The Future of Forest Biomass

Transcription

1 The Future of Forest Biomass 1,6 million hectares of forest land Manager Anssi Niskanen The Forestry Centre of North Karelia Joensuu Forestry Networking Week

2 Region of North Karelia (NUTS 3) population area 2.16 mill. ha water 0.38 mill. ha 14 municipalities 300 km border with Russia

3 Special expertise in forestry and wood sector European Forest Institute Finnish Forest Research Institute University of Eastern Finland University of Applied Sciences Joensuu Science Park Forestry Centre etc

4 Net migration (but better development is expected)

5 We trust in women! Miss Finland 2011 Pia World Champion and World Cup Champion 2011 in biathlon Kaisa

6 The future of forest biomass

7 Forest based businesses today Pulp Paper Boards Paper boards Vaneer Forestry Lumber Tranport. Cutting Logistics

8 industries in the future Medicins Climate construction Kemiantuotteita MeO O O Energy HO HO OH OMe Intelligent printing (Nano)fibers

9 and human and nature service Tourism and recreation Health products Berries, herb, mushrooms,

10 Megatrend: Higher demand on renewable natural resources Higher demand on renewable resources Policies Economies Globalisation Food and land Energy Climate change Declining supply of nonrenewable resources

11 Bioeconomy

12 Biotaloustyöryhmän loppuraportti (The Final Report of the Bioeconomy Working Group to the Government) By 2050, Finland will lead the development of bioeconomy. The welfare in Finland will be based on sustainable and diverse use of renewable natural resources, high value-added and creative know-how. Forests are the most important renewable resource in Finland. ( and Forestry Centre is the leading expert in practical forestry )

13 Regional Forestry Centre: the services forest management planning forestry grants for private forest owners information and guidance in nature conservation professional know-how Figures: Sinikka Ratilainen forest improvement supervision of the implementation of the Forest Act and other forestry legislation regional forest programmes regional development

14 Forestry Centre North-Karelia Forest land 1,6 milj. ha NIPF 0,83 Companies 0,36 Metsähallitus (State) 0,32 Growth 8,1 milj. m3 Cuttings n. 4-5 milj. m3 Wood production reagion Uimaharju, Varkaus, Imatra Sawmills: Vapo, Stora Enso, few small private Use of wood for energy 0,52 milj. m3 in 2010 Wood use (milj. m3) Year All Imports ,0 0, ,1 1, ,2 1, ,0 2,9

15 Forestry Centre North-Karelia Action in the Woods!

16 The case of bioenergy

17 Demand on bio-based materials for energy is growing in Europe USE OF RENWABLE ENERGY 2005 AND TARGETS % 8, ,5 38 Europe Finland North Karelia Figure: Urpo Hassinen

18 In our region (as in Finland), much depends on the app non-industrial private forest owner s willingness to sell energy wood Farmers 29 % Other Private 24 % State 22 % Companies 22 % Communities 3 % Figures: Urpo Hassinen, Sinikka Ratilainen

19 What are the motivations of the forest owners? FI / N.K. I Multiobjective owners Monetary and amenity benefits 30% / 32% II Recreationists No-timber and non-monetary values 24% / 21% III Self employed Employment opportunities and labour income 20% / 20% IV Investors Profit, regular sales and economic security 17% / 16% V Indifferent No specific objectives 10% / 11% For example, forest owners in groups II and V sell 2 m 3 /ha/a less wood than others. Source: Favada et al , 2009 and Hänninen 2010.

20 Characteristics of the forest owner groups in Finland (30 %) (24 %) (20 %) (17 %) (10 %) I Multiobjective II Recreationists III Self-employed IV Investors V Indifferent Farmer 39 % 8 % 35 % 21 % 10 % Wage 23 % 44 % 34 % 27 % 40 % earner Rural 78 % 44 % 77 % 54 % 44 % residence Forest 51,4 ha 24,8 ha 34,7 ha 38,4 ha 21,7 ha area Growing 120 m3/ha 115 m3/ha 114 m3/ha 120 m3/ha 105 m3/ha stock Forest 78 % 50 % 64 % 68 % 43 % management plan Source: Favada et al. 2007, 2009

21 The supply of raw material for bioenergy, thoughts: 2/3 value income (I multiobjective, III self-employed and V investors) assumably they emphasise income from wood sales for bioenergy, too ability to pay on energy wood matters, and it should be higher than in pulpwood value chains, subsidies included energy harvesting should support silviculture and thus generate income later nutrient intake should not endanger the forthcoming forest growth stump removal should not increase the tending costs (too high birch regrowth), but rather reduce the plantation establishment costs decisions to sell are likely irrespective on who is the buyer, but those buers have an advantage, who can buy all timber assortments especially for multiobjectives, the climate benefits may affect decisions for self-employed, firewood option for own use and sales may be important 1/3 are relatively inactive in forestry (II recreationists and IV indifferent) assumably income matters to these groups too, but less nutrient intake, climate benefits and landscape impacts may matter recreationists the most on indifferent -group, the challenge is to find them and get them interested on wood sales for energy

22 The role of consultation is growing Forestry Centre has build a meeting place of information forest owners may announce forest sites that need tending or cutting energy companies may contact the owners for contracts this service is available free of charge but can reach only a fraction of potential clients Forestry organisations could get stronger in the consultation of forest owners also on bioenergy so far the Forestry Centre, for example, has provided consultation with the help of regional development projects (ad hoc type) critical for any consultation is to have enough know-how on wood energy demand, prices, customers, impacts on forest site, soil and silviculture, and on the subsidy opportunities Some believe that the competition on wood is growing too high (with the help of subsidies) endangering the rational use of wood from the forest owner s point of view, it does not decicively matter for what the wood is used, for pulp or for energy

23 Thank you! Figure: Urpo Hassinen