More future synergies and less trade‐offs between forest ecosystem services with natural climate solutions instead of bioeconomy solutions

Abstract

To reach the Paris Agreement, societies need to increase the global terrestrial carbon sink. There are many climate change mitigation solutions (CCMS) for forests, including increasing bioenergy, bioeconomy, and protection. Bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions use climate-smart, intensive management to generate high quantities of bioenergy and bioproducts. Protection of (semi-)natural forests is a major component of "natural climate solution" (NCS) since forests store carbon in standing biomass and soil. Furthermore, protected forests provide more habitat for biodiversity and nonwood ecosystem services (ES). We investigated the impacts of different CCMS and climate scenarios, jointly or in isolation, on future wood ES, non-wood ES, and regulating ES for a major wood provider for the international market. Specifically, we projected future ES given by three CCMS scenarios for Sweden 2020-2100. In the long term, fulfilling the increasing wood demand through bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions will decrease ES multifunctionality, but the increased stand age and wood stocks induced by rising greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations will partially offset these negative effects. Adopting bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions will have a greater negative impact on ES supply than adopting NCS. Bioenergy or bioeconomy solutions, as well as increasing GHG emissions, will reduce synergies and increase trade-offs in ES.

Environmental problem shifting from climate change mitigation: A mapping review

“…First, it is crucial to understand the type and extent of EPS when designing sustainable climate change mitigation policy. Second, policymakers can minimize EPS by regulating how and where mitigation options are implemented, thereby leveraging the moderating factors of EPS ( 63 , 64 ). Examples include the choice of feedstock for bioenergy, which can minimize several shifts, and placing photovoltaics on rooftops or in agri-voltaic systems, which can prevent or limit shifts to land use and biodiversity loss.…”

What drives forest multifunctionality in central and northern Europe? Exploring the interplay of management, climate, and policies

“…Recent studies have shown that a key insight from the ecosystem services management framework, and therefore multifunctionality, is the unavoidable trade-offs in benefit supply (Mazziotta et al, 2022;Morán-Ordóñez et al, 2020;Turkelboom et al, 2018;Vergarechea et al, 2023). Assessing the synergies and trade-offs of ecosystem services could provide a baseline for comparing alternative future scenarios and insights into potential policy and management outcomes (Bryan, 2013;Mouchet et al, 2014).…”

Future supply of boreal forest ecosystem services is driven by management rather than by climate change

“…Heinonen et al (2018) also found that timber supply increased under climate change, except at the end of the century under the most severe scenario (RCP8.5) because very high temperatures and low soil water availability can limit forest growth. In addition, this increase in forest growth due to climate change might decrease yields of bilberry and cowberry as it is likely that forests will become too dense, leading to a decrease in wild berries production because of a reduction in sunlight reaching the understory vegetation (Mazziotta et al, 2022;Peura et al, 2016). et al, 2020), temperate (Gutsch et al, 2018;Thrippleton et al, 2021) and mountainous forests (Mina et al, 2017).…”

“…On the other hand, rising temperature and vapor pressure deficit have mostly negative effects on forest demographic rates, but may have positive effects in cold and wet regions such as the boreal zone (McDowell et al, 2020). Moreover, several studies suggest negative impacts of climate change on the provisioning of non‐wood forest ES (Breshears et al, 2011; Elkin et al, 2013; Lindner et al, 2014; Mazziotta et al, 2022) and on the biodiversity these ecosystems host (e.g., Mazziotta et al, 2015; Virkkala, 2016). In boreal forests, the impact of climate change on ES depends on the specific service, as increasing temperatures have been projected to increase harvest‐ and carbon‐related services but decrease some cultural services such as winter sports (Holmberg et al, 2019).…”

“…On the other hand, rising temperature and vapor pressure deficit have mostly negative effects on forest demographic rates, but may have positive effects in cold and wet regions such as the boreal zone (McDowell et al, 2020). Moreover, several studies suggest negative impacts of climate change on the provisioning of non-wood forest ES (Breshears et al, 2011;Elkin et al, 2013;Lindner et al, 2014;Mazziotta et al, 2022) and on the biodiversity these ecosystems host (e.g., Mazziotta et al, 2015;Virkkala, 2016).…”