Search

Long-standing debate over the benefits of forest conservation vs. those of forest resource use and substitution continue to occupy attention in Europe and beyond. To study this question, we simulate the short- and long-term consequences for atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations of different forest management strategies and forest product uses in Sweden. We compare the projected short- and long-term consequences of increasing forest use vs. increasing land set-asides. In all scenarios but one, forest management for wood production results in higher net GHG reduction than the alternative to set-aside forests for conservation. In all scenarios, annual carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration rates in conservation forests decline as maturing forests eventually reach a steady state, while they rise in all other forest management strategies. Thus, there is an apparent tradeoff between wood production and nature conservation. Forest set-asides are associated with sizable long-term opportunity costs corresponding to the foregone wood production capacity. Retained in the circular bioeconomy system over the long-term, forest management for wood production eventually stabilizes at significantly higher amounts than a management system which promotes greater shares of forest protection and conservation.In all cases, the long-term mitigation gains from wood production are cumulative and significant. Likewise, the indicative level of wood supply for biobased production that can be maintained without causing systematic loss in land carbon stocks is large. Such long-term consequences, however, are not properly accounted for in the European Union’s (EU’s) legislative LULUCF (Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry) carbon accounting framework, which effectively encourages land set-asides at the expense of forest wood production capacity.&nbsp

Long-standing debates over the benefits of forest conservation vs. those of substitution and forest resource use continue to occupy attention in Europe and beyond. Moreover, many argue the carbon sequestration benefits of standing forest are greater than those from forest resource use and replanting. To study this question, we generate long-term scenario analyses based on different forest management strategies in Sweden, in particular comparing increasing forest use and increasing land set-asides over 100, 200 and 500 year cycles. We find that the cost of increasing land set-asides is reflected in a significant loss of the carbon benefits created by forest use (substitution and carbon sequestration). We explain this outcome through the loss of additional growth that occurs as forest in land set-asides matures and eventually reaches a steady state. For the Swedish forest, these costs are significant and may amount to the loss (lost opportunity) of annually providing and additional -14 MtCO2e in net annual removals. The EU-based LULUCF carbon accounting framework, however, does not recognize this benefit and thus may effectively encourage land set-asides at the expense of real, measurable forest and forest resource-based climate change mitigation.

We estimate the climate effects of directing forest management in Sweden towards increased carbon storage in forests with more land set-aside for protection, or towards increased forest production for the substitution of carbon-intensive materials and fossil fuels, relative to a reference case of current forest management. We develop various scenarios of forest management and biomass use to estimate the carbon balances of the forest systems, including ecological and technological components, and their impacts on the climate in terms of radiative forcing. The scenario with increased set-aside area and the current level of forest residue harvest resulted in lower cumulative carbon emissions compared to the reference case for the first 90 years, but then showed higher emissions as reduced forest harvest led to higher carbon emissions from energy and material systems. For the reference case of current forest management, increased harvest of forest residues gave increased climate benefits. The most climatically beneficial alternative, expressed as reduced cumulative radiative forcing, in both the short and long terms is a strategy aimed at high forest production, high residue recovery rate, and high efficiency utilization of harvested biomass. Active forest management with high harvest levels and efficient forest product utilization will provide more climate benefit, compared to reducing harvest and storing more carbon in the forest.

Key message This analysis of the tools and methods currently in use for reporting woody biomass availability in 21 European countries has shown that most countries use, or are developing, National Forest Inventory-oriented models whereas the others use standwise forest inventory--oriented methods. Context Knowledge of realistic and sustainable wood availability in Europe is highly relevant to define climate change mitigation strategies at national and European level, to support the development of realistic targets for increased use of renewable energy sources and of industry wood. Future scenarios at European level highlight a deficit of domestic wood supply compared to wood consumption, and some European countries state they are harvesting above the increment. Aims Several country-level studies on wood availability have been performed for international reporting. However, it remains essential to improve the knowledge on the projection methods used across Europe to better evaluate forecasts. Methods Analysis was based on descriptions supplied by the national correspondentsinvolved in USEWOOD COST Action (FP1001), and further enriched with additionaldata from international reports that allowedcharacterisation of the forests in these countries for the same base year. Results Methods currently used for projecting wood availability were described for 21 European countries. Projection systems based on National Forest Inventory (NFI) data prevail over methods based on forest management plans. Only a few countries lack nationwide projection tools, still using tools developed for specific areas. Conclusions A wide range of NFI-based systems for projecting wood availability exists, being under permanent improvement. The validation of projection forecasts and the inclusion of climate sensitive growth models into these tools are common aims for most countries. Cooperation among countries would result in higher efficiency when developing and improving projection tools and better comparability among them. © 2016, INRA and Springer-Verlag France.