The Effect of Alternative Forest Management Models on the Forest Harvest and Emissions as Compared to the Forest Reference Level
Background and Objectives: Under the Paris Agreement, the European Union (EU) sets rules for accounting the greenhouse gas emissions and removals from forest land (FL). According to these rules, the average FL emissions of each member state in 2021–2025 (compliance period 1, CP1) and in 2026–2030 (c...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2020-07-01
|
| Series: | Forests |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/11/8/794 |
| _version_ | 1797561613584171008 |
|---|---|
| author | Mykola Gusti Fulvio Di Fulvio Peter Biber Anu Korosuo Nicklas Forsell |
| author_facet | Mykola Gusti Fulvio Di Fulvio Peter Biber Anu Korosuo Nicklas Forsell |
| author_sort | Mykola Gusti |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background and Objectives: Under the Paris Agreement, the European Union (EU) sets rules for accounting the greenhouse gas emissions and removals from forest land (FL). According to these rules, the average FL emissions of each member state in 2021–2025 (compliance period 1, CP1) and in 2026–2030 (compliance period 2, CP2) will be compared to a projected forest reference level (FRL). The FRL is estimated by modelling forest development under fixed forest management practices, based on those observed in 2000–2009. In this context, the objective of this study was to estimate the effects of large-scale uptake of alternative forest management models (aFMMs), developed in the ALTERFOR project (Alternative models and robust decision-making for future forest management), on forest harvest and forest carbon sink, considering that the proposed aFMMs are expanded to most of the suitable areas in EU27+UK and Turkey. Methods: We applied the Global Forest Model (G4M) for projecting the harvest and sink with the aFMMs and compared our results to previous FRL projections. The simulations were performed under the condition that the countries should match the harvest levels estimated for their FRLs as closely as possible. A representation of such aFMMs as clearcut, selective logging, shelterwood logging and tree species change was included in G4M. The aFMMs were modeled under four scenarios of spatial allocation and two scenarios of uptake rate. Finally, we compared our results to the business as usual. Results: The introduction of the aFMMs enhanced the forest sink in CP1 and CP2 in all studied regions when compared to the business as usual. Conclusions: Our results suggest that if a balanced mixture of aFMMs is chosen, a similar level of wood harvest can be maintained as in the FRL projection, while at the same time enhancing the forest sink. In particular, a mixture of multifunctional aFMMs, like selective logging and shelterwood, could enhance the carbon sink by up to 21% over the ALTERFOR region while limiting harvest leakages. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T18:17:25Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e37d95aa73c2498bbc68a1a01e0f2451 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1999-4907 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T18:17:25Z |
| publishDate | 2020-07-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Forests |
| spelling | doaj.art-e37d95aa73c2498bbc68a1a01e0f24512023-11-20T07:39:31ZengMDPI AGForests1999-49072020-07-0111879410.3390/f11080794The Effect of Alternative Forest Management Models on the Forest Harvest and Emissions as Compared to the Forest Reference LevelMykola Gusti0Fulvio Di Fulvio1Peter Biber2Anu Korosuo3Nicklas Forsell4International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, AustriaInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, AustriaChair of Forest Growth and Yield Science, Technical University of Munich, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, 85354 Freising, GermanyInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, AustriaInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, AustriaBackground and Objectives: Under the Paris Agreement, the European Union (EU) sets rules for accounting the greenhouse gas emissions and removals from forest land (FL). According to these rules, the average FL emissions of each member state in 2021–2025 (compliance period 1, CP1) and in 2026–2030 (compliance period 2, CP2) will be compared to a projected forest reference level (FRL). The FRL is estimated by modelling forest development under fixed forest management practices, based on those observed in 2000–2009. In this context, the objective of this study was to estimate the effects of large-scale uptake of alternative forest management models (aFMMs), developed in the ALTERFOR project (Alternative models and robust decision-making for future forest management), on forest harvest and forest carbon sink, considering that the proposed aFMMs are expanded to most of the suitable areas in EU27+UK and Turkey. Methods: We applied the Global Forest Model (G4M) for projecting the harvest and sink with the aFMMs and compared our results to previous FRL projections. The simulations were performed under the condition that the countries should match the harvest levels estimated for their FRLs as closely as possible. A representation of such aFMMs as clearcut, selective logging, shelterwood logging and tree species change was included in G4M. The aFMMs were modeled under four scenarios of spatial allocation and two scenarios of uptake rate. Finally, we compared our results to the business as usual. Results: The introduction of the aFMMs enhanced the forest sink in CP1 and CP2 in all studied regions when compared to the business as usual. Conclusions: Our results suggest that if a balanced mixture of aFMMs is chosen, a similar level of wood harvest can be maintained as in the FRL projection, while at the same time enhancing the forest sink. In particular, a mixture of multifunctional aFMMs, like selective logging and shelterwood, could enhance the carbon sink by up to 21% over the ALTERFOR region while limiting harvest leakages.https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/11/8/794forest management modelscarbon sinkforest harvestforest reference levelproduction forestsmultifunctional forests |
| spellingShingle | Mykola Gusti Fulvio Di Fulvio Peter Biber Anu Korosuo Nicklas Forsell The Effect of Alternative Forest Management Models on the Forest Harvest and Emissions as Compared to the Forest Reference Level Forests forest management models carbon sink forest harvest forest reference level production forests multifunctional forests |
| title | The Effect of Alternative Forest Management Models on the Forest Harvest and Emissions as Compared to the Forest Reference Level |
| title_full | The Effect of Alternative Forest Management Models on the Forest Harvest and Emissions as Compared to the Forest Reference Level |
| title_fullStr | The Effect of Alternative Forest Management Models on the Forest Harvest and Emissions as Compared to the Forest Reference Level |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Effect of Alternative Forest Management Models on the Forest Harvest and Emissions as Compared to the Forest Reference Level |
| title_short | The Effect of Alternative Forest Management Models on the Forest Harvest and Emissions as Compared to the Forest Reference Level |
| title_sort | effect of alternative forest management models on the forest harvest and emissions as compared to the forest reference level |
| topic | forest management models carbon sink forest harvest forest reference level production forests multifunctional forests |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/11/8/794 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mykolagusti theeffectofalternativeforestmanagementmodelsontheforestharvestandemissionsascomparedtotheforestreferencelevel AT fulviodifulvio theeffectofalternativeforestmanagementmodelsontheforestharvestandemissionsascomparedtotheforestreferencelevel AT peterbiber theeffectofalternativeforestmanagementmodelsontheforestharvestandemissionsascomparedtotheforestreferencelevel AT anukorosuo theeffectofalternativeforestmanagementmodelsontheforestharvestandemissionsascomparedtotheforestreferencelevel AT nicklasforsell theeffectofalternativeforestmanagementmodelsontheforestharvestandemissionsascomparedtotheforestreferencelevel AT mykolagusti effectofalternativeforestmanagementmodelsontheforestharvestandemissionsascomparedtotheforestreferencelevel AT fulviodifulvio effectofalternativeforestmanagementmodelsontheforestharvestandemissionsascomparedtotheforestreferencelevel AT peterbiber effectofalternativeforestmanagementmodelsontheforestharvestandemissionsascomparedtotheforestreferencelevel AT anukorosuo effectofalternativeforestmanagementmodelsontheforestharvestandemissionsascomparedtotheforestreferencelevel AT nicklasforsell effectofalternativeforestmanagementmodelsontheforestharvestandemissionsascomparedtotheforestreferencelevel |