Environmental impacts of forest production and supply of pulpwood: Spanish and Swedish case studies

Abstract

Background, aim and scope Forest operations use large amounts of energy, which must be considered when life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology is applied to forest products. Forest management practices differ considerably between countries and may also differ within a country. This paper aims to identify and compare the environmental burdens from forest operations in Sweden and Spain focused on pulpwood production and supply to pulp mills. Materials and methods To perform the analysis, the main forest plantations were investigated as well as the most important tree species used in pulp mills in both countries: eucalyptus and, Norway spruce and Scots pine, were taken into account for the Spanish and Swedish case studies, respectively. Energy requirements for pulpwood production and supply to Spanish and Swedish pulp mills are evaluated in this paper. All forest operations from site preparation to extraction of felled wood to the delivery point at the roadside are included within the system boundaries as well as wood transport from forest landing to the pulp mill gate. Seedling and machinery production are excluded from the system boundaries due to lack of field data. The impact assessment phase was carried out according to the Swedish Environmental Management Council and, in particular, the impact categories assessed in forest and agricultural LCAs (global warming, acidification, eutrophication and photochemical oxidant formation) were analysed. SimaPro 7.10 software was used to perform the impact assessment stage. Results Different types of wood are produced in both case studies: softwood in Sweden and hardwood in Spain, with higher production of round wood and biomass per hectare in Sweden. Total energy use for pulpwood production and supply are in a similar order of magnitude, up to 395 MJ and 370 MJ/m 3 solid under bark in Spain and Sweden, respectively. Field operations, such as silviculture and logging, are more energy-intensive in the Spanish case study. However, secondary hauling of pulpwood to pulp mill requires more energy in the Swedish case study. These important differences are related to different forest management practices as well as to pulpwood supply to the pulp mill. The eventual imports of pulpwood, application of pesticides, thinning step or final felling considerably affects energy requirements, which are reflected on the environmental results. Discussion Although differences between both case studies were observed, several stages were investigated: wood delivery to the pulp mill by road, harvesting and forwarding, contribute considerably to acidification, eutrophication and global warming potential in both cases. The type of wood, the machines used in forest operations (mechanised or motor-manual), the use of fossil fuels and the amount of wood produced influence the results. These differences must be kept in mind in comparative studies between such different countries. Conclusions The results obtained in this work allow one to forecast the importance of forest operations in LCA of forest pr...

Life-Cycle Energy and GHG Emissions of Forest Biomass Harvest and Transport for Biofuel Production in Michigan

“…Although extensive LCA studies have been conducted on biofuel logistics, the sources [8,[17][18][19]21] were chosen based on the forest feedstock type, which makes the comparison more persuasive. As shown in Table 8, the per unit values of energy demand and GHG emissions during the harvest operation is within a reasonable range as compared to prior research [8,[17][18][19]21]. The values for transport stage show an obvious decrease.…”

“…The values for transport stage show an obvious decrease. This may be because the case study is conducted in different countries (Sweden and Spain) [18], the locations of forest feedstock in mountain areas increase hauling inputs [19], and the assumption of long transport distances [21]. Sensitivity analysis for key inputs to harvesting and transportation operations was conducted.…”

“…Out of the direct emissions, harvesting contributed the most. Gonzalez-Garcia et al [18] conducted a LCA to identify environmental impacts of pulpwood production and supply to pulp mills in Sweden and Spain. A LCA was also conducted to evaluate GHG emissions and costs of forest management, harvest and transport operations in the mountain areas of Hedmark and Oppland countries in Norway [19].…”

Why Include Impacts on Biodiversity from Land Use in LCIA and How to Select Useful Indicators?

“…Cherubini and Strømman [130] found that land use and/or land use changes were included in 28 out of 94 studies on bioenergy, most often as changes in carbon stocks (e.g., [131,132]). Some papers acknowledge the importance of LULUC, but have not included this due to the immature methodology (e.g., [133]), and still, some include it as an assessment of area used without any quality judgment (e.g., [134][135][136]). Lack of clear recommendations and diverging methodological proposals might be some of the reasons for this.…”

A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of alternative material for Australian building construction

“…LVL can be manufactured in different sizes, such as floor beams, scaffold planking, as well as the flange material for prefabricated wood I-joists. However, many researchers mentioned that the engineered wood products may lead to much higher environmental impacts during manufacturing stage mainly due to chemicals consumption in the wood preparation phase [13,14]. While some researchers believed that engineered wood building design offered significantly lower environmental impacts; others reported that when considering cradle-to-grave processes, the energy requirements of engineered products are nearly identical to concrete [15,16].…”