Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Greenhouse gas emissions from forestry in East Norway

  • CARBON FOOTPRINTING
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

So far no calculations have been made for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from forestry in East Norway. This region stands for 80 % of the Norwegian timber production. The aim of this study was to assess the annual GHG emissions of Norwegian forestry in the eastern parts of the country from seed production to final felling and transport of timber to sawmill and wood processing industry (cradle-to-gate inventory), based on specific Norwegian data.

Methods

The life cycle inventory was conducted with SimaPro applying primary and secondary data from Norwegian forestry. GHG emissions of fossil-related inputs from the technosphere were calculated for the functional unit of 1 m3 timber extracted and delivered to industry gate in East Norway in 2010. The analysis includes seed and seedling production, silvicultural operations, forest road construction and upgrading, thinning, final felling, timber forwarding and timber transport on road and rail from the forest to the industry. Norwegian time studies of forestry machines and operations were used to calculate efficiency, fuel consumption and transport distances. Due to the lack of specific Norwegian data in Ecoinvent, we designed and constructed unit processes based on primary and secondary data from forestry in East Norway.

Results and discussion

GHG emissions from forestry in East Norway amounted to 17.893 kg CO2-equivalents per m3 of timber delivered to industry gate in 2010. Road transport of timber accounted for almost half of the total GHG emissions, final felling and forwarding for nearly one third of the GHG emissions. Due to longer road transport distances, pulpwood had higher impact on the climate change category than saw timber. The construction of forest roads had the highest impact on the natural land transformation category. The net CO2 emissions of fossil CO2 corresponded to 2.3 % of the CO2 sequestered by 1 m3 of growing forest trees and were compared to a calculation of biogenic CO2 release from the forest floor as a direct consequence of harvesting.

Conclusions

Shorter forwarding and road transport distances, increased logging truck size and higher proportion of railway transport may result in lower emissions per volume of transported timber. A life cycle assessment of forestry may also consider impacts on environmental categories other than climate change. Biogenic CO2 emissions from the soil may be up to 10 times higher than the fossil-related emissions, at least in a short-term perspective, and are highly dependent on stand rotation length.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott J (2008) What is a carbon footprint? Report. The Swedish Forest Industries Federation and Timcon. The Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Management

  • Aldentun Y (2012) Life cycle inventory of forest seedling production-from seed to regeneration site. J Clean Prod 10(1):47–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Astrup R, Dalsgaard L, Eriksen R, Hylen G (2010) Utviklingsscenarioer for karbonbinding i Norges skoger (Development scenarios for carbon sequestration in Norwegian forests). Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute report 16/10

  • Berg S, Karjalainen T (2003) Comparison of greenhouse gas emissions from forest operations in Finland and Sweden. Forestry 76(3):271–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg S, Lindholm EL (2005) Energy use and environmental impacts of forest operations in Sweden. J Clean Prod 13:33–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brander M, Tipper R, Hutchison C, Davis G (2009) Consequential and attributional approaches to LCA: a guide to policy makers with specific reference to greenhouse gas LCA of biofuels. Technical Paper TP090403A, Ecometrica

  • Cao T, Valsta L, Härkӧnen S, Saranpää P, Mäkelä A (2008) Effects of thinning and fertilization on wood properties and economic returns for Norway spruce. For Ecol Manag 256(6):1280–1289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagsavisen (2013) Norsk treindustri i krise (Norwegian wood processing industry in crisis). http://www.dagsavisen.no/samfunn/norsk-treindustri-i-krise/. Published 21 March 2013, accessed 19 November 2013

  • De Wit H, Kvindesland S (1999) Carbon stocks in Norwegian forest soils and effects of forest management on carbon storage. Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute report Supplement 14

  • e24.no (2013) Nå sendes norsk skog ut av landet (Norwegian timber is now sent out of the country). http://e24.no/naeringsliv/naa-sendes-norsk-skog-ut-av-landet/22600573. Published 4 November 2013, accessed 6 November 2013

  • Ecoinvent (2007) Overview and methodology. Ecoinvent report No. 1. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. Dübendorf

  • Eid T, Hoen FH, Økseter P (2002) Timber production possibilities of the Norwegian forest area and measures for a sustainable forestry. For Policy Econ 4(3):187–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson E (2006) Thinning operations and their impact on biomass production in stands of Norway spruce and Scots pine. Biomass Bioenerg 30(10):848–854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson E, Gillespie A, Gustavsson L, Langvall O, Olsson M, Sathre R, Stendahl J (2007) Integrated carbon analysis of forest management practices and wood substitution. Can J For Res 37(3):671–681

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fantozzi F, Buratti C (2010) Life cycle assessment of biomass chains: wood pellet from short rotation coppice using data measured on a real plant. Biomass Bioenerg 34:1796–1804

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 91(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitje A (1989) Tremåling (Tree measurements). Landbruksforlaget

  • Flæte PO (2009) Energiforbruk og utslipp fra skogproduksjonskjeden med utgangspunkt i aktivitetsdata fra 2007 – fra frø til industritomt (Energy consumption and emissions from the forest production chain from 2007—from seeds to industry gate). Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute working paper

  • Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: characterisation. Ministerie van VROM. Den Haag

  • Granhus A, Hylen G, Nilsen JEØ (2012) Skogen i Norge. Statistikk over skogforhold og skogressurser i Norge registrert i perioden 2005-2009 (Statistics of Forest Conditions and Resources in Norway). Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute resource overview 03/12

  • Guest G, Cherubini F, Strømman AH (2013) The role of forest residues in the accounting for the global warming potential of bioenergy. GCB Bioenergy 5(4):459–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustavsson L, Sathre R (2006) Variability in energy and carbon dioxide balances of wood and concrete building materials. Build Environ 41(7):940–951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauschild M, Olsen SI, Hansen E, Schmidt A (2008) Gone… but not away—addressing the problem of long-term impacts from landfills in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:547–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath L, Maltby V, Miner R, Skog K, Smith J, Unwin J, Upton B (2010) Greenhouse gas and carbon profile of the U.S. forest products industry value chain. Environ Sci Technol 44(10):3999–4005

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Holtsmark B (2013) Quantifying the global warming potential of CO2 emissions from wood fuels. GCB Bioenergy. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12110

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungmeier G, McDarby F, Evald A, Hohenthal C, Petersen AK, Schwaiger HP, Zimmer B (2003) Energy aspects in LCA of forest products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(2):99–105

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lindholm EL (2010) Energy use and environmental impact of roundwood and forest fuel production in Sweden. Dissertation, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

  • Liski J, Pussinen A, Pingoud K, Mäkipää R, Karjalainen T (2001) Which rotation length is favorable to carbon sequestration? Can J For Res 31:2004–2013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LMD (2006) FOR 2006-06-07 nr 593: Forskrift om berekraftig skogbruk (Regulation on sustainable forest management). Landbruks- og matdepartementet (Ministry of Agriculture and Food). http://www.lovdata.no/cgi-wift/ldles?doc=/sf/sf/sf-20060607-0593.html. Accessed 12 March 2013

  • Löfroth C, Svenson G (2012) ETT – Modulsystem för skogstransporter – En Trave Till (ETT) och Större Travar (ST) (ETT – Modular system for timber transport – One More Stack (ETT) and Bigger Stacks (ST)). The Fnorestry Research Institute of Sweden working paper 758

  • Mäkinen H, Isomäki A (2004) Thinning intensity and long-term changes in increment and stem form of Norway spruce trees. For Ecol Manag 201(2–3):295–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews RW, Robertson K, Marland G, Marland E (2007) Carbon in wood products and product substitution. In: Freer-Smith PH, Broadmeadow MSJ, Lynch JM (eds) Forestry and Climate Change. CABI Publishing. Forest Research, Farnham, pp 91–104

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Michelsen O (2008) Assessment of land use impact on biodiversity. Proposal of a new methodology exemplified with forestry operations in Norway. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(1):22–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Michelsen O, Solli C, Strømman AH (2008) Environmental impact and added value in forestry operations in Norway. J Ind Ecol 12:69–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michelsen O, Cherubini F, Strømman AH (2012) Impact assessment of biodiversity and carbon pools from land use and land use changes in life cycle assessment, exemplified with forestry operations in Norway. J Ind Ecol 16:231–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Transport and Communications (2013) Press release No. 100/13, 06.09.2013

  • Nave LE, Vance ED, Swanston CW, Curtis PS (2010) Harvest impacts on soil carbon storage in temperate forests. For Ecol Manag 259:857–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nørstebø VS, Johansen U, Gabriel HM, Talbot B, Nilsen JE (2011) Transport av skogsvirke i kyststrøk fra Finnmark til Rogaland (Transport of timber at the coast from Finnmark to Rogaland). SINTEF report A20874

  • Parigiani J, Desai A, Mariki R (2011) The carbon footprint of an East African forestry enterprise. Int J Sustain Dev 4(3):152–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F (2014) Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J Ind Ecol 18(1):73–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salazar J, Sowlati T (2008) A review of the life-cycle assessment of windows. For Prod J 58(10):91–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Sathre R, Gustavsson L (2011) Time-dependent climate benefits of using forest residues to substitute fossil fuels. Biomass Bioenerg 35:2506–2516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SimaPro (2008) Introduction to LCA with SimaPro 7. PRé Consultants, Amersfoort

  • SKI (2005) Gjødsling (Fertilization). Skogbrukets Kursinstitutt (The Forestry Extension Institute). SKI resumé 12/05

  • Skogforsk (2010) Vägbyggnad. Kostnader och prestationer (Road construction. Costs and efficiency). Skogforsk, Kunskap direkt (the Forestry Research Institute of Sweden, Immediate knowledge). http://www.skogforsk.se/sv/KunskapDirekt/Vagbyggnad/Kostnader-och-prestationer/#. Accessed 15 March 2013

  • Skogfrøverket (2012) Årsmelding 2011 (Annual report 2011). Stiftelsen Det norske Skogfrøverk (The Norwegian Forest Seed Centre)

  • SLF (2012) Statens landbruksforvaltning (Norwegian Agricultural Authority). https://www.slf.dep.no/no/statistikk/skogbruk. Accessed 1 November 2012

  • SLF/JBV (2010) Økt virkestransport på jernbane (Increased timber transport on the railway). Statens landbruksforvaltning og Jernbaneverket (Norwegian Agricultural Authority and Norwegian National Rail Administration)

  • Søgaard G, Granhus A (2012) Klimaoptimalt skogbruk. En vurdering av utvalgte skogskjøtseltiltak i Akershus fylke (Climate optimal forestry. A consideration of selected silvicultural operations in Akershus county). Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute report 09/12

  • Solli C, Reenaas M, Strømman AH, Hertwich EG (2009) Life cycle assessment of wood-based heating in Norway. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:517–528

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • SSB (2009) Skogbruk, landbruksundersøkinga 2008 (Forestry, agricultural survey 2008). Statistisk sentralbyrå (Statistics Norway)

  • SSB (2012) Statistisk sentralbyrå (Statistics Norway). http://www.ssb.no/jord-skog-jakt-og-fiskeri?de=Skogbruk. Accessed 1 November 2012

  • Trømborg E (2011) Biomass market and trade in Norway: status and future prospects. Country report for IEA Task 40

  • Tveite B, Braastad H (2000) Tynning i granbestand. Effekten på tilvekst, dimensjonsfordeling og økonomi (Thinning in spruce stands. Effect on growth, dimensions and economy). Norwegian Forest Research Institute report 4/2000

  • US EPA (2006) Solid waste management and greenhouse gases: a life cycle assessment of emissions and sinks. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report

  • Vadla K (2011) Stammekvisting som kvalitetsforbedrende tiltak (Pruning as quality improving method). http://www.skogoglandskap.no/fagartikler/2011/Stammekvisting. Accessed 1 November 2012

  • Vennesland B, Hohle AE, Kjøstelsen L, Gobakken LR (2013) Prosjektrapport Klimatre. Energiforbruk og kostnader - skog og bioenergi. (Project report Klimatre. Energy use and costs—forest and bioenergy.) Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute report 14/13

  • Whittaker C, Mortimer N, Murphy R, Matthews R (2011) Energy and greenhouse gas balance of the use of forest residues for bioenergy production in the UK. Biomass Bioenerg 35(11):29–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ximenes FA, Grant T (2013) Quantifying the greenhouse benefits of the use of wood products in two popular house design in Sydney, Australia. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:891–908

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute and the project KlimaTre (funded by The Research Council of Norway, grant number 199332) provided the financial support required to undertake this study. The authors would like to thank Leif Kjøstelsen for conducting numerous field studies and Anders Møyner Eid Hohle for providing required data for forestry operations. The authors are grateful to Lars Gunnar Tellnes, Lone Ross Gobakken, Gry Alfredsen and Bruce Talbot for their various contributions, helpful comments and suggestions. Sincere thanks are given to Holger Lange and Janne Kjønaas for their contributions to the statistical analysis and the soil carbon matter, respectively.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute, P.O. Box 115, 1431, Ås, Norway

    Volkmar Timmermann & Janka Dibdiakova

Authors
  1. Volkmar Timmermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Janka Dibdiakova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Volkmar Timmermann.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Göran Finnveden

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Timmermann, V., Dibdiakova, J. Greenhouse gas emissions from forestry in East Norway. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19, 1593–1606 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0773-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0773-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation