Suchergebnisse

International audience ; AbstractKey messageThe purpose of this report is to increase the transparency of applications of the CBM-CFS3 model by climate-related policy-makers and researchers. The report provides explicit information on the parametrization of a new Archive Index Database used with this model to simulate forest carbon dynamics in 26 EU countries. The database can be accessed athttps://data.europa.eu/89h/jrc-cbm-eu-aidb, primary metadata are available in Kull et al. (2017), and additional metadata are available athttps://metadata-afs.nancy.inra.fr/geonetwork/srv/fre/catalog.search#/metadata/df48155b-973f-4169-a722-100bb6bfc76c.The Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector (CBM-CFS3) has been adapted, tested, and applied to forests of 26 EU countries over the last 7 years for EU policy making and scientific research. The overall purpose of this exercise is to increase the transparency of how the EU Archive Index Database (EU-AIDB) was parameterized while supporting both the policy making and research communities interested in applying the CBM-CFS3 with ecological parameters specific to the EU context. In addition to preparing model input data reflecting various management and disturbance scenarios for CBM-CFS3 projects, an essential step was to update the original AIDB with information specific to the EU context and create an EU-AIDB. The AIDB is the Microsoft Access database behind the CBM-CFS3 that stores default ecological information and parameters pertaining to the forest ecosystems of a country, among other functions. The EU-AIDB incorporates 1034 spatial units resulting from the intersection of 204 European administrative regions and ecological boundaries representing 35 climatic units. It also contains updated parameters for 192 of the main tree species reported by the National Forest Inventories of each EU country. The release of this database allows CBM-33 CFS3 users in the EU to apply European administrative and ecological units and tree species in forest carbon modeling projects.

BACKGROUND: The contribution of EU forests to climate change mitigation in 2021–2025 is assessed through the Forest Reference Levels (FRLs). The FRL is a projected country-level benchmark of net greenhouse gas emissions against which the future net emissions will be compared. The FRL models the hypothetical development of EU forest carbon sink if the historical management practices were continued, taking into account age dynamics. The Member States' FRLs have been recently adopted by the European Commission with the delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/268 amending the Regulation (EU) 2018/841. Considering the complexity of interactions between forest growth, management and carbon fluxes, there is a need to understand uncertainties linked to the FRL determination. RESULTS: We assessed the methodologies behind the modelled FRLs and evaluated the foreseen impact of continuation of management practices and age dynamics on the near-future EU27 + UK forest carbon sink. Most of the countries implemented robust modelling approaches for simulating management practices and age dynamics within the FRL framework, but faced several challenges in ensuring consistency with historical estimates. We discuss that the projected 16% increase in harvest in 2021–2025 compared to 2000–2009, mostly attributed to age dynamics, is associated to a decline of 18% of forest sink (26% for living biomass only). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the FRL exercise was challenging but improved the modelling capacity and data availability at country scale. The present study contributes to increase the transparency of the implementation of forest-related EU policies and provides evidence-based support to future policy development. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13021-021-00185-4.

Under the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change all Parties have to report on carbon emissions and removals from the forestry sector. Each Party can use its own approach and country specific data for this. Independently, large-scale models exist (e.g. EFISCEN and G4M as used in this study) that assess emissions and removals from this sector by applying a unified approach to each country, still often based on country specific data. Differences exist between the national reported values and the calculations from the large scale models. This study compares these models with national reporting efforts for 24 EU countries for the period 2000–2008, and identifies the most likely causes for differences. There are no directly identifiable single input parameters that could be targeted to fully close the gap between country and model estimates. We found that the method applied by the country (i.e. stock-difference or gain-loss) contributes significantly to differences for EFISCEN and was the best explaining variable for G4M, although for the latter it was not significant. Other variables (biomass expansion factors, harvest volumes and the way harvest losses are treated) were not found to provide a conclusive explanation for the differences between the model estimations and the country submissions in an over-all.