions (gross or net transitions) exhibits the smallest sensitivity (up to 13 %). At the end of the historical LULCC dataset in 2014, the LULCC uncertainty retains some impact on the net LULCC flux (±0.15 PgC yr−1 at an estimate of 1.7 PgC yr−1). Of the past uncertainties in LULCC, a small impact persists in 2099, mainly due to uncertainty of harvest remaining in 2014. However, compared to the uncertainty range of the LULCC flux estimated today, the estimates in 2099 appear to be indistinguishable. These results, albeit from a single model, are important for CMIP6 as they compare the relative importance of starting year, uncertainty of LULCC, applying gross transitions and wood harvest on the net LULCC flux. For the cumulative net LULCC flux over the industrial period, the uncertainty of LULCC is as relevant as applying wood harvest and gross transitions. However, LULCC uncertainty matters less (by about a factor of 3) than the other two factors for the net LULCC flux in 2014, and historical LULCC uncertainty is negligible for estimates of future scenarios.

Abstract. Land-use change has been the dominant source of anthropogenic carbon emissions for most of the historical period, and is currently one of the largest and most uncertain components of the global carbon cycle. Advancing the scientific understanding on this topic requires that the best data be used as input to state-of-the-art models in well-organized scientific assessments. The Land-Use Harmonization 2 dataset (LUH2), previously developed and used as input for CMIP6 simulations, has been updated annually to provide required input to land models in the annual Global Carbon Budget (GCB) assessments. Here we discuss the methodology for producing these annual LUH2-GCB updates and extensions which incorporate annual FAO wood harvest data updates for dataset years after 2015 and HYDE gridded cropland and grazing area data updates (based on annual FAO cropland and grazing area data updates) for dataset years after 2012, along with extrapolations to the current year due to a lag of one or more years in the FAO data releases. The resulting updated LUH2-GCB datasets have provided global, annual gridded land-use and land-use change data relating to agricultural expansion, deforestation, wood harvesting, shifting cultivation, regrowth and afforestation, crop rotations, and pasture management and are used by both bookkeeping models and Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs) for the GCB. For GCB 2019, a more significant update to LUH2 was produced, LUH2-GCB2019 (https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1851, Chini et al., 2020b), to take advantage of new data inputs that corrected cropland and grazing areas in the globally important region of Brazil, as far back as 1950. From 1951–2012 the LUH2-GCB2019 dataset begins to diverge from the version of LUH2 used for CMIP6, with peak differences in Brazil in the year 2000 for grazing land (difference of 100,000 km2) and in the year 2009 for cropland (difference of 77,000 km2), along with significant sub-national reorganization of agricultural land-use patterns within Brazil. The LUH2-GCB2019 dataset provides the base for future LUH2-GCB updates including the recent LUH2-GCB2020 dataset, and presents a starting point for operationalizing the creation of these datasets to reduce time-lags due to the multiple input dataset and model latencies.

Land-use and land-cover changes (LULCCs) contributed around one third to the cumulative, anthropogenic CO2 emissions from 1850 to 2019. Despite its great importance, estimates of the net CO2 fluxes from LULCC (ELUC) have high uncertainties, compared to other components of the global carbon cycle. One major source of uncertainty roots in the underlying LULCC forcing data. In this study, we implemented a new high-resolution LULCC dataset (HILDA+) in a bookkeeping model (BLUE) and compared the results to estimates from simulations based on LUH2, which is the LULCC dataset most commonly used in global carbon cycle models. Compared to LUH2-based estimates, results based on HILDA+ show lower total ELUC (global mean difference 1960–2019: 541 TgC yr−1, 65%) and large spatial and temporal differences in component fluxes (e.g. CO2 fluxes from deforestation). In general, the congruence of component fluxes is higher in the mid-latitudes compared to tropical and subtropical regions, which is to some degree explained with the different implementations of shifting cultivation in the underlying LULCC datasets. However, little agreement is reached on the trend of the last decade between ELUC estimates based on the two LULCC reconstructions. Globally and in many regions, ELUC estimates based on HILDA+ have decreasing trends, whereas estimates based on LUH2 indicate an increase. Furthermore, we analyzed the effect of different resolutions on ELUC estimates. By comparing estimates from simulations at 0.01∘ and 0.25∘ resolution, we find that component fluxes of estimates based on the coarser resolution tend to be larger compared to estimates based on the finer resolution, both in terms of sources and sinks (global mean difference 1960–2019: 36 TgC yr−1, 96%). The reason for these differences are successive transitions: these are not adequately represented at coarser resolution, which has the effect that—despite capturing the same extent of transition areas—overall less area remains pristine at the coarser resolution compared to the finer resolution.

Land-based mitigation is essential in reducing net carbon emissions. Yet, the attribution of carbon fluxes remains highly uncertain, in particular for the forest-rich region of Eastern Europe (incl. Western Russia). Here we integrate various data sources to show that Eastern Europe accounted for an above-ground biomass carbon sink of ~0.41 gigatons of carbon per year over the period 2010–2019, that is 78% of the entire European carbon sink. We find that this carbon sink is declining, mainly driven by changes in land use and land management, but also by increasing natural disturbances. Based on a random forest model, we show that land use and management changes are main drivers of the declining carbon sink in Eastern Europe, although soil moisture variability is also important. Specifically, the saturation effect of tree regrowth in abandoned agricultural areas, combined with increasing wood harvest removals, particularly in European Russia, contributed to the decrease in the Eastern European carbon sink.

Using Colombia as a case study, this analysis provides insights on deforestation dynamics in times of conflict and peace and the different factors driving these dynamics. We performed time series clustering of yearly deforestation data (2001–2018) from 708 out of 1,122 mainland Colombian municipalities (accounting for 98% of the total deforestation areas in Colombia) and produced regression models using a gradient tree boosting framework (XGBoost) to identify drivers that explain varying, local-level deforestation dynamics. Municipalities were characterized by seven categories of deforestation dynamics, with the Amazon region being largely represented by only four categories and the Andes region displaying all categories of deforestation dynamics. Notably, six of the seven representative categories exhibit substantial increases in deforestation in the years following the peace agreement. The regression analysis revealed that coca cultivation area, number of cattle, and municipality area are the top three drivers of deforestation dynamics at national, regional, and category levels. However, the importance of the different variables varied according to the different spatial dimensions. Results provide further understanding on how the drivers of deforestation change not only at a regional scale, as assumed by much of the current literature about drivers of deforestation, but also at a lower scale of analysis (intraregional and intradepartmental variation in the case of Colombia). Insights from this study can be used to understand deforestation dynamics in other countries experiencing times of conflict and peace and will support decision-makers in creating programs that align actions for peacebuilding, climate change mitigation, and biodiversity conservation more effectively.