Abstract
The 1.5 °C target for global warming calls for evaluating short-term (30–50 years) climate change mitigation with different forests usage. In the current scientific literature and in the public debate, there are contrasting views on how forests should be managed to maximize total climate benefit, including the use of products and changes in carbon pools. Three major factors influence the conclusions in different studies: (a) time horizon, (b) site productivity, (c) substitution calculations. Here we show the dependency among these factors by an analysis of four harvest scenarios: 95%, 60%, 40% and 0% of growth, which are compared to a business as usual scenario (80%). The analyses are made for five counties in Sweden, which covers a wide range in forest productivities, from 2.5 m3 ha−1 yr−1 (north) to 11.5 m3 ha−1 yr−1 (south).The results show:(a) Reduced harvest levels provide increased climate benefits on short time scales (at least 50 years).(b) Increased harvesting from current level is counterproductive on both short and long term.(c) The potential effect on the carbon balance of a no-harvest scenario in the five counties, is larger (1.1–16 times) than the expected emissions from all other anthropogenic activities until 2045.(d) Short-term climate benefits of reduced harvesting are largest in highly productive forests. Smaller but more long-lasting benefits can be obtained by aiming at harvest reductions in less productive forests.(e) Strategies focused on short-term benefits need to be adapted to the future development of substitution factors and forest growth. If substitution effects become higher, increased harvest levels will be beneficial after 2050 in high productive forests. However, if future substitution effects decrease, which is a plausible and desired development, low harvest strategies are preferred in both short- and long-term time perspectives.We conclude that even moderate reductions of harvest levels would provide substantial climate benefits.
Highlights
Forest management in boreal regions traditionally works with long time perspectives, evaluating management strategies over one or more rotation periods
We show that the relative magnitude of short- and long-term effects of harvesting are modified by forest productivity, harvest levels, and assumptions about substitution benefits
The magnitude and duration of this effect vary with forest productivity, harvest levels as well as substitution effects
Summary
Forest management in boreal regions traditionally works with long time perspectives, evaluating management strategies over one or more rotation periods (typically 50–150 years). The sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in growing forests, as well as the substitution of fossil-based fuels and products with woody biomass, is the focus of many climate mitigation strategies. Published studies range widely in conclusions about the climate benefits of different mitigation strategies, i.e. the relative contribution of increased sequestration and increased substitution effects. Werner et al (2010) show positive short-term (50 years) climate mitigation for Switzerland with a ‘reduced forest maintenance’ scenario, with about 45% reduction of extracted wood, but concluded that this would not be a preferred strategy in a longer time perspective. Leturcq (2020) claims that wood material substitution effects are clearly overestimated and emission reductions are marginal, and that increasing harvest levels cannot provide climate mitigation. A review by Moomaw et al (2020) concluded that the carbon storage in natural forests is much higher than the storage in managed forests and products
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
