Ignore historic TAU patterns + land conversion costs forestry + Bugfix BII + Bugfix NPI/NDC afforestation #276

flohump · 2021-05-10T07:42:48Z

🐦 Purpose of this PR 🐦

Ignore historic TAU patterns for improved near-term trends of cropland and CO2 emission trends
lower land conversion costs for forestry (1000 $/ha). High land conversion costs (8000 $/ha) are only needed for cropland and pasture to maintain a balance between expansion and intensification. High land conversion costs for forestry land prohibit afforestation. Lower land conversion costs for forestry increase afforestation in Policy runs but do not change timber plantation establishment.
Bugfix BII: ac0 included in pricing of biodiversity loss, BII coefficients for CO2 price driven afforestation
Bugfix NPI/NDC afforestation: the previous formulation caused infeasibilies in some cases.
Bugfix: growth curve for CO2 price driven afforestation was wrong in case of activated forestry ("ForestryEndo")

Results: https://1drv.ms/p/s!AlN2Seu8OCz8hJRPNljEb1sVbRPBeA
Additional results can be added on request.

🔧 Checklist for PR creator 🔧

Labeling pull request correctly from the label list.

Low risk : Simple bugfixes (missing files, updated documentation, typos) or Start/output scripts
Medium risk : New realization / Changes to existing realization / Other changes which don't modify default.cfg
High risk : New input files (if cfg$input is changed in default.cfg) / Modification to core model (eg. changes in equations, calculations, introduction of new sets etc.) / Other changes in default.cfg

Providing additional information based on PR label

Start script for test runs: TAUhistfree.R

Low risk : No new model run needed.
Medium risk : Default run based on the current version of the fork from which PR is made
High risk
- Default run from the current develop branch
- Default run based on the current version of the fork from which PR is made

⚠️ Additional notes or warnings ⚠️

NA

🚨 Checklist for RSE reviewer 🚨

PR is labeled correctly.
CHANGELOG is updated correctly
No hard coded numbers and cluster/country/region names.
No unnecessary increase in module interfaces
All required updates in interfaces (if any) have been properly adressed in the module contracts
In-code comments and documentation comments are satisfactory.
model behavior/performance is satisfactory.
Requested changes (if any) were applied correctly

🚨 Checklist for MAgPIE reviewer 🚨

PR is labeled correctly.
CHANGELOG is updated correctly
No hard coded numbers and cluster/country/region names.
Changes to the model are scientifically sound
In-code comments and documentation comments are satisfactory.
model behavior/performance is satisfactory.
Requested changes (if any) were applied correctly

tscheypidi

Please rename/reformulate your TC modifications as the current name and description is a bit misleading
please also add the new switch to the config file
if you plan to change the default behavior and abandon the historic tau development this probably requires more discussions and would make it a "high risk" PR

CHANGELOG.md

tscheypidi · 2021-05-10T08:02:40Z

modules/13_tc/endo_jun18/input.gms

@@ -6,6 +6,10 @@
 *** |  Contact: magpie@pik-potsdam.de


+scalars
+ s13_tau_hist_lower_bound	logical switch for setting a lower bound on TAU in historic time steps (0=off 1=on) / 0 /


you should call it and describe it different, e.g. s13_ignore_tau_historical. As this is a on/off switch you also might want to think about using a switch rather than a scalar for it

In addition, this switch should also show up in the config then. Do you plan to change the default here (not taking historical values in to account anymore)?

renamed to s13_ignore_tau_historical
Do we really need this switch in the config? It can be changed in a start script, if needed by expericend users.

my understanding was that you introduced that scalar to be able to change the setting...if that was the intention than it should be part of the config.
If your intention was just to ignore historic tau values in all future simulations the historic values should be removed from the realization alltogether...however, in the latter case this is a significant modification and should be discussed as for all other values we fix the model to historic values. Excluding tau values from that rule would mean a paradigm shift

I disagree here. First, we have other examples of switches which exist in an input.gms file but are not part of the config file. My understanding is that this serves the gaol of not overloading the default.cfg file with too many switches. However, I'm fine with adding s13_ignore_tau_historical to the default.cfg.
Second, and this is more important, we don't fix or impose a lower bound on cropland in the historic period. Having a lower bound only for TAU is somewhat unbalanced from my perspective, and partly explains why our near-term dynamics of cropland and CO2 emissions slightly mismatch with observed data. Setting a lower bound or fixing a variable for historic time steps is rather an exception so far. We fix many parameter values to make sure that scenarios don't diverge before 2020.
I now created additional runs based on the current develop and the branch to be merged to facilitate a structured, efficient and transparent discussion.
Results can be found here: https://1drv.ms/p/s!AlN2Seu8OCz8hJRPNljEb1sVbRPBeA

tscheypidi · 2021-05-10T09:07:27Z

modules/32_forestry/dynamic_feb21/equations.gms

+          sum(ac_mature, v32_land(j2,"aff",ac_mature)) * fm_luh2_side_layers(j2,potnatveg) * 
+          (fm_bii_coeff("secd_mature",potnatveg)*(1-s32_aff_plantation) + fm_bii_coeff("timber",potnatveg)*(s32_aff_plantation))
+          + sum(ac_young, v32_land(j2,"aff",ac_young)) * fm_luh2_side_layers(j2,potnatveg) * 
+          (fm_bii_coeff("secd_young",potnatveg)*(1-s32_aff_plantation) + fm_bii_coeff("timber",potnatveg)*(s32_aff_plantation));


This is quite some repetitive writing. Isn't there a better formulation possible, e.g. via a mapping set rather than writing 2 times the same for ac_mature and ac_young?

I revised these equations. Please check.

tscheypidi · 2021-05-10T09:08:51Z

modules/32_forestry/dynamic_feb21/equations.gms

+		  (fm_bii_coeff("secd_mature",potnatveg)*(1-s32_timber_plantation) + fm_bii_coeff("timber",potnatveg)*(s32_timber_plantation))
+        + sum(ac_young, v32_land(j2,"plant",ac_young)) * fm_luh2_side_layers(j2,potnatveg) * 
+		  (fm_bii_coeff("secd_young",potnatveg)*(1-s32_timber_plantation) + fm_bii_coeff("timber",potnatveg)*(s32_timber_plantation));
+


same as above....are the repeated terms the same as above? Perhaps calculate them first in a separate equations and use them afterwards in these two equations?

I revised these equations. Please check.

tscheypidi · 2021-05-10T09:10:07Z

modules/39_landconversion/global_static_aug18/input.gms

+ s39_cost_establish_crop   Cost for establishing new land use (USD05MER per hectare)    /8000/
+ s39_cost_establish_past   Cost for establishing new land use (USD05MER per hectare)    /8000/
+ s39_cost_establish_forestry   Cost for establishing new land use (USD05MER per hectare)    /1000/
+ s39_cost_clearing    Clearing costs linked to removed biomass (USD05MER per ton C)  /0/
 ;


I believe this change in settings requires the PR to be tagged as "medium risk" as it will have probably some visible effects on the dynamics

Done. Happy to discuss these changes in the next group meeting.

pvjeetze

Overall fine, thanks for fixing the biodiversity module!

pvjeetze · 2021-05-10T15:47:03Z

modules/44_biodiversity/bv_btc_mar21/sets.gms

 		/ crop_ann, crop_per, manpast, rangeland, urban, primary, secd_mature, secd_young, timber /

+	bii_secd(bii_class44) bii coefficent land cover classes secondary vegetation


First impression is that it becomes a little harder to read initially, with this additional set. But this may be very personal and the code may get pretty long otherwise. Just to highlight this. Maybe clearer (but longer names) could help?

I could rename "bii_secd" to "bii_class44_secd". But this would imply renaming "ac_to_bii_secd(ac,bii_secd)" to "ac_to_ bii_class44_secd(ac, bii_class44_secd)", which would also increase the length of the code in equations.gms. Maybe we just call it "bii_ac"?

Looks good, I think. For the second one maybe the other way around ac_bii?

So you suggest to rename "bii_secd" to "ac_bii"?

no excuse me. bii_secd -> bii_class44_secd and ac_to_bii_secd -> ac_bii/ac_bii_secd

…r co2 pricing with afforestation taking plantations carbon densities

…ng runs

…eated as natveg

…orestation

pvjeetze

Thanks Florian for the updates! I've looked at them once more and all is fine.

weindl

Technically, the modifications look good. The comments on NPI/NDC afforestation are suggestions, and do not preclude a merge of the PR.

weindl · 2021-05-13T13:25:44Z

modules/32_forestry/dynamic_feb21/preloop.gms

+** This allows to use plantation growth curves for CO2 price driven afforestation.
+p32_c_density_ac_fast_forestry(t_all,j,ac) = pm_carbon_density_ac_forestry(t_all,j,ac,"vegc");
+
+** Update c-density for timber plantations based on calibration factor to match FAO growing stocks


Just to be sure:
While timber plantation uses the FAO-calibrated carbon density (pm_carbon_density_ac_forestry(t_all,j,ac,"vegc") ), carbon-price induced afforestation uses the uncalibrated carbon density (p32_c_density_ac_fast_forestry(t_all,j,ac) ), right?

This allows afforestation to follow the growth curves towards LPJmL natural vegetation carbon density, without being inconsistent with the LPJmL estimates at the mature level.

I checked in modules/32_forestry/dynamic_feb21/presolve.gms the application of the carbon density parameters. All looks fine.

Just to be sure:
While timber plantation uses the FAO-calibrated carbon density (pm_carbon_density_ac_forestry(t_all,j,ac,"vegc") ), carbon-price induced afforestation uses the uncalibrated carbon density (p32_c_density_ac_fast_forestry(t_all,j,ac) ), right?

Yes, I confirm. That's how it is intended. I discussed this @abhimish

This allows afforestation to follow the growth curves towards LPJmL natural vegetation carbon density, without being inconsistent with the LPJmL estimates at the mature level.

weindl · 2021-05-13T13:32:53Z

modules/32_forestry/dynamic_feb21/preloop.gms

+elseif s32_aff_bii_coeff = 1,
+ p32_bii_coeff("aff",bii_class_secd,potnatveg) = fm_bii_coeff("timber",potnatveg)
+);
+p32_bii_coeff("ndc",bii_class_secd,potnatveg) = fm_bii_coeff(bii_class_secd,potnatveg);


Would it make sense to also allow for the application of the switch "s32_aff_bii_coeff" onto NPI/NDC afforestation? Also here, afforestation policies could be implemented in different ways, either in a more plantation like manner with fast growing species or using only native species, with different implications for biodiversity and thus the choice of bii coefficient.

Sure, this could be added. We would need 2 more switches for that like s32_ndc_growth_curve and s32_ndc_bii_coeff to allow for different assumptions with respect to ndc and co2 price driven afforestation. @mishkos What do you think?Does it make sense to have these additional switches?

While it does make sense to differentiate what kind of forests are established under npi/ndc policies, the national documents don't specify this at all. Therefore I suggest for the time being to stick to the natveg growth curves for npi/ndc aff pol.

NPI/NDC afforestation still uses natveg growth. We only now provide a possibility where CO2 price induced afforestation can be selected to grow with a plantation growth curved. We have three forestry categories, plant which is timber production plantations, aff which are co2 priced afforestation and ndc which are prescribed afforestation according to NPI/NDC policy. My understanding was that prescribed NPI/NDC policy does not merge back into aff.
@flohump this is the correct way to put it right?

weindl · 2021-05-13T13:42:42Z

modules/32_forestry/dynamic_feb21/presolve.gms

+
+*' Timber plantations carbon densities:
+p32_carbon_density_ac(t,j,"plant",ac,ag_pools) = pm_carbon_density_ac_forestry(t,j,ac,ag_pools);
+
 *' NDC carbon densities are natveg carbon densities.


see comment on bii coefficient in the NPI/NDC context above: maybe consider also here the possibility to select between plantation and natveg growth curves?

This I discussed with @abhimishr . We agreed that it does not make sense to assume natveg growth curves for timber plantations.

as answered above, I suggest to keep natveg growth curves for the npi/ndc aff policy.

abhimishr · 2021-05-13T19:13:31Z

Also seems fine to me. As we need to finish the checklist part, @pvjeetze or @weindl would you like to do it? if not I can also do it. Just indicate this here. MAgPIE side of review seems good to go and @tscheypidi will handle the RSE side of review.

abhimishr · 2021-05-13T19:15:20Z

Also tagging @mishkos here. The cost validation taskforce indicated about timber production costs in non-rimber production runs for historical period. Would it be okay if I fix it in the post-processing side?

mishkos

Approving the changes that are correcting the cases of NPI/NDC afforestation infeasibility

mishkos · 2021-05-14T07:06:14Z

modules/32_forestry/dynamic_feb21/presolve.gms

-  p32_aff_pol_timestep(t,j)$(ord(t)>1) = p32_aff_pol(t,j) - p32_aff_pol(t-1,j);
+* Limit prescribed NPI/NDC afforestation in `p32_aff_pol_timestep` if not enough suitable area (`p32_aff_pot`) for afforestation is available
+   p32_aff_pol_timestep(t,j)$(p32_aff_pol_timestep(t,j) > p32_aff_pot(t,j)) = p32_aff_pot(t,j);
+** END ndc **


This looks good to me. The change doesn't affect the way how npi/ndc aff policy is established in each cell. The code is simplified.

mishkos · 2021-05-14T07:34:00Z

modules/32_forestry/dynamic_feb21/preloop.gms

+elseif s32_aff_bii_coeff = 1,
+ p32_bii_coeff("aff",bii_class_secd,potnatveg) = fm_bii_coeff("timber",potnatveg)
+);
+p32_bii_coeff("ndc",bii_class_secd,potnatveg) = fm_bii_coeff(bii_class_secd,potnatveg);


While it does make sense to differentiate what kind of forests are established under npi/ndc policies, the national documents don't specify this at all. Therefore I suggest for the time being to stick to the natveg growth curves for npi/ndc aff pol.

mishkos · 2021-05-14T07:35:20Z

modules/32_forestry/dynamic_feb21/presolve.gms

+
+*' Timber plantations carbon densities:
+p32_carbon_density_ac(t,j,"plant",ac,ag_pools) = pm_carbon_density_ac_forestry(t,j,ac,ag_pools);
+
 *' NDC carbon densities are natveg carbon densities.


as answered above, I suggest to keep natveg growth curves for the npi/ndc aff policy.

pvjeetze · 2021-05-17T15:15:38Z

CHANGELOG.md

@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ and this project adheres to [Semantic Versioning](https://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0

 ### fixed
 - **32_foresty** BII coefficients for CO2 price driven afforestation


Please briefly highlight new switch for choosing the BII coefficient

abhimishr · 2021-05-21T08:10:17Z

@tscheypidi would you like to request more changes? I'll re-request your review here. MAgPIE side of review seems good to go.

tscheypidi · 2021-05-21T09:03:52Z

@abhimishr If i remember correctly, we postponed in our last MAgPIE meeting the decision how to deal with the suggested modification of historic tau treatment and wanted to discuss it again in the next meeting. That is why I haven't given green light yet

flohump · 2021-05-21T12:46:55Z

@abhimishr If i remember correctly, we postponed in our last MAgPIE meeting the decision how to deal with the suggested modification of historic tau treatment and wanted to discuss it again in the next meeting. That is why I haven't given green light yet

In cooperation with @k4rst3ns I included additiontal results based on #273 in the results document.
https://1drv.ms/p/s!AlN2Seu8OCz8hJRPNljEb1sVbRPBeA

Ignoring historic TAU patterns has mostly effects on cropland dynamics and CO2 emissions in REF. I would argue that Ignoring historic TAU patterns results in more plausible near-term cropland dynamics and CO2 emissions in REF.

flohump and others added 18 commits May 4, 2021 18:21

Bugfix BII 32_forestry

2eb19a5

update

f0f89f1

bugfix sets BII

f76b643

update cost forestry

8f44408

update start script

7abe9cf

update script

ba89b24

new land conversion cost module realization

f841fcc

update

0119d37

update

41456f7

update

084f2cd

update

2f985a5

Zero timber production costs for non timber demand runs

c04341f

update

b30c46b

update

a4a373e

switch for lower bound on TC in historic time steps

5547e37

additional runs

a1e17dc

additional runs

f9d5d90

changelog

8152c25

flohump added bug Something isn't working enhancement New feature or request Minor Smaller modifications Low risk Low risk labels May 10, 2021

flohump requested review from tscheypidi, abhimishr, weindl and pvjeetze May 10, 2021 07:42

update default value and documentation

d128a34

tscheypidi requested changes May 10, 2021

View reviewed changes

flohump added High risk Higher risk and removed Low risk Low risk labels May 10, 2021

pvjeetze reviewed May 10, 2021

View reviewed changes

flohump added 2 commits May 11, 2021 11:49

update test run start script

bd91998

update config file

9c706b7

flohump changed the title ~~Remove lower bound on TC in historic time steps + lower land conversion costs for forestry + Bugfix BII~~ Ignore historic TAU patterns + lower land conversion costs for forestry + Bugfix BII May 11, 2021

abhimishr and others added 10 commits May 12, 2021 11:08

Merge branch 'magpiemodel:develop' into develop

38eb66b

Possible bugfix for afforestation bug where timber prodn happens unde…

0f2c0c7

…r co2 pricing with afforestation taking plantations carbon densities

Added temporary start script

8f1b314

commented in start run

71d4271

forestry cost in hist period bugfix (for cost validation task force)

6c43596

Correct application of NPI and NDC policies in baseline and co2 prici…

ad6f7aa

…ng runs

typo fix

061cf3d

General cleanup. Removed switch where plantation forestry could be tr…

8c7da82

…eated as natveg

update of set names and option to choose BII for co2 price driven aff…

13fdca2

…orestation

bugfix NPI/NDC afforestation + update changelog

ba57b6c

flohump changed the title ~~Ignore historic TAU patterns + lower land conversion costs for forestry + Bugfix BII~~ Ignore historic TAU patterns + land conversion costs forestry + Bugfix BII + Bugfix NPI/NDC afforestation May 13, 2021

flohump requested a review from mishkos May 13, 2021 08:09

bugfix growth curve co2 price driven afforestation

aab0f75

pvjeetze approved these changes May 13, 2021

View reviewed changes

weindl approved these changes May 13, 2021

View reviewed changes

mishkos approved these changes May 14, 2021

View reviewed changes

pvjeetze reviewed May 17, 2021

View reviewed changes

abhimishr requested a review from tscheypidi May 21, 2021 08:10

tscheypidi approved these changes May 26, 2021

View reviewed changes

flohump merged commit f00d00a into magpiemodel:develop May 26, 2021

flohump deleted the f_TAUhistfree branch June 18, 2024 16:34

		/ crop_ann, crop_per, manpast, rangeland, urban, primary, secd_mature, secd_young, timber /

		bii_secd(bii_class44) bii coefficent land cover classes secondary vegetation

		@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ and this project adheres to [Semantic Versioning](https://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0

		### fixed
		- 32_foresty BII coefficients for CO2 price driven afforestation

Ignore historic TAU patterns + land conversion costs forestry + Bugfix BII + Bugfix NPI/NDC afforestation #276

Ignore historic TAU patterns + land conversion costs forestry + Bugfix BII + Bugfix NPI/NDC afforestation #276

Conversation

flohump commented May 10, 2021 • edited by tscheypidi Loading

🐦 Purpose of this PR 🐦

🔧 Checklist for PR creator 🔧

⚠️ Additional notes or warnings ⚠️

🚨 Checklist for RSE reviewer 🚨

🚨 Checklist for MAgPIE reviewer 🚨

tscheypidi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pvjeetze left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pvjeetze May 11, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pvjeetze left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

weindl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

flohump May 14, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

abhimishr commented May 13, 2021

abhimishr commented May 13, 2021

mishkos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

abhimishr commented May 21, 2021

tscheypidi commented May 21, 2021

flohump commented May 21, 2021 • edited Loading

flohump commented May 10, 2021 •

edited by tscheypidi

Loading

pvjeetze May 11, 2021 •

edited

Loading

flohump May 14, 2021 •

edited

Loading

flohump commented May 21, 2021 •

edited

Loading