No abstract

Background: In 2018, the European Union (EU) adopted Regulation 2018/841, which sets the accounting rules for the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector for the period 2021-2030. This regulation is part of the EU's commitments to comply with the Paris Agreement. According to the new regulation, emissions and removals for managed forest land are to be accounted against a projected forest reference level (FRL) that is estimated by each EU Member State based on the continuation of forest management practices of the reference period 2000-2009. The aim of this study is to assess how different modelling assumptions possible under the regulation may influence the FRL estimates. Applying the interlinked G4M and WoodCarbonMonitor modelling frameworks, we estimate potential FRLs for each individual EU Member State following a set of conceptual scenarios, each reflecting different modelling assumptions that are consistent with the regulation and the technical guidance document published by the European Commission. Results:The simulations of the conceptual scenarios show that differences in the underlying modelling assumptions may have a large impact on the projected FRL. Depending on the assumptions taken, the projected annual carbon sink on managed forest land in the EU varies from −319 MtCO 2 to −397 MtCO 2 during the first compliance period (2021-2025) and from −296 MtCO 2 to −376 MtCO 2 during the second compliance period (i.e. 2026-2030). These estimates can be compared with the 2017 national GHG inventories which estimated that the forest carbon sink for managed forest land was −373 MtCO 2 in 2015. On an aggregated EU level, the assumptions related to climate change and the allocation of forest management practices have the largest impacts on the FRL estimates. On the other hand, assumptions concerning the starting year of the projection, stratification of managed forest land, and timing of individual management activities are found to have relatively small impacts on the FRL estimates. Conclusions:We provide a first assessment of the level of uncertainty associated with the different assumptions discussed in the technical guidance document and the LULUCF regulation, and the impact of these assumptions on the country-specific FRL. The results highlight the importance of transparent documentation by the EU Member States on how their FRL has been calculated, and on the underlying assumptions.

No abstract

Existing life cycle assessment (LCA) studies for furniture focus on single pieces of furniture and use a bottom-up approach based on their bill of materials (BOM) to build up the data inventories. This approach does not ensure completeness regarding material and energy fluxes and representativeness regarding the product portfolio. Integrating material and energy fluxes collected at company level into product LCA (top-down approach) over-rides this drawback. This article presents a method for systematic LCA of industrially produced furniture that merges the top-down approach and bottom-up approach. The developed method assigns data collected at the company level to the different products while, at the same time, considering that wood-based furniture is a complex product. Hence, several classifications to reduce the complexity to a manageable level have been developed. Simultaneously, a systematic calculation routine was established. The practical implementation of the developed method for systematic LCA is carried out in a case study within the German furniture industry. The system boundary was set in accord with the EN 15804 specification cradle-to-gate-with-options. The analysis therefore includes the manufacturing phase supplemented by an end-of-life scenario. The case study shows that the manufacturing of semifinished products (especially wood-based panels and metal components) as well as the electric energy demand in furniture manufacturing account for a notable share of the environmental impacts. A sensitivity analysis indicates that up to roughly 10% of the greenhouse gas emissions are not recorded when conducting an LCA based on a BOM instead of applying the developed approach. Keywords: classification complex wood products industrial ecology life cycle assessment (LCA) systematic data calculation top-down and bottom-up approach Supporting information is linked to this article on the JIE website Conflict of interest statement: The authors have no conflict to declare.(2010) assessed, 6.5 million cubic meters m 3 of particleboard were used for the production of furniture in Germany in 2007. These numbers illustrate the importance of the furniture sector and the need for reliable life cycle assessment (LCA) data of furniture.

No abstract