Search

In the EU Forest Strategy for 2030 continuous cover forestry (CCF) is promoted, while rotation forestry (RF) is recommended only if required by forest health or environmental reasons. RF is the current practice on about two thirds of the EU forests. The envisioned shift toward CCF will have significant implications for Europe's forests and the industries. Using Sweden as a case, we simulated two scenarios: RF as a continued practice and a rapid transition to CCF. The results show that RF would ensure an even wood flow and slightly increasing harvest levels over the 50 years period. In contrast, the annual harvest in CCF exhibited significant variation, ranging from 50% to 108% of the RF harvest in the same year. This variation in harvest outcomes for CCF can be largely attributed to both economic and legal constraints during the transition from RF to CCF. As a result, the growing stock in CCF increased, allowing the forest to serve as a significant carbon sink. During the transition period, the ratio of pulpwood to sawlogs fluctuated for CCF, while it remained stable for RF. Consequently, the volume of sawlogs harvested under CCF was 86% of that harvested under RF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We analyse the short‐ and long‐term consequences for atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations of forest management strategies and forest product uses in Sweden by comparing the modelled consequences of forest resource use vs. increased conservation at different levels of GHG savings from carbon sequestration and product substitution with bioenergy and other forest products. Increased forest set‐asides for conservation resulted in larger GHG reductions only in the short term and only when substitution effects were low. In all other cases, forest use was more beneficial. In all scenarios, annual carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration rates declined in conservation forests as they mature, eventually approaching a steady state. Forest set‐asides are thus associated with increasing opportunity costs corresponding to foregone wood production and associated mitigation losses. Substitution and sequestration rates under all other forest management strategies rise, providing support for sustained harvest and cumulative mitigation gains. The impact of increased fertilization was everywhere beneficial to the climate and surpassed the mitigation potential of the other scenarios. Climate change can have large—positive or negative—influence on outcomes. Despite uncertainties, the results indicate potentially large benefits from forest use for wood production. These benefits, however, are not clearly linked with forestry in UNFCCC reporting, and the European Union's Land Use, Land‐Use Change and Forestry carbon accounting, framework may even prevent their full realization. These reporting and accounting frameworks may further have the consequence of encouraging land set‐asides and reduced forest use at the expense of future biomass production. Further, carbon leakage and resulting biodiversity impacts due to increased use of more GHG‐intensive products, including imported products associated with deforestation and land degradation, are inadequately assessed. Considerable opportunity to better mobilize the climate change mitigation potential of Swedish forests therefore remains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]