Application of the stock change and the production approach to Harvested Wood Products in the EU-15 countries: a comparative analysis

Abstract

With the analytical tool: Frankfurt Harvested Wood Products (HWP) Model, carbon stocks and carbon stock changes of HWP, either in USE or in LANDFILLS, have been evaluated from the readily available statistical data base of the FAO, FAOSTAT, on the wood commodities: ''Sawnwood and Wood-based Panels'' and the paper commodities: ''Paper and Paperboard''. Essential differences have been found between the individual 15 EU countries in the comparison of the Stock Change Approach and the Production Approach, as well as in the comparison of the stock changes of HWP with the National Greenhouse Gas (GHG) budgets. The stock changes for the HWP in USE within the EU-15 Community have been calculated to be 10.83 Mt C/a (39.71 Mt CO 2 /a) based on the Stock Change Approach and 9.81 Mt C/a (35.97 Mt CO 2 /a) for the Production Approach, respectively. These numbers can be compared to the total GHG Inventory of the EU-15 of 4,095 Mt CO 2 equivalents, including all six Kyoto gases, which shows that the carbon sequestration of HWP in USE is of the order of 1% relative to GHG Inventory. The GHG balance for the carbon stock changes of HWP in LANDFILLS is of similar magnitude as for the HWP in USE, and therefore a sink when methane outgasing is disregarded. However, when methane outgasing is considered, which is formed as a 1:1 mixture with CO 2 under the prevailing anaerobic conditions the GHG balance results in minus 10.0 Mt C equivalent/a and minus 10.6 Mt C equivalent/a for the Stock Change Approach and the Production Approach under the parameters chosen in this study.Keywords Stocks AE Stock changes of Harvested Wood Products in USE and in LANDFILLS AE Analytical model AE Methane outgasing of landfills AE EU-15 comparison of stock change approach and production approach Introduction and rationale

A Rethinking of the Production Approach in IPCC: Its Objectiveness in China

“…Figure 1 shows that in this stage, the choice of approaches varied across countries and studies unlike in the maturity stage during which all studies favored SCA for the carbon accounting of HWPs. Nonetheless, the studies in the USA [27] and EU countries [26,29] favored SCA during this stage because this approach leads to the largest carbon stock. Scholars have also discussed the uncertainty and socioeconomic effects of each approach and asserted that SCA is the most appropriate in terms of socioeconomics [8,28] but generally has the largest uncertainty [27,29,30].…”

“…In this guideline, AFA, PA, and SCA became the main approaches adopted by countries to report their carbon emission/removal of HWPs. However, the 2006 Guidelines did not have any preference toward any of these approaches; instead, it encouraged the architecture and use of high-tiered methods on the basis of such approaches, which led to the booming of country-specific methods in carbon accounting [26][27][28].…”

Carbon stocks and greenhouse gas balance of harvested wood products: focus on the Asia-Pacific Partnership countries vis-à-vis the European Union

“…As the FPM has been described before in this journal (Kohlmaier et al 2007), we refer here to the Appendix 1 where the most significant features are summarized. For the determination of the stocks of the HWP in USE in any year only three parameters are needed: the exponentially fitted consumption CONS(t) for the Stock Change Approach S-A (or the production excluding trade PROD-NT(t) for the Production Approach P-A), the growth constant k in of CONS or PROD-NT, derived from the FAO data, and the decay constant k out , defined as the inverse of the estimated residence time.…”

“…The analytical part is chosen on purpose to be very simple and transparent, such that a parameter change can be initiated by the reader, and the new result can be obtained immediately with the use of an EXCEL spreadsheet calculation. In analogy to the Frankfurt Biosphere Model (FBM) (Kohlmaier et al 1997) the new small model (the little sister of FBM) of the analytical assessment of carbon stocks and their changes is called FPM (Kohlmaier et al 2007), the Frankfurt Harvested Wood Products Model.…”

“…In a preceding paper (Kohlmaier et al 2007) the stocks and stock changes of HWP of the 15 countries of the former European Union EU-15 have been analyzed on the basis of the pioneering work of Burschel et al (1993), of Heath et al (1993), and of Winjum et al (1998), Kohlmaier et al (1998) who specifically address forest harvests and wood products and their sources and sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide. It is for this reason, also, that this paper focuses on the countries of Asian-Pacific Partnership and relates its results both to the carbon stocks of HWP in the EU-15 and the EU-25.…”