Search

Fossil‐based emissions can be avoided by using wood in place of non‐renewable raw materials as energy and materials. However, wood harvest influences forest carbon stocks. Increased harvest may reduce the overall climate benefit of wood use significantly, but is widely overlooked. We reviewed selected simulation studies and compared differences in forest carbon and amount of wood harvested between harvest scenarios of different intensities for three different time perspectives: short‐ (1–30 years), mid‐ (31–70 years), and long‐term (71–100 years). Out of more than 450 reviewed studies 45 provided adequate data. Our results show that increased harvest reduces carbon stocks over 100 years in temperate and boreal forests by about 1.6 (stdev 0.9) tC per tC harvested (referred to as carbon balance indicator (CBI)). CBI proved to be robust when outliers explicitly influenced by factors other than changes in the harvest rate, such as fertilization or increase in forest area, were removed. The carbon impacts tend to be greatest in the mid‐term, but no significant difference in was found for average values between short and long time‐horizons. CBI can be interpreted as carbon opportunity costs of wood harvest in forests. Our results indicate that even after 100 years, CBI is significant compared to the typical GHG credits expected in the technosphere by avoiding fossil emissions in substitution and increasing carbon stocks in harvested wood products. Our estimates provide typical values that can directly be included in GHG balances of products or assessments of mitigation policies and measures related to wood use. However, more systematic scenarios with transparent information on influencing factors for forest carbon stocks are required to provide better constrained estimates for specific forest types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The global carbon neutrality challenge places a spotlight on forests as carbon sinks. However, greenhouse gas (GHG) balances of wood for material and energy use often reveal GHG emission savings in comparison with a non-wood reference. Is it thus better to increase wood production and use, or to conserve and expand the carbon stock in forests? GHG balances of wood products mostly ignore the dynamics of carbon storage in forests, which can be expressed as the carbon storage balance in forests (CSBF). For Germany, a CSBF of 0.25 to 1.15 t CO2-eq. m−3 wood can be assumed. When the CSBF is integrated into the GHG balance, GHG mitigation substantially deteriorates and wood products may even turn into a GHG source, e.g., in the case of energy wood. In such cases, building up forest carbon stocks would be the better option. We conclude that it is vital to include the CSBF in GHG balances of wood products to assess the impacts of wood extraction from forests. Only then can GHG balances provide political decision makers and stakeholders in the wood sector with a complete picture of GHG emissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) sectors contribute substantially to the net global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. To reduce these emissions under the Paris Agreement, effective mitigation actions are needed that require engagement of multiple stakeholders. Emission reduction also requires that accurate, consistent and comparable datasets are available for transparent reference and progress monitoring. Availability of free and open datasets and portals (referred to as independent data) increases, offering opportunities for improving and reconciling estimates of GHG emissions and mitigation options. Through an online survey, we investigated stakeholders’ data needs for estimating forest area and change, forest biomass and emission factors, and AFOLU GHG emissions. The survey was completed by 359 respondents from governmental, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, research institutes and universities, and public and private companies. These can be grouped into data users and data providers. Our results show that current open and freely available datasets and portals are only able to fulfil stakeholder needs to a certain degree. Users require a) detailed documentation regarding the scope and usability of the data, b) comparability between alternative data sources, c) uncertainty estimates for evaluating mitigation options, d) more region-specific and detailed data with higher accuracy for sub-national application, e) regular updates and continuity for establishing consistent time series. These requirements are found to be key elements for increasing overall transparency of data sources, definitions, methodologies and assumptions, which is required under the Paris Agreement. Raising awareness and improving data availability through centralized platforms are important for increasing engagement of data users. In countries with low capacities, independent data can support countries’ mitigation planning and implementation, and related GHG reporting. However, there is a strong need for further guidance and capacity development (i.e. ‘readiness support’) on how to make proper use of independent datasets. Continued investments will be needed to sustain programmes and keep improving datasets to serve the objectives of the many stakeholders involved in climate change mitigation and should focus on increased accessibility and transparency of data to encourage stakeholder involvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Industrialized countries agreed on a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. Many countries elected forest management activities and the resulting net balance of carbon emissions and removals of non-CO2 greenhouse gases by forest management in their climate change mitigation measures. In this paper a generic dynamic forestry model (FORMICA) is presented. It has an empirical basis. Several modules trace C pools relevant for the Kyoto Protocol and beyond: biomass, litter, deadwood and soil, and harvested wood products. The model also accounts for the substitution of fossil fuels by wood products and bioenergy. FORMICA was used to first study the model sensitivity and uncertainty based on data from Thuringia, a federal state of Germany, to determine the major sources of uncertainty in carbon accounting at different levels of carbon pool aggregation (biomass, ecosystem, forestry sector and enhanced forestry sector including the accumulated substitution effect). Rotation length and maximum increment contributed most to uncertainty in biomass. The influence of the latter did not diminish with higher level of pool aggregation. Uncertainty in the enhanced forestry sector was to a smaller degree controlled by product and substitution related parameters. Relative uncertainty decreased with the level of aggregation and comprehensiveness of the carbon budget. In a second step the model estimated the sink potential of the Thuringian forestry sector. The projected average biomass sink for the period of 2003–2043 of 0.6tCha−1 year−1 could be increased by 50% by broadening the perspective to the entire forestry sector, including substitution effects. A simulation of forest conservation on 20% of the forest area increased C fixation. However, even in the biomass C pool the expected C stock changes did not exceed the estimated uncertainty of 40%. A higher level of aggregation (i.e. the inclusion of soil and litter, product pool and substitution effects) decreases relative uncertainty but also diminishes differences between different management options. The analysis demonstrates that the choice of management mitigation options under an accounting scheme should include the impacts on forest products and of substitution effects. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]