Suchergebnisse

The transition towards the bio-based economy in the future increases the demand for raw materials from the forests. This will increase the extraction of wood from the forests but may adversely affect its biodiversity and other ecosystem services (ESS). The growth rate of most tree species in Sweden is predicted to increase because of changing climate. It will however be counterbalanced by an increased risk of damage due to extreme weather events such as storms. Therefore, it is necessary to develop adaptive management measures that exploit the benefits of climate change while minimizing the damages on growing stock, ESS and biodiversity resulting from its risks. It is further important to consider the trends in the global development for studying the future trends of production and nature conservation in Sweden . The demand for wood varies among the global development scenarios and greenhouse gas emission pathways. The aims of this study are: (i) to identify the impacts of climate change, EU forest policies and associated wood demand on Swedish forests, (ii) how the combination of different scenarios of EU forest policies and climate affects the harvest levels, carbon sequestration and future occurrence of a set of forest-dwelling species in Sweden and (iii) to formulate optimal combinations of different management regimes for sustainably achieving the demand for different wood assortments and environmental goals in Sweden as stipulated in EU and national forest policy statements under changing climatic conditions. In this study the demand for different wood assortments in Sweden will be simulated assuming different global and EU policy scenarios using the GLOBIOM model. The three policy scenarios are baseline, bioenergy and global bioenergy. In the baseline scenario, the increase in global demand for wood stabilizes by 2020 whereas in others the increase in wood demand stabilizes only after 2050. In the global bioenergy scenario, mitigation measures are implemented globally resulting in higher wood demand in comparison to the bioenergy scenario where mitigation measures are confined only to EU. Assuming the different demand for wood assortments, we will propose adaptive management measures like delaying final felling, avoiding thinning and speeding up final felling, green tree retention, continuous cover forestry and unmanaged forest along with a current management scenario. The simulations of the Swedish forest landscape with different adaptive management regimes will be performed using the Heureka model. Optimization will be done for maximizing various objectives like net present value, carbon sequestration and biodiversity. Biodiversity will be accounted for in the form of different species distribution models. The time period of the simulations will be from 2010 to 2100. Two future climate scenarios, a business as usual scenario (RCP8.5) and an optimistic scenario (RCP4.5) are also considered in this study. ; peerReviewed

The demand for bioenergy is expected to increase rapidly in the EU, driven by policies aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through bioenergy. The downside of the increased use of bioenergy is the risk to biodiversity and ecosystem services, both within the EU but also outside the EU borders through indirect effects. Our study provides a spatially explicit analysis of biodiversity losses from land use, land-use change, and forestry under three different EU bioenergy policy scenarios in the detail of NUTS2 administrative units. The study combined methodologies for biodiversity impact assessment with a global high resolution economic land use model GLOBIOM. Potential loss of global species (PSLglo) was used as an indicator for biodiversity damage, and species loss was quantified using the countryside species area-relationships model (SARs). The Constant demand (CONST), the Baseline (BASE), and the Emission Reduction (EMIRED) scenarios were used for depicting different future biomass demands. All scenarios had similar biomass demand until 2020 but different targets afterwards, from keeping the demand for bioenergy constant (CONST) to a strong increase of bioenergy aiming to decrease GHG emissions by 80% in 2050 (EMIRED) and with the BASE scenario falling in between the other two. The total global biodiversity loss due to EU land use and related changes in net imports was found to reach 1% in 2050 in the BASE scenario. The biodiversity impacts were found to vary only little between the scenarios but instead increase considerably over time in all scenarios, due to increased bioenergy and food demand. The damage was found to increase by 26% from year 2000 to 2050 in the BASE scenario. The difference between scenarios increased over time and in the year 2050 impacts for the EMIRED are 2% larger than in the BASE, meanwhile in the CONST scenario, they are 1.7% lower than in the BASE. The land-use induced impacts on biodiversity were amplified in southern Europe, where the ecoregions are hosting more biodiversity than in the north. In all scenarios, the relative share of indirect impacts through EU imports is expected to increase over time. Imports accounted for 15% of total impacts in the year 2000, and increased to 24-26% in 2050, meaning that relatively more damage would be outsourced by the EU in the future. The main drivers of the direct damage for biodiversity were the increased amount of land used for perennial energy crops and the increased use of forests for biomass supply, while the indirect damage was driven by the increase of agricultural products imports. The expansion of perennial energy crops on agricultural cropland in the EU (especially in the EMIRED scenario) was found to outsource damage elsewhere, as agricultural products would then be increasingly imported from outside EU, partly from regions rich in biodiversity and hosting vulnerable species. This work is part of the Sumforest project Future BioEcon. ; peerReviewed

In this study, the potential global loss of species directly associated with land use in the EU and due to trade with other regions is computed over time, in order to reveal differences in impacts between the considered alternatives of plausible bioenergy policies development in the EU. The spatially explicit study combines a life cycle analysis (LCA) for biodiversity impact assessment with a global high resolution economic land use model. Both impacts of domestic land use and impacts through imports were included for estimating the biodiversity footprint of the member states of the (EU28). The analyzed scenarios assumed similar biomass demand until 2020 but differed thereafter, from keeping the growth of demand for bioenergy constant (CONST), to a strong increase of bioenergy in line with the EU target of decreasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80% by 2050 (EMIRED) and with the baseline (BASE) scenario falling between the other two. As a general trend, the increasing demand for biomass was found to have substantial impact on biodiversity in all scenarios, while the differences between the scenarios were found to be modest. The share caused by imports was 15% of the overall biodiversity impacts detected in this study in the year 2000, and progressively increased to 24% to 26% in 2050, depending on the scenario. The most prominent future change in domestic land use in all scenarios was the expansion of perennial cultivations for energy. In the EMIRED scenario, there is a larger expansion of perennial cultivations and a smaller expansion of cropland in the EU than in the other two scenarios. As the biodiversity damage is smaller for land used for perennial cultivations than for cropland, this development decreases the internal biodiversity damage per unit of land. At the same time, however, the EMIRED scenario also features the largest outsourcing of damage, due to increased import of cropland products from outside the EU for satisfying the EU food demand. These two opposite effects even out each other, resulting in the total biodiversity damage for the EMIRED scenario being only slightly higher than the other two scenarios. The results of this study indicate that increasing cultivation of perennials for bioenergy and the consequent decrease in the availability of cropland for food production in the EU may lead to outsourcing of agricultural products supply to other regions. This development is associated with a leakage of biodiversity damages to species-rich and vulnerable regions outside the EU. In the case of a future increase in bioenergy demand, the combination of biomass supply from sustainable forest management in the EU, combined with imported wood pellets and cultivation of perennial energy crops, appears to be less detrimental to biodiversity than expansion of energy crops in the EU.

Background: In 2018, the European Union (EU) adopted Regulation 2018/841, which sets the accounting rules for the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector for the period 2021–2030. This regulation is part of the EU's commitments to comply with the Paris Agreement. According to the new regulation, emissions and removals for managed forest land are to be accounted against a projected forest reference level (FRL) that is estimated by each EU Member State based on the continuation of forest management practices of the reference period 2000–2009. The aim of this study is to assess how different modelling assumptions possible under the regulation may influence the FRL estimates. Applying the interlinked G4M and WoodCarbonMonitor modelling frameworks, we estimate potential FRLs for each individual EU Member State following a set of conceptual scenarios, each reflecting different modelling assumptions that are consistent with the regulation and the technical guidance document published by the European Commission. Results: The simulations of the conceptual scenarios show that differences in the underlying modelling assumptions may have a large impact on the projected FRL. Depending on the assumptions taken, the projected annual carbon sink on managed forest land in the EU varies from −319 MtCO2 to −397 MtCO 2 during the first compliance period (2021–2025) and from −296 MtCO2 to −376 MtCO2 during the second compliance period (i.e. 2026–2030). These estimates can be compared with the 2017 national GHG inventories which estimated that the forest carbon sink for managed forest land was −373 MtCO2 in 2015. On an aggregated EU level, the assumptions related to climate change and the allocation of forest management practices have the largest impacts on the FRL estimates. On the other hand, assumptions concerning the starting year of the projection, stratification of managed forest land, and timing of individual management activities are found to have relatively small impacts on the FRL estimates. Conclusions: We provide a first assessment of the level of uncertainty associated with the different assumptions discussed in the technical guidance document and the LULUCF regulation, and the impact of these assumptions on the country-specific FRL. The results highlight the importance of transparent documentation by the EU Member States on how their FRL has been calculated, and on the underlying assumptions.

The ClimWood2030 study, commissioned by DG CLIMA of the European Commission, quantifies the five ways in which the EU forest sector contributes to climate change mitigation: carbon sequestration and storage in EU forests, carbon storage in harvested wood products in the EU, substitution of wood products for functionally equivalent materials and substitution of wood for other sources of energy, and displacement of emissions from forests outside the EU. It also explores through scenario analysis, based on a series of interlocking models (GLOBIOM, G4M and WoodCarbonMonitor), along with detailed analysis of Forest Based Functional Units, based on life cycle assessment (LCA), the consequences for GHG balances of policy choices at present under consideration. The focus is on the EU-28, but GHG balances for other parts of the world are also considered, notably to assess consequences of EU policy choices for other regions. The five scenarios are (I) The ClimWood2030 reference scenario, (II) Increase carbon stock in existing EU forests, (III) Cascade use - increase recovery of solid wood products, (IV) Cascade use - prevent first use of biomass for energy and (V) Strongly increase material wood use. The study presents detailed scenario results for key parameters, the policy instruments linked to the scenarios, and main conclusions. The ClimWood2030 study, commissioned by DG CLIMA of the European Commission, quantifies the five ways in which the EU forest sector contributes to climate change mitigation: carbon sequestration and storage in EU forests, carbon storage in harvested wood products in the EU, substitution of wood products for functionally equivalent materials and substitution of wood for other sources of energy, and displacement of emissions from forests outside the EU. It also explores through scenario analysis, based on a series of interlocking models (GLOBIOM, G4M and WoodCarbonMonitor), along with detailed analysis of Forest Based Functional Units, based on life cycle assessment (LCA), the consequences for GHG balances of policy choices at present under consideration. The focus is on the EU-28, but GHG balances for other parts of the world are also considered, notably to assess consequences of EU policy choices for other regions. The five scenarios are (I) The ClimWood2030 reference scenario, (II) Increase carbon stock in existing EU forests, (III) Cascade use - increase recovery of solid wood products, (IV) Cascade use - prevent first use of biomass for energy and (V) Strongly increase material wood use. The study presents detailed scenario results for key parameters, the policy instruments linked to the scenarios, and main conclusions.

The ClimWood2030 study, commissioned by DG CLIMA of the European Commission, quantifies the five ways in which the EU forest sector contributes to climate change mitigation: carbon sequestration and storage in EU forests, carbon storage in harvested wood products in the EU, substitution of wood products for functionally equivalent materials and substitution of wood for other sources of energy, and displacement of emissions from forests outside the EU. It also explores through scenario analysis, based on a series of interlocking models (GLOBIOM, G4M and WoodCarbonMonitor), along with detailed analysis of Forest Based Functional Units, based on life cycle assessment (LCA), the consequences for GHG balances of policy choices at present under consideration. The focus is on the EU-28, but GHG balances for other parts of the world are also considered, notably to assess consequences of EU policy choices for other regions. The five scenarios are (I) The ClimWood2030 reference scenario, (II) Increase carbon stock in existing EU forests, (III) Cascade use – increase recovery of solid wood products, (IV) Cascade use – prevent first use of biomass for energy and (V) Strongly increase material wood use. The study presents detailed scenario results for key parameters, the policy instruments linked to the scenarios, and main conclusions.

By 15 December 2015, 187 countries had submitted their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) summarising their climate actions after 2020 in the context of the Paris Agreement. We used a unified framework to assess the mitigation components of INDCs covering 105 countries (representing approximately 91 % of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2012) with a special focus on the G20 economies. We estimated the required reduction effort by comparing the greenhouse gas emission targets implied by the INDCs with the projected levels resulting from current mitigation policies. The resulting projected global reduction effort amounts to approximately 4–6 GtCO2eq by 2030, of which the G20 economies are responsible for the largest share, in particular Brazil, China, the EU, and the United States. Despite these reductions, the global and G20 emission level is still projected to be higher in 2030 than it was in 2010. We compared the ambition levels of individual INDCs by analysing various indicators. Our analysis shows, for instance, that INDCs imply that greenhouse gas emissions of Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, and South Korea peak before 2025, and of China, India and South Africa by 2030 or later.