Search

The current study emphasizes the inherent shortcomings of laws and policy approaches that are based on the premise that by increasing wood production, much more emission credits can be achieved by using wood in alternative uses. The article aims to exploit the financing of emission reductions, discuss how carbon sinks held in forest resources can be activated, traded, and financed, and explain how Turkiye's forest carbon potential can be exploited. To make a comparative analysis of the situation of Turkiye at global level, Russian's potential for carbon sequestration and its trade have been dealt with as a comparison by following quantitative research methodology. In this research, the calculation method has been used to determine the number of houses that are likely to be built in rural areas using wood materials, e.g., the construction of 100,000 houses with a construction area of 100 m² per year. Consequently, the forest carbon generated by alternative scenarios contributes positively to the emission balance sheet, as well as climate change mitigation through carbon emission trade despite all legal and technical constraints. Although both countries have similar shortcomings of obtaining carbon credits and its trade, of course Russia has a promising situation in comparison with Turkiye with respect to the amount of carbon sequestered and the likelihood of its trade potential at global level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The global climate warming caused by greenhouse gases poses a great threat to human living and biological ecosystems. To mitigate climate change, many measures have been taken to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Among them, the forest carbon sink (FCS) is considered as one of the most economical and effective carbon sequestration methods to realize carbon emission reductions in next 30 to 50 years. FCS projects are being implemented in many countries to increase their carbon sequestration and thereby to realize carbon emission reductions. However, there are some issues associated with implementation with such policies. Firstly, these projects mainly have focused only on carbon sequestration and have ignored the comprehensive ecological effects to obtain their best economical benefits. Secondly, implementing these projects fails to establish a sustainable and healthy forest industry because they place too much reliance on preferential policies from governments. Finally, the projects lack systematic technological standards and legislation to guarantee their smooth implementation. This editorial briefly discusses these issues for the suitable implementation of the FCS projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]