Land use, land use change and forestry

Transcription

1 Sectoral Emission Reduction Potentials and Economic Costs for Climate Change (SERPEC-CC) Land use, land use change and forestry October 2009 Katja Eisbrenner, Alyssa Gilbert Ecofys Financial support from the DGRTD (European Community Sixth Framework Programme) and DGENV of the European Commission as well as of the Dutch and German ministries of Environment (VROM and BMU) is acknowledged. The SERPEC paper reflects the opinion of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Commission, VROM and BMU on the results obtained. Ecofys Kanaalweg 16-G P.O. Box RK Utrecht The Netherlands T: +31 (0) F: +31 (0) W:

2 II

3 Executive Summary In this SERPEC sector report, we took stock of the potential of the sequestration of CO 2 in the EU through afforestation, forest management and land management in general, separate from forest management. Monitoring data indicate that CO 2 sequestration in the EU today amounts to around 517 Mt of CO 2 per year (see Figure 1). This CO 2 sink compares to a total of around 5200 Mton of CO 2 -eq emissions in the EU, which largely originate from the use of fossil fuels. Afforestation accounts for a carbon sink of 54 Mt CO 2, whereas around 461 Mt CO 2 is sequestered in the existing EU forest stock. As a baseline development for the period of 2005 to 2030 we assumed a continuation of the CO 2 sequestration monitoring trend. Thus, the baseline assumes that current forest management practices and changes in forest area will continue in the future. The future baseline does not account for factors such as changing age class structure, climate change and changing wood demand Mton CO2-eq Monitoring Trend Figure 1 Current and future trend of net CO 2 emission reductions through forests based on UNFCCC category 5 A Total Forest Land. Our literature review showed that only limited data is available to estimate the future impacts and costs of additional afforestation and forest management activities in the EU. Because of these limitations, we were not able to establish quantified estimates of the CO 2 -potentials and costs of such measures. In general though, literature indicates that the potential for extra afforestation and forest management, to arrive at CO 2 sequestration beyond the assumed baseline trend, may be quite small. I

4 The complexity and uncertainty of CO 2 sequestration in the broad category of improved land management (e.g. wetland restoration, conversion of cropland to grassland), is even larger than for afforestation and forest management and could not be quantified in this SERPEC study. II

5 Table of contents Executive Summary i 1 Introduction The SERPEC project, Land use, Land use change and forestry Reference case- baseline Abatement options and costs 9 2 Options to reduce CO 2 emissions through Land Use Change and Forestry Afforestation and Forest management Land management and land use changes 26 3 Conclusions 31 References 33 III

6

7 1 Introduction 1.1 The SERPEC project, Land use, Land use change and forestry The SERPEC project The aim of the project Sectoral Emission Reduction Potentials and Economic Costs for Climate Change (SERPEC) is to identify the potential and costs of technical control options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across all European Union sectors and Member States in 2020 and The results are presented in so-called cost-abatement curves that provide a least-cost ranking of options across technologies and sectors in the EU. In general, costabatement curves provide strategic information for policy makers. All identified abatement options refer to technologies that are already applied today. To identify their abatement potentials we estimated the maximum feasible implementation rates, often governed by the rate of turnover of existing technology stocks. Costs of already matured technologies were generally assumed constant over time, whereas either costs or performance of relatively new technologies, e.g. wind turbines, were allowed decrease over time due to economies of scale and technology learning. Land use, Land use change and forestry (LULUCF) In this SERPEC sector report, we analyse the potentials of sequestration of CO 2 in the EU through afforestation, forest management and land management in general (separate from forest management). The sequestration of CO 2 through LULUCF is very different from the technological abatement options as identified in the other sectors of the SERPEC project. Because of the limited data availability on afforestation and forest management and large uncertainties in the existing forecasting models, this report does not quantify CO 2 sequestration beyond business as usual. A comprehensive goal for reducing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions must include all sources and sinks. Traditional sectors of human activity such as transport and industry are logical starting points to consider ways in which to reduce emissions. However, less marked activities such as those involving our interaction with the land that we live on and use, can also have a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions (see textbox The complexity of LULUCF ). 1

8 The IPCC published a Special report on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) which thoroughly explored the contributions that LULUCF activities can make to the greenhouse gas mitigation agenda (IPCC, 2000). Broadly speaking, the activities that fall within the LULUCF umbrella can be identified as relating to afforestation, deforestation, land management and changes from one land type to another. The IPCC special report on LULUCF estimates emissions from LULUCF at 1.7 ± 0.8 Gt C year -1 averaged over the period from 1980 to and 1.6 ± 0.8 Gt C year -1 averaged over the period from 1989 to These figures indicate that LULUCF is a significant source of emissions, in the region of approximately a quarter to one third of emissions from fossil fuels and cement production. More recently the IPCC AR4 estimated that in 2004 about 17% of greenhouse gas emissions came from land use and land use change, although this is subject to a high degree of uncertainty and estimates are reported to vary considerably (IPCC, 2007). This figure compares to 26% from energy supply, 19% from industry and 14% from agriculture, amongst other sectors. Figure 2 The Carbon Cycle (EUROPA, European Commission) The IPCC report also notes that the net sink resulting from LULUCF emissions and removals up to 2004 averages to approx. 1.3 Gt CO2 for the Annex I Parties that have reported these figures. In this report we discuss in more depth the current (Chapter 1.2) and future (Chapter 2) sink function of afforestation in the EU. 1 IPCC (2000) Based on land-use change emissions estimated by Houghton (1999) and modified by Houghton et al. (1999, 2000), which include the net emissions from wood harvesting and agricultural soils. 2 IPCC (2000) Based on estimated annual average emissions for (Houghton et al., 1999, 2000). 2

9 The complexity of LULUCF The Carbon Cycle is a central concept important to the provenance of emissions from LULUCF. The carbon content in biomass, as well as soil organic matter, is a key part of the carbon cycle, as well as an important store of carbon stocks (Figure 2). LULUCF activities can affect carbon pools in aboveground biomass, below-ground biomass and soils. The centrality of the carbon cycle means that the majority of greenhouse gas emissions related to LULUCF consists of carbon dioxide. Natural dynamics Assessing, measuring and accounting for the human-induced changes in the LULUCF domain is particularly challenging, because ecosystems already display a natural variability in terms of carbon flows and fluctuations. For example, the carbon uptake of the Earth s land and oceans has varied naturally over time (IPCC, 2000). The length of time that fixed carbon dioxide is retained in a carbon pool varies enormously while it may only be retained for a year or less in leaves or fine roots, stems, trunks and soil organic matter may remain for centuries. Furthermore, other factors determine how much carbon a terrestrial ecosystem captures. These factors include: age, species, structure, soil condition, climate, management and other influences. o o For example, actively growing trees accumulate carbon at a more rapid rate as they grow; after full maturity is reached these same trees may begin to lose carbon (IPCC, 2000). In contrast, recent evidence has been published suggesting that the carbon stock of plantation forests is significantly lower than the carbon stock of an equivalent area of primary or natural forest. Human interplay Human interplay in the carbon cycle involves direct influences, through large-scale changes of land use, particularly deforestation or urbanisation, but can also include indirect influences on the carbon flux through the use of fertilisers, air pollution or waste deposits. The IPCC special report on LULUCF (IPPC, 2000) estimates that soil carbon stocks are approximately five times as large as the carbon stocks in vegetation, although this figure varies significantly across ecosystems. However, this fact is important as it indicates that land management techniques that work to preserve soil carbon can be as important in reducing emissions as efforts to protect or increase vegetation. Where crops are planted there is a significant cycling of the carbon stored over the plantinggrowing-harvesting cycle, often including a net loss of carbon through losses of carbon stored in the soils. Similarly, grassland and savannah ecosystems contain stable soil carbon stocks, which risk being lost with excessive grazing or through wild fire (IPCC, 2000). It should be noted, however, that such fires are an essential part of the wider ecosystem. Net carbon losses are expected from these ecosystems through conversion to managed systems (e.g. to cropland or intensive grassland management). Policies and measures It can be challenging, in practice, to define land uses in a way that can be used practically to instigate policies and measures. This is particularly true when LULUCF is seen within the context of the UNFCCC and international agreements to stem emissions of greenhouse gases. A good example is the challenge inherent in defining a forest in the context of policies to reduce deforestation. In this case, one must decide on a definition of forest (e.g. % canopy cover) and how to deal with degradation, in a way that doesn t set perverse incentives to either degrade or destroy certain forests that fall outside the definition boundaries. 3

10 1.2 Reference case baseline Forest area and carbon stock data values are available through the FAO. Also, countries report through the UNFCCC structures on LULUCF related emissions reductions. In terms of forestry, Table 1 shows FAO estimates of forest area changes and carbon stock changes worldwide, which demonstrates that in Europe (including Russia) there has been a net gradual increase in forest area over time, with a concomitant increase in on-site forestbased carbon stocks (FAO, 2005). This figure also shows the clear difference between the situation in Europe and other regions of the world. Carbon density values are not given directly here, so it is not clear if carbon density has changed over the same time period. Table 1 Forest area changes worldwide (IPCC, 2007) Region Growing Forest area, Annual change (mill. Carbon stock in living biomass stock in (mill. ha) ha/year) (MtCO 2) Million m 3 Africa 635, , , ,933 64,957 Asia 571, , , ,533 47,111 Europe a 1,001, , , , ,264 N and C America 705, , , ,467 78,582 Oceania 206, ,533 41,800 41,800 7,361 S America 831, , , , ,944 World 3,952, ,097,067 1,057,467 1,036, ,219 a Including the Russian Federation, Source: FAO, 2006a UNFCCC national inventories Table 2 provides an overview for selected years of the net CO 2 emissions or removals through forests for the category 5 A Total Forest Land. This category includes subcategories 1.Forest Land remaining Forest Land and 2. Land converted to Forest Land, which are presented separately for the year 2007 in Table 3. The net removals vary significantly between countries mainly due to the different size of the forest area, growing stock, the type and age class of forests (Eggers et al., 2008). Differences in specific years are due to various effects including changes in area and specific events like forest fires and pests. From Table 3 one can see that the net CO 2 removals for the category 2. Land converted to 4

11 Forest Land, are much smaller than for the category 1. Forest Land remaining Forest Land. The large category 1 represents the net CO 2 removals through forest lands including changes in different carbon pools (living biomass, dead organic matter, soils, per area). Table 2 National inventory data reported for category 5A Total Forest Land as Country national submissions to the UNFCCC for EU-27 (without Malta, Cyprus, Luxemburg) Net CO 2 emissions/ removals (Mtonne) Removals are negative (-) Austria Belgium Bulgaria Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK and Northern Ireland Total Source: UNFCCC website country submissions 5

12 Table 3 National inventory data reported for the subcategories 5A 1. Forest Country Land remaining Forest Land and 5A 2. Land converted to Forest Land as national submissions to the UNFCCC for EU-27 (without Malta, Cyprus, Luxemburg) Net CO 2 emissions/ removals (Mtonne) for the Year Removals are negative (-) 1. Forest Land remaining Forest Land 2. Land converted to Forest Land Total 1. and 2. "Category 5A" Austria Belgium not reported Bulgaria not reported Czech Republic Denmark Estonia not reported Finland not reported France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania not reported Slovakia Slovenia not reported Spain Sweden UK and Northern Ireland not reported Total Source: UNFCCC website country submissions Forest area change Table 4 gives the forest area change estimates from the FAO Forest Resources Assessment 2005 reports for all of the EU-27 (where available) (FAO, 2005). This table shows a range of forest area changes across Europe. From 1990 to 2000 these range from an annual change of -0.1% in Belgium, to as high as 2% a year in Spain and 3.3% per year in Ireland. These estimates, in terms of percentage area change per year, remain relatively constant from the period to the period Some changes can be seen, such as a large increase in afforestation in Bulgaria from 0.1% / year from 1990 to 2000 to 1.4% / year from 2000 to At the same time the rate of afforestation in Ireland is cut by nearly half from 6

13 2000 to 2005 compared with 1990 to Overall, in Europe the rate of afforestation is roughly constant at % / year. Table 4 FAO data on forest area changes over time in Europe (FAO, 2005) 3 Country Forest area Annual rate of change Total Land Forests / as % of area / 1000 ha 1000 ha total 1000 % 1000 % Austria 8,273 3, ha/yr ha/yr 0.1 Belgium 3, Bulgaria 11,063 3, Czech Rep. 7,728 2, n.s Denmark 4, Estonia 4,239 2, Finland 30,459 22, n.s France 55,010 15, Germany 34,895 11, Greece 12,890 3, Hungary 9,210 1, Ireland 6, Italy 29,411 9, Latvia 6,205 2, Lithuania 6,268 2, Luxembourg n.s Malta 32 n.s Netherlands 3, Poland 30,629 9, Portugal 9,150 3, Romania 22,987 6, n.s. 1 n.s. Slovakia 4,808 1, n.s. n.s Slovenia 2,012 1, Spain 49,944 17, Sweden 41,162 27, n.s. 11 n.s. UK 24,088 2, Total 418, , figures are projections. n.a. = not available, n.s. = not significant. 7

14 The FAO also provides average carbon stock values by country for above-ground and belowground biomass, for forests and other wooded land. For the purpose of this study the carbon stock value information is shown by European country in Table 5, with a per hectare value calculated using total national forest area, without differentiation by forest type and quality of site. Table 5 shows the wide range of carbon stocks across European forests ranging from as low as 16 t C / ha for Greek forests, up to about 120 t C / ha for forests in Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Germany. Table 5 Carbon stock values (FAO, 2005) Annual rate of change Forest carbon content * Country 1000 ha / yr Austria Belgium Bulgaria % t C / ha Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland 5 n.s. 36 France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta 0 0 Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania 1 n.s. 89 Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden 11 n.s. 42 UK Total * above-ground and below-ground biomass 8

15 Baseline estimate: From the various data sources described above the national inventory submissions of the UNFCCC (see Table 2) seem the most appropriate to estimate a baseline, business as usual, development for net CO 2 emissions / removals through forests for the EU Figure 3 shows that there is a variation between the different reporting years for net CO 2 removals. The trend line, however, suggests that up to 2030 stable emission reductions may be expected under the business as usual scenario. This baseline thus reflects the continuation of current forest trends, including the current management practices and changes in the forest area. The future baseline does not account for factors such as changing age class structure, climate change and changing wood demand Mton CO2-eq Monitoring Trend Figure 3 Current and future trend of net CO 2 emission reductions through forests based on the UNFCCC category 5 A Total Forest Land. 1.3 Abatement options and costs The assessment of the costs for afforestation, forest management measures and non-forest land-use changes is a complex issue. In the SERPEC methodology, we assess the additional effects and costs of measures compared to a reference situation. While the reference situation has been defined for total forest land (afforestation and forest management), no quantification of the additional future reduction potential and cost could be made. This is further motivated in the Chapter 2 that provides an overview of the available, scarce, data on options to increase CO 2 sequestration beyond the baseline development. 4 Malta, Cyprus and Luxemburg are not included as no inventory data was reported. 9

16 2 Options to reduce CO 2 emissions through Land Use Change and Forestry 2.1 Afforestation and Forest management This section focuses on options to reduce emissions through activities in the forestry sector. Greenhouse gas mitigation in the forestry sector can be achieved through the following principles (IPCC, 2007): 1. Maintaining or increasing forest area; 2. Maintaining or increasing the carbon density (i.e. tonnes of carbon per ha) at standlevel; 3. Maintaining or increasing the carbon density (i.e. tonnes of carbon per ha) at landscape-level; 4. Increasing off-site carbon stocks in wood products; and 5. Using forest-derived biomass to substitute for fossil fuels, with a higher carbon content. In practical terms, the types of activities that can be undertaken in the forestry sector to achieve the aims above include: Afforestation / reforestation; Avoided deforestation; Forest management i.e. forest regeneration, fertilisation, choice of species, unevenaged stand management, reduced forest degradation, longer forest rotations; Controlled burning / avoided wildfires; Insect and disease management programmes; Extending carbon retention in harvested wood products; Product substitution; and Producing biomass for biomass energy 5. Many non-climate factors are likely to come into play when making decisions about land use changes. Therefore, although the potential mitigation impact of changes in the forestry sector in terms of emissions reductions is significant, climate policy may often not be the determining factor in decision-making. The IPCC provided estimates of the amounts of savings expected from different activities in the LULUCF sector (IPCC, 2000). The date provided in Table 6 shows the information 5 Activities associated with the use of biomass as an energy source is treated in the energy supply sector report of the SERPEC-CC project. 10

17 provided for forestry, which is quite varied, depending on the measure. No Europe-specific emissions savings information is provided in this report, although the general information about the approaches in the forestry sector can help set the scene for the options. Table 6 IPCC, 2000 Special Report on LULUCF, savings and costs of forestry measures (global data) Options relating to forestry Emissions Saving Potential Costs Information Assumptions and key comments Forest Regeneration n/a n/a Important connection between forest regeneration and end use of wood Issue of planting density Accumulation time can vary from 5 to 150 years depending on forest potential Harvest Quantity and Timing Mt C / year Cost of different harvest cycle and cutting diameter estimated at US$ 1.2 / t C sequestered Generally beneficial for the first 20 years, after that results are mixed Consider related impacts such as less wood for products/energy Main barriers are lack of incentive as well as adverse risks on biodiversity and landscape management Forest Fertilisation For 10 years: t C / ha / year depending on species Cost per fertilization: US$ 250 / ha Cost efficiency: 5-29 US$/tC Increased quantity or quality of fertiliser Very profitable investment for medium site classes Forest Products n/a n/a Shifting the product mix to a larger proportion of wood products, given they are generally less energy intensive to produce Increase the useful life of products has positive effects on the carbon sequestration period (carbon retention extension) Increased product recycling, especially in the paper and pulp industry Pest Management 2.3 Gt C / year n/a but considered high and prohibitive Prevention of tree and plant mortality Pest and fire management are linked closely by the effect of pests on trees and their likelihood to ignite Forest Fire Management t C / ha / year (Australia-S. America) n/a Fire management is part of forest management and has to be analysed in combination with other management practices Reduced NO 2 and CH 4 emissions 11

18 The IPCC AR4 looked in detail at the issue of forestry and climate change 6 both at the global level, and at the level of major world regions (IPCC, 2007). The IPCC report concluded that forestry has the potential to offer low-cost mitigation options, with additional co-benefits in terms of sustainable development and adaptation activities. However, the same report noted the lack of available data at that time to assess the costs and benefits of land use change activities sufficiently in particular the lack of development of global baseline scenarios of land use change, as well as the lack of quantitative information on cost-benefit of actions, and some outstanding scientific questions about how forest cover interacts with the climate system e.g. albedo. Some regional analysis in the IPCC AR4 suggests that in Europe, the activities that have the most potential for forestry mitigation activities are afforestation of abandoned agricultural land and forest management, especially addressing carbon saturation in older forests and also in small under-managed woodlands (IPCC, 2007). The statistics presented in Table 4 of this report show that on average Europe has an afforestation trend, indicating that efforts to reduce or avoid deforestation are less important than further efforts to stimulate growth in forest area through afforestation programmes. Therefore this section focuses on the potential to reduce emissions through LULUCF from afforestation and forest management activities. Permanence of forestry-related measures It is important to note that in discussions about forestry-related measures in the context of carbon savings, it is assumed that measures taken in relation to forestry in Europe are permanent changes. This means that land that is afforested will remain forest, land that becomes better managed, will remain well-managed etc. Permanence of forestry-related measures is not a given, and is much debated, specifically in the context of rewards that may be available for such measures in the developing world and may also be linked to the global carbon market. As European countries are signatories to the Kyoto protocol, and thus signed the Marrakesh accords, they have officially committed to reporting changes in their emissions profiles that are permanent. This is, officially, a good reason to assume permanence in forestry changes. However, with a further increase in wood prices and as many European countries set up programmes to mobilise more wood from forests, there may be concerns about permanence in the future. Another aspect that needs consideration is the issue of the impacts of climate change on European forests. While the effects of climate change on the forest ecosystem have so far been positive (Eggers et al, 2008) the impact of further changes can also be negative depending on the ability of the forest ecosystems to adapt to changes. A key aspect is reduced water availability: this can impact the overall health of the forest ecosystem, influence its vulnerability to pests and potentially increase the frequency of fires. It may also lead to changes in the species composition and temporary or long term loss of forests. For the purposes of this study, however, permanence is assumed. 12

19 For this report we use the term forest management activities in relation to actions that go beyond the business as usual management of the forests with the goal of increasing the carbon density (i.e. tonnes of carbon per ha) at stand-level. This includes e.g. changes in rotation lengths, reduced litter raking etc. It should be noted that under the accounting rules for the Kyoto Protocol, the definition of forest management is different and includes all emissions that occur under managed forests independent of the management practices. The magnitude of emission reductions is closely linked to the definition applied and can vary significantly. 13

20 2.1.1 Glob al modelling estimates In its most recent report, the IPCC provides some estimates of the potentials of afforestation, reduced deforestation and forest management (IPCC, 2007). Table 7 shows the potentials in Europe and in Countries in Transition achievable under a cost of 100 US $ / t CO 2 and these figures are based on an averaged output from three global forest sector models that provide estimates for all regions of the world (Sohngen and Sedjo, 2006; Sayathe et al., 2007; Benitez-Ponce et al., 2007). Table 7 Potential of mitigation measures of forestry activities in Europe (IPCC, 2007) Region Activity Potential at costs 100 $ / t CO 2 in 2030 (Mt CO 2 / year) Fraction in cost class 1 20 $ / t CO 2 Fraction in cost class $ / t CO 2 Europe Afforestation Reduced Deforestation Countries Transition in Forest management Total Afforestation Reduced Deforestation Forest management Total Although these studies do not, in every case, set out clearly which countries are included in the category of Europe, it is assumed that the majority of the section in Countries in Transition relate to the former Soviet Union, and not to countries that are part of the EU-27. Therefore, for the purposes of this paper, the results for Europe are taken as the most important in indicating costs and potentials. Taking the information from Table 7 it is clear that in Europe, avoided deforestation is not taken to be a major sink for carbon emissions, whilst both afforestation and forest management practices are considered important. 14

21 2.1.2 Bottom-up estimates As well as using the dynamic price modelling approach, the IPCC report sums the bottom-up assessments of potential for mitigation in the forestry sector, excluding bio-energy, on the basis of data at the regional level (IPCC, 2007). The report estimates an achievable sink of Mt CO 2 / year in 2040 in Europe, within the forest sector, but with a considerable variation in the data, as illustrated in Figure 4 below. Of the total estimate, 20% is expected to cost less than 20 US $ / t CO 2. These findings are lower than those presented in Table 7, which has a total potential of 295 Mt CO 2 from all forestry activities in Europe in Figure 4 European forest sector carbon sink projections for which various assumptions on implementation rate of measures were made (positive value = sink) (IPCC, 2007) In one of the studies presented in Figure 4, Cannell focuses on the capacity for the EU-15 to provide terrestrial carbon sinks (Cannell, 2003). The estimates are based, for Europe, on the judgement regarding which land can be converted to forest. The estimates for carbon sequestration are divided up in ranges of likeliness. The results are classified by: theoretical potential capacity, realistic potential capacity and conservative achievable capacity. For Europe the following results are presented by Cannell: Theoretical potential capacity: If all the agricultural land was afforested: Mt C / year over years. Realistic potential capacity: Combination of land use changes (14 Mha) and forest management (7 Mha): Mt C / year over 100 years ( Mt of CO 2 ). Conservative achievable capacity: Estimate of Mt C / year over 100 years ( Mt of CO 2 ). 15

22 Sathaye et al (2007) estimate that a maximum of Mha of land in Europe will be available for afforestation based on the available land base. At current afforestation rates of around 750 thousand ha / yr (see Table 4), this maximum would be reached in 60 years. Eggers et al (2008) used modelling techniques to project the development of forest resources in fifteen European countries (closely mapped to the EU-15 but including Switzerland). Scenarios were chosen that included different levels of wood demand, and climate change which was used to investigate the impact of forest management approaches on tree carbon stocks. In their three scenarios Eggers et al arrive at an afforestation rate until 2030 that is only slightly higher than the current rate of 0.17 % per year in the EU (Table 4) Nati onal Communication Under the UNFCCC, countries are required to submit different types of data on a regular basis. Every year the countries submit annual inventories according to a common reporting format. Every five years the countries submit national communications which include, amongst other information, a chapter on the latest inventory, a chapter on policies and measures and a chapter on projections and the total effect of the polices and measures. The latest national communication to the UNFCCC is from 2006 and provides limited quantitative information that can be used in the attempt to estimate realistic potentials in the forestry sector. An update of the national communication is scheduled for 2010 which should be considered in future work. The information provided in the chapter Policies and measures mainly relates to afforestation, and some forest management, in the cases where countries have elected to include forest management under article 3.4 of the Kyoto protocol. Table 8 illustrates that although informative at the country level, this information is insufficiently detailed across Europe as a whole to assist in estimates of realistic sequestration potentials in the EU

23 Table 8 Information on Forestry policies as set out in Fourth National communications Country Forestry Policies set out in Fourth National communication Quantification of Forest Goals Austria Belgium Bulgaria Czech Republic Maintenance and extension of vital forests Focus on agricultural area and pasture conversion Encouraged reforestation and avoidance of deforestation AND Preservation of land combined with limited land use change Improvement of the status of wood stands Supplement of enormous quantities of renewable energy Afforestation of unused agricultural land Maintenance of permanent grasslands Introduction on new land use technologies Protection of established forest cultures 5,100 ha/year, to deliver MtC/year including agriculture measures. Two scenarios optimistic 16MtC sink achieved by 2035, alternate decrease in sinks until 2015 and then stabilisation due to demand for wood as biomass for energy. Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Italy Forestry Act protects from deforestation Both public and private afforestation initiatives Conversion of private farmland into forest Forest land recovered from former agricultural land or wetland Natural and artificial regeneration of 1/3 of Finnish forests Detailed forest management Mainly Afforestation measures Limitation of land use changes for settlement or transportation When deforestation occurs, it is usually offset by equivalent afforestation Strong focus on forest management Continued afforestation of croplands Fire management Afforestation programme gradual overall forest size increase Recent trend of forest privatization consequent lack of available data Forestry management measures Afforestation and reforestation strategies Target to be 20-5% forested by end of century, compared to current 12%. Small net change expected due to balancing out of land cleared for settlements with afforested areas. 0.7 MtC saving in Increase in protected forests over time 15.1MtCO 2 gain in 2010 from afforestation, 10 MtCO 2 gain in 2010 from forest management. The Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Forest area gradually increased Progressive change away from agricultural land use Counteracting land use change Improved forest management Incentives for afforestation Protection of forests Use of wood for energy Increased national forest cover Conversion of agricultural land into forest Strong focus on fire management Stable forest cover expected in the future Sustainable forest management Afforestation Protection against fires Small scale arable land set aside Afforestation of both agricultural land and land at risk of desertification Overall 30% forest cover target in 2030, which is comparable to present levels. 3.7 tco 2 in Forest stewardships Voluntary set asides Forest protection Forest management cap Extra ha to be protected from 2000 to 2010 through voluntary set asides. 17

24 Table 9 provides an overview of the LULUCF emissions projections. It is also important to note, that the data is also incomplete, with not all countries reporting for the same years or according to the same baseline assumptions. The majority of information shown in Table 9 is based on with measures scenarios. Table 9 LULUCF emissions data and projections as provided by the EU-27 in the fourth National Communications to the UNFCCC Land-Use Change and Forestry Emissions (MtCO 2eq.) Notes Austria -9.0 NC NC NC NC 2005 figures are from Belgium Bulgaria -5.1 NC -7.1 NC NC NC 2005 figures are from 2003 Czech Rep With measures scenario. Denmark Estonia NC 7 NC NC NC NC NC Finland With measures scenario. France With measures scenario. Germany NC NC NC NC NC NC Greece With measures scenario. Hungary Business as usual, scenario II: historical afforestation rates are assumed to remain unchanged until Ireland With measures scenario. Italy NC NC Business as usual scenario. Latvia With measures scenario. Lithuania figures are from Netherlands With measures scenario. Poland With measures scenario. Portugal Romania With additional measures scenario. With measures scenario. Another base year figure of -35 was also available. Slovakia With measures scenario. Slovenia With additional measures scenario. Spain figure is given for 2003 Sweden Baseline scenario. UK Total With measures scenario data is from NC=not calculated 18

25 Because the data sets are not equivalent from year to year, the totals shown above cannot be taken to show a trend. The 2020 figure of Mt CO 2 eq excludes estimates for Luxembourg and Malta as well as: Spain with a 2003 figure of Mt CO 2 eq; Slovenia with a 2010 estimate of -1.3 Mt CO 2 eq; The Netherlands with a 2010 figure of 0.3 Mt CO 2 eq; Bulgaria with a 2005 figure of -7.1 Mt CO 2 eq; and Austria with a Mt CO 2 eq figure in Based on the previous estimates for these countries it is possible that an additional sink to the scale of at least -60 Mt CO 2 eq is missing from the figures. This is a significant difference from the overall total of the available figures. Even without this significant error, arguably this data is not the right one to use as a baseline. It is possible that the no measures figure is more akin to a business as usual scenario for LULUCF than the figures given above, which are predominantly with measures. Also, for many countries the with additional measures scenario provide identical figures to the with measures scenarios for LULUCF, indicating that these European countries are not focused on measures to reduce emissions in the LULUCF sector or indicating that some European countries do not consider that a great deal of further reductions are available in LULUCF. Observations of the data indicate that the scale of additional measures is variable, for example the Czech Republic estimate for 2020 differs by only -0.1 Mt CO 2 eq for the case including additional measures whilst in Hungary it differs by nearly 2 Mt CO 2 eq, which is 50% of the overall sink size in Interestingly, the French figures show that the no measures scenario for 2020 is a much greater sink, by 6 Mt CO 2 eq than the measures scenario implying that some measures to reduce emissions in other sectors can have adverse effects on emission reduction measures in the LULUCF sector. 19

26 2.1.4 Su mmary of the afforestation estimates The literature review has shown that the results of the different studies vary significantly depending on the methods used and assumptions made (see Table 10). Based on the FAO data the rate of afforestation for the EU-27 is roughly constant at % / year between 2000 and 2005 for EU-27. Assuming this as business as usual, an increase of forest area of 4.5 % until 2030 would occur. If we compare this to the literature research that we did for the purpose of this study we find that Eggers et al (2008) projected similar increase rates for the EU 15 countries until 2030 in their modelling approaches. However, their scenarios consider changes to current forest management practices and other external factors like wood demand and climate change. This further illustrates the large uncertainty in projecting afforestation rates. Table 10 Overview of afforestation estimates in the EU, from literature review Other timelines 55 Mt CO 2 / yr carbon sink (UNFCC) 0.17 % per year forest area increase per year afforestation rate EU-27 (FAO 2005) 115 Mt CO 2 / yr (IPPC, modelling estimates) Mt CO 2 / yr (IPPC bottom-up) Approximately 0.2 % average afforestation rate per year (EU-15) (Eggers et al, 2008) Mha available are for afforestation (Sataye et al, 2007) Between Mt C / year ( Mt CO 2) over 100 years (Cannel 2003) In summary, we conclude that the potential for extra afforestation beyond the current baseline development appears to be fairly small. Also, further detailed analysis is needed to establish mitigation potentials for afforestation. 20

27 2.1.5 Forest manag ement estimates Apart from afforestation, improved forest management can increase the carbon sink function of forests. It is possible to make some estimates of forest management potential using bottomup data looking at some discrete categories of forest management: Official forest protection areas; Forest fire management; Forest pest and disease management; Other forest management techniques Assessing the impact of a wide range of forest management techniques Nabuurs et al., (2008) set out in detail the wide range of forest management techniques and the complexities involved in assessing the influence that these can have on forest and soil carbon stocks. The paper points out that forest management can have many indirect positive effects on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels more widely through influences on wood available for bio-energy, forest wood products displacing more carbon-intense products and also on adaptation to climate change. The range of management techniques described were harvesting effects, rotation length, regeneration regimes, whole-tree harvesting, tending, thinning, forest fertilisation, as well as reducing natural disturbances such as wind and range damage. Nabuurs et al showed that these forest management techniques have varied influences on carbon stocks depending on whether assessments are made at the stand or whole-forest level, and also depending on the region of Europe investigated. By looking at various hotspots in Europe, identified by their characteristics e.g. carbon stock per km 2, net ecosystem production levels, and net biome production levels, a differentiated approach to forest management could be taken that maximises carbon stocks across Europe. Although Nabuurs et al. do identify the hotspots for these forest management techniques, they doe not provide area or carbon change estimates that could be associated with such a regime and acknowledge that carbon sequestration will only be one of many goals influencing forest management decisions. Importantly, the paper concludes that even if an optimal strategy was identified, a drastic change in the current sink in European forests should not be expected because of the existing inherited dynamic. Scenario analysis Karjalainen et al looked at the impact of climate change and forest management on the sequestration potential of Europe s forests (EU-27 in this case). This study held two scenarios: 8 21

28 1. Business as usual: forest fellings remain constant at 1990 levels. 2. Multifunctional: fellings increase by % per year until 2020, mean annual temperature increases by 2.5 degrees and precipitation increases by 10 % by Mha of afforestation by The forest management assumptions included taking all trees/forests over the age of 150 years out of production, and elongating the rotation length of all species by 20 years. Although Karjalainens research found that the carbon stocks in tree biomass, soil and wood products increased in all applied management and climate scenarios, the forest management approach itself did not lead to a very large difference in carbon sequestration values. Furthermore, the forest management techniques chosen were intended to reflect changed perceptions of forestry in the future, rather than optimising carbon sequestration. Making further estimates of costs and delivery of forest management in Europe is, therefore, clearly quite challenging. In addition to the problems in identifying which techniques are most effective in increasing carbon stocks, assessing costs and benefits of forest management activities is highly dependent on the time frame chosen. For example, thinning may reduce carbon stocks in the short term, but increase them in the longer term which could skew results. Managing fires and pests The FAO data also provides information on the forest area in Europe affected by pests, disease and forest fire (FAO, 2005). This information can give some indication of the potential carbon savings that could be made from controlling these threats. Table 11 shows that control of fire, pests and disease is only of significance in a few European countries. The focus of national policies and measures in the forestry sector, as given in Table 8 shows that some countries consider forest fire as particularly important. However, as a whole, the carbon represented by the area of forest at risk from fire, disease and pests is very small, with the potential exception of disease in Finland. Options to control these risks in Europe are not therefore considered further here. In summary In summary, literature suggests that the additional potential for carbon sequestration by forest management may be limited. Achieving additional sequestration would also require a strong change in forest management practice, which is governed by many other factors than carbon sequestration. 22

29 Table 11 FAO data on forest fire, insects and disease from FRA 2005 Forest carbon Forest area annually affected (1000 ha) density Country Forests (1000 ha) T C / ha Fire Insects Diseases Austria 3, n.s Belgium n.s Bulgaria 3, n.a. Czech Rep. 2, Denmark n.s. - - Estonia 2, Finland 22, n.s. 46 1,042 France 15, Germany 11, Greece 3, Hungary 1, Ireland n.s. - - Italy 9, Latvia 2, n.s. n.s. n.s. Lithuania 2, n.s Luxembourg Malta n.s. n.s. 0 0 Netherlands n.s. - - Poland 9, Portugal 3, Romania 6, Slovakia 1, Slovenia 1, n.s. n.s. n.s. Spain 17, Sweden 27, UK 2,

30 2.1.6 Costs in Europ e The inputs for one of the models used in the IPCC AR4 includes cost data derived from a range of literature sources (Sathaye et al, 2007), see Table 12. Table 12 Cost assumptions for forestry activities in Europe (Sathaye et al, 2007) Activity Cost (US $ in 2000) Land + Establishment Cost ($ / ha) 1068 Recurrent Cost ($ / ha / y) 80 Monitoring Cost ($ / ha / y) 13 Harvesting and Transport ($ / m 3 ) 42 Timber Price (domestic) ($ / m 3 ) At the time that the IPPC s Special Report on LULUCF was prepared, there was no standard available for assessing bio-sequestration costs or delivery. The IPPC reported a range of figures on average carbon sequestration costs or savings globally, spanning savings of t C ha -1, with wide variation across regions and project type. Costs were also reported to have varied from $ per tonne C. Although these estimates show a wide range, the very low cost estimates are most likely to correlate with projects in the developing world, with low costs and very immediate returns, such as avoided deforestation. There is also little resolution available on the difference in costs between forest management techniques and afforestation. The cost / benefit calculations for afforestation or forest management can be broken down into the difference between the costs of afforestation and / or maintenance and forest conservation as opposed to the potential costs and revenues that could come from wood products or harvesting. There are two key challenges in such an assessment: Firstly, all elements of the calculation are very variable and subject to a large uncertainty both in terms of carbon costs and value of wood products that could be foregone. To overcome this challenge these cost / benefit elements could be developed along a number of business models for key sectors of forestry e.g. energy / pulp, protection forest etc. Secondly, some types of LULUCF activities demonstrate a time lag as regards cost versus carbon benefits e.g. afforestation where costs are made up front and carbon benefits follow later. Thus it is challenging to use traditional cost-benefit-analyses for these activities in a way that is comparable with other mitigation measures. The success of such comparisons is highly dependent on the timeframe used. 24