Production, restoration, mitigation: a new generation of plantations

Abstract

Forests provide a wide variety of ecosystem services and international conventions and national policies for climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation recommend forest protection and restoration. However, global forest cover continues to decline, and recent evidence suggests deforestation rates are accelerating. Against this background the area of planted forests has increased globally. Recognizing the substantial potential of well-managed forest plantations, the new generation plantations (NGP) platform was launched in 2007. NGP encourages well-managed planted forests in the right places to conserve biodiversity and meet human needs. Here we describe the NGP approach and analyze data and information from NGP participants and others over 10 years. This shows that NGP participants are responsible for c.11.1 million ha of land, much of it previously degraded or abandoned; 43% is managed as timber plantations, with the remainder being wildlife reserves, restored natural forest, grassland and agriculture. NGP case studies illustrate a range of biodiversity, conservation and socio-economic achievements. These achievements, considered together with future projections of timber demand and of the land available for restoration to tree cover, demonstrate the potential of well-managed plantations to protect natural forests, provide timber, conserve biodiversity and mitigate climate change. The NGP concept works in a variety of countries and contexts; participants have shown that it is possible to produce timber while maintaining and enhancing ecosystems and contributing to socio-economic development. We present the case for forest production, restoration and mitigation/adaptation to limit climate and other environmental risks and to improve the resilience of landscapes.

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

Fig. 1

Source: IIASA/WWF 2012. Living forests report

Fig. 2

Source: WWF. 2012. Living forests report

References

  1. Aienmababazi JH, Angelsen A (2014) Do commercial forest plantations reduce the pressure on natural forests. Evidence from forest policy reform in Uganda. For Policy Econ 41:12–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barala H, Guariguata MR, Keenan RJ (2016) A proposed framework for assessing ecosystem goods and services from planted forests. Ecosyst Serv 22:260–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bentsen NS (2017) Carbon debt and payback time—lost in the forest? Renew Sustain Energy Rev 73:1211–1217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Boyd IL et al (2013) The consequences of tree pests and diseases for ecosystem services. Science 342:823–831

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brockerhoff EG et al (2013) The role of eucalypt and other planted forests in biodiversity conservation. For Ecol Manag 301:43–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Carle J, Holmgren P (2008) Wood from planted forests: a global outlook 2005–2030. For Prod J 58(12):6–18

    Google Scholar 

  7. Climate Focus (2017). Progress on the New York declaration on forests: finance for forests—goals 8 and 9 assessment report. Prepared by Climate Focus in cooperation with the New York declaration on forest assessment partners with support from the climate and land use alliance

  8. FAO (2000) On definitions of forest and forest change. Forest resources assessment programme working paper 33, Rome. www.fao.org/docrep/006/ad665e/ad665e04.htm

  9. FAO (2015) FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment. www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/en/

  10. Gibbs HK, Salmon JM (2015) Mapping the world’s degraded land. Appl Geogr 57:12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.11.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Global Forest Watch (2017) Interactive map. www.globalforestwatch.org/map/3

  12. Griscom WB et al (2017) Natural climate solutions. PNAS 114(44):11645–11650

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gustavsson L, Haus S, Lundblad M, Lundström A, Ortiz CA, Sathre R, Truong N, Le TN, Wikberg P-E (2017) Climate change effects of forestry and substitution of carbon-intensive materials and fossil fuels. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 67:612–624

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. IBA (2015) Brazilian Tree Industry Association, 2015 Report

  15. IEA (2013) Nordic energy technology perspectives. International energy agency and Nordic energy research, IEA/ETP Publications, Paris and Oslo. www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/NETP.pdf

  16. IUFRO SPDC (2017). Forest landscape restoration project—inspire, support and mobilize FLR. www.iufro.org/science/special/spdc/flr/flr. Accessed 24 Nov 2017

  17. Jurgensen C, Kollert W, Lebedys A (2014) Assessment of industrial roundwood production from planted forests. FAO planted forests and trees working paper series no. 48. FAO, Rome.www.fao.org/3/a-i3384e.pdf

  18. Kharas H (2017) The unprecedented expansion of the global middle class: an update. Global economy and development working paper 100. www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/global_20170228_global-middle-class.pdf

  19. Madsen P, Barnekow Lillesø J-P, Graudal L (2017) Denmark. Case study at the IUFRO SPDC: forest landscape restoration project—inspire, support and mobilize FLR. www.iufro.org/science/special/spdc/flr/flr. Accessed 29 Nov 2017

  20. Naudts K, Chen Y, McGrath MJ, Ryder J, Valade A, Otto J, Luyssaert S (2016) Europes forest management did not mitigate climate warming. Science 351:597–599

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nordiska Ministerrådet (2009) Hållbar utveckling—en ny kurs för Norden. Nordiska Ministerrådet, Copenhagen, Denmark. Report ANP 2009, p 726. http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:701331/FULLTEXT01.pdf

  22. Oliver CD, Nassar NT, Lippke BR, McCarter JB (2014) Carbon, fossil fuel, and biodiversity mitigation with wood and forests. J Sustain For 33(3):248–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Payn T, Carnus J-M, Freer-Smith PH, Kollet W, Liu S, Orazio C, Rodriguez L, Silva LN, Wingfield M (2015) Changes in planted forests and future global implications. For Ecol Manag 352:57–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ribeiro MC et al (2009) The Brazilian atlantic forest: how much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Biol Conserv 142(6):1141–1153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rytter L, Ingerslev M, Kilpeläinen A, Torssonen P, Lazdina D, Löf M, Madsen P, Muiste P, Stener L-G (2016) Increased forest biomass production in the Nordic and Baltic countries—a review on current and future opportunities. Silva Fenn 50(5):1660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Secco L, Pirand R (2015) Do tree plantations support forest conservation? CIFOR paper. www.cifor.org/library/5485/do-tree-plantations-support-forest-conservation

  27. Smith P et al (2015) Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat Clim Change 6:42–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Spiecker H (2002) Silvicultural management in maintaining biodiversity and resistance of forests in Europe—temperate zone. J Environ Manag 67(1):55–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Stanturf JA (2015) Future landscapes: opportunities and challenges. New For 46:615–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Stanturf JA (2016) Restoration of boreal and temperate forests, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  31. Stanturf JA, Madsen P (2002) Restoration concepts for temperate and boreal forest of North America and Western Europe. Plant Biosyst 136(2):143–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Stanturf JA, Palik BJ, Dumroese RK (2014) Contemporary forest restoration: a review emphasizing function. For Ecol Manag 331:292–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Taeroe A, Mustapha WF, Stupak I, Raulund-Rasmussen K (2017) Do forests best mitigate CO2 emissions to the atmosphere by setting them aside for maximization of carbon storage or by management for fossil fuel substitution? J Environ Manag 197:117–129

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ter-Mikaelian MT, Colombo SJ, Chen J (2015) The burning question: does forest bioenergy reduce carbon emissions? a review of common misconceptions about forest carbon accounting. J For 113(1):57–68

    Google Scholar 

  35. UNDESA (2015) UN department of economic and social affairs report—world population prospective: the 2015 revision July 2015. www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html

  36. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2015) COP 21 climate agreement. UNFCCC, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  37. WRI (2017) The restoration diagnostic. Case Example: Jutland, Denmark. www.wri.org/sites/default/files/WRI_Restoration_Diagnostic_Case_Example_Denmark.pdf. Accessed 24 Nov 2017

  38. WWF (2012) Living forests report chapter 4: forests and wood products. WWF International, Gland. https://wwf.panda.org/living_forests_report

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the new generation plantations platform Participants: China Green Carbon Foundation, Forestry Commission of Great Britain, Governo Estadual do Acre (Brazil), African Plantations for Sustainable Development, Arauco, CMPC, Fibria, Kimberly-Clark, New Forests Company, Mondi, The Navigator Company, Stora Enso, Suzano, UPM, Veracel and Barney Jeffries for his work on the typescript of this paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Freer-Smith.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Silva, L.N., Freer-Smith, P. & Madsen, P. Production, restoration, mitigation: a new generation of plantations. New Forests 50, 153–168 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-018-9644-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Afforestation
  • Reforestation
  • Restoration
  • Conservation
  • Adaptation
  • Mitigation