Modelling forest carbon stock changes as affected by harvest and natural disturbances. II. EU-level analysis

Abstract

BackgroundForests and the forest sector may play an important role in mitigating climate change. The Paris Agreement and the recent legislative proposal to include the land use sector in the EU 2030 climate targets reflect this expectation. However, greater confidence on estimates from national greenhouse gas inventories (GHGI) and more comprehensive analyses of mitigation options are needed to seize this mitigation potential. The aim of this paper is to provide a tool at EU level for verifying the EU GHGI and for simulating specific policy and forest management scenarios. Therefore, the Carbon Budget Model (CBM) was applied for an integrated assessment of the EU forest carbon (C) balance from 2000 to 2012, including: (i) estimates of the C stock and net CO2 emissions for forest management (FM), afforestation/reforestation (AR) and deforestation (D), covering carbon in both the forest and the harvest wood product (HWP) pools; (ii) an overall analysis of the C dynamics associated with harvest and natural disturbances (mainly storms and fires); (iii) a comparison of our estimates with the data reported in the EU GHGI.ResultsOverall, the average annual FM sink (−365 Mt CO2 year−1) estimated by the CBM in the period 2000–2012 corresponds to about 7 % of total GHG emissions at the EU level for the same period (excluding land use, land-use change and forestry). The HWP pool sink (−44 Mt CO2 year−1) contributes an additional 1 %. Emissions from D (about 33 Mt CO2 year−1) are more than compensated by the sink in AR (about 43 Mt CO2 year−1 over the period). For FM, the estimates from the CBM were about 8 % lower than the EU GHGI, a value well within the typical uncertainty range of the EU forest sink estimates. For AR and D the match with the EU GHGI was nearly perfect (difference <±2 % in the period 2008–2012). Our analysis on harvest and natural disturbances shows that: (i) the impact of harvest is much greater than natural disturbances but, because of salvage logging (often very relevant), the impact of natural disturbances is often not easily distinguishable from the impact of harvest, and (ii) the impact of storms on the biomass C stock is 5–10 times greater than fires, but while storms cause only indirect emissions (i.e., a transfer of C from living biomass to dead organic matter), fires cause both direct and indirect emissions.ConclusionsThis study presents the application of a consistent methodological approach, based on an inventory-based model, adapted to the forest management conditions of EU countries. The approach captures, with satisfactory detail, the C sink reported in the EU GHGI and the country-specific variability due to harvest, natural disturbances and land-use changes. To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive study of its kind at EU level, i.e., including all the forest pools, HWP and natural disturbances, and a comparison with the EU GHGI. The results provide the basis for possible future policy-relevant applications of this model, e.g., as a tool to support GHGIs (e.g., on accounting for na...

Outlook of the European forest-based sector: forest growth, harvest demand, wood-product markets, and forest carbon dynamics implications

“…The model has been applied to 26 EU countries, using National Forest Inventories (NFIs) input data, in order to estimate the EU forest C dynamic from 2000 to 2012, including the effect of natural disturbances and land use change (Pilli et al 2016a(Pilli et al , 2016b. The CBM provides one-year time step projections of C stocks and fluxes, such as the annual C transfers between pools, from pools to the atmosphere and to the forest product sector.…”

“…S1 in Supplementary material). The rationale is that the potential harvest provided by plantations and natural expansion of existing forests eventually occurring from 2010 to 2030 is negligible compared to the harvest provided by existing forests (Pilli et al 2016b). Through the LUISA platform, FAWS were further distinguished between forest area fully available for wood supply (FAWSt) and forest area partially available for wood supply (FAWSp).…”

“…The larger removals are provided by the living biomass (about 95% of the total C stock change), while soil is a quite stable pool (i.e., neither a source neither a sink for the atmosphere). The DOM C stock change (about 5% of the total) is mainly affected by the management practices, transferring a fraction of the living biomass stock to the DOM pool as primary forest residues (Pilli et al 2016b). …”

“…Johnston & Van Kooten (2016) also lack in detail as to the modelling of wood-based products markets, geographical scope, and forest resources. Since harvest demand is the main factor driving the short-term forest carbon sink (at least at EU level - Pilli et al 2016b), and this is in turn driven by wood-based and energy wood markets, a joint analysis of these two sectors is an essential prerequisite for quantifying the climate change mitigation potential of the forest sector.…”

MODELAGEM GEOESTATÍSTICA DA BIOMASSA DO FUSTE DE Araucaria angustifolia EM REMANESCENTE DE FLORESTA OMBRÓFILA MISTA

“…As florestas possuem grande importância para mitigação do aquecimento global (MATTSSON et al, 2016;PILLI et al, 2016), pois o combate ao desmatamento contribui para a conservação das florestas naturais e também evita a emissão de gases de efeito estufa para a atmosfera. Com isso, as florestas realizam o estoque de carbono na biomassa, o que consequentemente, evita que CO 2 seja emitido, uma vez que é considerado o GEE que mais contribui para o aquecimento global (TOSATO;.…”