The climate change mitigation effect of bioenergy from sustainably managed forests in Central Europe

Ernst Detlef Schulze,Inge Stupak,Vincent Egenolf,Carlos A Sierra,Conrad Baldamus,Hermann Spellmann,Roland Irslinger,Rene Woerdehoff

doi:10.1111/gcbb.12672

Abstract

AbstractWe compare sustainably managed with unmanaged forests in terms of their contribution to climate change mitigation based on published data. For sustainably managed forests, accounting of carbon (C) storage based on ecosystem biomass and products as required by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is not sufficient to quantify their contribution to climate change mitigation. The ultimate value of biomass is its use for biomaterials and bioenergy. Taking Germany as an example, we show that the average removals of wood from managed forests are higher than stated by official reports, ranging between 56 and 86 mill. m3 year−1 due to the unrecorded harvest of firewood. We find that removals from one hectare can substitute 0.87 m3 ha−1 year−1 of diesel, or 7.4 MWh ha−1 year−1, taking into account the unrecorded firewood, the use of fuel for harvesting and processing, and the efficiency of energy conversion. Energy substitution ranges between 1.9 and 2.2 t CO2 equiv. ha−1 year−1 depending on the type of fossil fuel production. Including bioenergy and carbon storage, the total mitigation effect of managed forest ranges between 3.2 and 3.5 t CO2 equiv. ha−1 year−1. This is more than previously reported because of the full accounting of bioenergy. Unmanaged nature conservation forests contribute via C storage only about 0.37 t CO2 equiv. ha−1 year−1 to climate change mitigation. There is no fossil fuel substitution. Therefore, taking forests out of management reduces climate change mitigation benefits substantially. There should be a mitigation cost for taking forest out of management in Central Europe. Since the energy sector is rewarded for the climate benefits of bioenergy, and not the forest sector, we propose that a CO2 tax is used to award the contribution of forest management to fossil fuel substitution and climate change mitigation. This would stimulate the production of wood for products and energy substitution.

Highlights

There is general agreement that forests have the potential to be a carbon sink large enough to compensate emissions from agricultural land in Europe (IPCC, 2013; Schulze et al, 2009)
We compare sustainably managed with unmanaged forests in terms of their contribution to climate change mitigation based on published data
Unmanaged nature conservation forests contribute via C storage only about 0.37 t CO2 equiv. ha−1 year−1 to climate change mitigation

Summary

| INTRODUCTION

There is general agreement that forests have the potential to be a carbon sink large enough to compensate emissions from agricultural land in Europe (IPCC, 2013; Schulze et al, 2009) It remains unclear how the forest sector could be credited for this contribution to climate change mitigation. Since harvesting is accounted for as an emission (IPCC Guidelines, 2006), landowners are rather punished than getting credited for sustainably managing their forest, and they may have to pay a CO2-emission tax in the future (e.g., https:// sustainable-economy.org/forest-carbon-tax-reward-creatingjobs-carbon-woods/). In this context, “sustainability” is defined by the long-term time trends in wood volume or basal area at landscape scale. We would like to quantify the climate change mitigation effects of sustainably managed forests in Central Europe, considering the whole range of uses including energy production, and we will compare such a comprehensively calculated mitigation effect with the option of “no management.”

| MATERIALS AND METHODS

| RESULTS

Findings

| DISCUSSION