Keywords

9.1 Background

The climate-smart forestry (CSF) approach was originated by Nabuurs et al. (2015, 2017), with further elaborations and arguments in Nabuurs et al. (2017), Kauppi et al. (2018), Jandl et al. (2018), Yousefpour et al. (2018), Bowditch et al. (2020) and Verkerk et al. (2020). The first CSF pilots were introduced in the Netherlands in 2019 (Dutch Climate Accord 2018). The CSF concept, as such, was introduced earlier by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) under the concept of climate-smart agriculture at the Hague Conference on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change in 2010 (FAO 2013). The FAO used CSF in a very broad sense, and primarily in addressing the developing countries.Footnote 1 Nabuurs et al. (2015, 2017) introduced CSF specifically in the context of the Paris Climate Agreement and the EU’s land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) policy, and since then, it has been further elaborated to highlight the linkages with climate-change adaptation (Verkerk et al. 2020).

The main idea of the CSF approach is expressed in the following statement: climate-smart forestry is a holistic approach to how forests and the forest-based sector can contribute to climate-change mitigation that considers the need to adapt to climate change, while taking into account specific regional settings. Stated like this, it may seem overly generalised and not necessarily providing any significant new insight. However, the discussions, scientific literature, policies (e.g. greenhouse gas [GHG] reporting to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC] and EU LULUCF) and interests around forests and the forest-based sector in the last few decades have illustrated how narrow, partial and incomplete they often are. There is a common tendency to stress only some specific aspect(s), such as forest sinks, forest product substitution and storage, mitigation or adaptation, but rarely are all these viewed simultaneously, in a holistic approach. Moreover, the discussions of, for example, LULUCF have often been technically quite demanding, while quantifying carbon sinks for LULUCF is complicated and involves many uncertainties. Against this backdrop, a holistic CSF approach, tailored to individual regional settings, is more novel and significant than it sounds.

Before going into detail on the CSF approach, it is useful first to outline the background and motivation behind how the approach came to be, and what it can offer in the future. In doing this, we base the discussion on Nabuurs et al. (2015, 2017) and Verkerk et al. (2020), in particular.

9.2 The Climate-Smart Forestry Approach: Origin and Objectives

In 2015, intensive preparations for the UNFCCC COP21 Paris meeting were being made. During this process, the European Forest Institute carried out a study to understand how European forests and the forest sector could best contribute to climate mitigation targets (Nabuurs et al. 2015). This was a pioneering study that put forward the CSF approach. The approach then went on to be further developed in Nabuurs et al. (2017), where it was used specifically to address the situation regarding the Paris Climate Agreement and the European Commission’s (2016b) legislative proposal to incorporate GHG emissions and removals associated with LULUCF into its 2030 Climate and Energy Framework. The Climate and Energy Framework was aimed at a total emissions reduction of 40% by 2030 for all sectors combined, as part of the Paris Agreement (UN 2015; European Commission 2016a, b).

Even during the negotiations leading up to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the forest sector’s role in climate mitigation was being discussed. However, concerns about the consequences of incorporating the existing forest sink into the climate targets resulted in the policy of imposing significant limits on the role of forests in climate-change mitigation (Ellison et al. 2014). In the EU policies, particular requirements relating to “caps”, and “forest (management) reference levels” (now called forest reference levels) were introduced. This set of rules evolved into the EU LULUCF proposal (European Council 2017), which was later adapted as a regulation (European Council 2018). Nabuurs et al. (2017) raised concerns about the LULUCF proposal due to it limiting the role of forests and the forest sector in climate policy, expressing that this role could be much greater than what had been assessed in the initial impact assessment report (European Council 2016a).

Against this backdrop, Nabuurs et al. (2017) argued that the EU forest-based sector could contribute much more to climate mitigation than was the current state, and what had been conventionally understood. They also interpreted CSF as a more specific climate-focused approach under the more general Sustainable Forest Management concept (Forest Europe 1993). The key idea behind CSF is that it considers the whole value chain––from forest to wood products and energy––in climate mitigation and adaptation, with a focus on what the atmosphere ‘sees’, and giving less consideration to GHG reporting and accounting conventions. It contains a wide range of measures that can be applied to provide positive incentives for more firmly integrating climate objectives into the forest-based-sector framework. Consequently, Nabuurs et al. (2017) argued that CSF is more than just storing carbon in forest ecosystems––it rather builds upon three main objectives: (1) reducing and/or removing GHG emissions; (2) adapting and building forest resilience to climate change; and (3) sustainably increasing forest productivity and income.

These CSF objectives can be achieved by tailoring policy measures and actions to the regional circumstances of forest-based sectors in the EU Member States. Nabuurs et al. (2017) quantified an indicative potential mitigation impact of the EU forest-based sector by 2050 (Table 9.1), and suggested policy measures to incentivise action according to the three main CSF objectives.

Table 9.1 The climate-smart forestry approach potential mitigation effect in the EU (all numbers are approximations and contain large uncertainties)
Full size table

The core of CSF is that it not only aims to realise climate-change mitigation, but also tries to achieve synergies and minimise trade-offs with other forest functions, such as adaptation to climate change, biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services and the bioeconomy. By reducing and/or removing GHG emissions, adapting and building forest resilience, and sustainably increasing forest productivity and income, it tackles multiple policy goals, such as many of those stressed in the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Nabuurs et al. (2017) argued that the greater the synergies and the fewer the trade-offs between climate policy and other societal and forest-related goals, the more likely the climate objectives would be effectively implemented in practice.

9.3 Climate-Smart Forestry Measures Toolkit

To look in more detail at what types of measures CSF could include, Nabuurs et al. (2017) provided a summary. Here, we also summarise the potential measures and approximate their impacts on climate mitigation at the EU level. However, the estimates should be regarded as rough estimates indicating the potential relative scales rather than absolute and precise figures.

Although EU forests cover 40% of the land area, the scientific literature has occasionally pointed to a limited, but additional, mitigation role for EU forests on the order of 90–180 Mt. CO2/year by 2040 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007). Nabuurs et al. (2017), however, found that, with the implementation of CSF, EU forests and the forest sector could play a much larger role. They indicated that the current annual mitigation effect of the EU forest-based sector, via contributions to the forest sink, and material and energy substitution, is on the scale of 13% of the current total EU emissions. With the right set of incentives, and through the implementation of CSF goals in the EU and Member States, Nabuurs et al. (2017) approximated (with high uncertainties) that the additional potential climate mitigation could be around 440 Mt. CO2/year by 2050. Table 9.1 illustrates the different CSF measures and approximate magnitudes that could be implemented in the EU to increase the forest-based sector’s climate-mitigation impact (Nabuurs et al. 2017). As stated above, the estimation is only indicative and not precise, and it does not, for example, estimate the mitigation potential against a baseline counterfactual scenario, the importance of which is highlighted in Chap. 8 of this book.

Projections of forest resources under alternative management and policy assumptions––derived from a number of different studies––indicate that carbon storage in existing EU forests could continue to increase, providing additional sequestration benefits of approximately up to 172 Mt. CO2/year by 2050 (Nabuurs et al. 2017). Measures to achieve this could include the enhanced thinning of stands, leading to additional growth and higher-quality raw materials, regrowth of new species or provenances, the planting of more site-adapted species and provenances, and regeneration using faster-growing species and provenances. For example, large areas of low-productivity hardwoods, previously only used for firewood production (some 350,000 km2 of old coppice forests), could be regenerated and replaced by more-productive mixed deciduous and coniferous forests, generating an additional sink of ~56 Mt. CO2/year. This could be done by using new provenances better adapted to future climates, without the need for exotic species.

An increase in the productivity of forests through the above could potentially yield an addition to the forest sink of ~38 Mt. CO2/year in the long term. Moreover, productivity growth would add ~35 million m3 of future harvest potential to the EU’s fellings of 522 million m3, although possible trade-offs with other services would need to be considered. The long-term use of harvested-wood products (HWP) can also contribute to mitigation by substituting for the use of fossil fuels and energy-intensive materials, such as steel and concrete in the construction sector. According to Nabuurs et al. (2017), favouring wood-use in the construction sector (when carried out in synergy with the above-mentioned production increase) could potentially help avoid future emissions on the order of ~43 Mt. CO2/year.

Emissions occur in European forests as well. Annual deforestation, as exemplified by land-use conversions to infrastructure of close to 1000 km2/year, causes emissions of ~15 Mt. CO2/year. Further, natural disturbances, such as bark-beetle outbreaks, windstorms and forest fires, on average, cause emissions of ~18 Mt. CO2/year. The draining of peat soils under forests emits ~20 Mt. CO2/year. Forest management and the improved protection of forest areas in the EU can reduce all of these emissions. In Spanish forests, for example, a more active management regime that also aims to introduce better-adapted species could significantly reduce fire risk and thus land-use change. Nabuurs et al. (2017) conservatively estimated that, if two-thirds of the above emissions could be avoided, this would reduce emissions by a further ~35 Mt. CO2/year.

However, more importantly than focusing on the approximate and uncertain quantitative estimates of the mitigation impact (Table 9.1) is considering the types of forest management measures that could be implemented to enhance the EU’s forest-based-mitigation potential. Below, we summarise a possible forest-management toolkit for enhancing climate-change mitigation (modified and extended from Nabuurs et al. 2013, p. 4). When applying it, it is essential to bear in mind that there is no one-size-fits-all toolkit that accommodates all circumstances, but rather it has to be tailored according to regional characteristics and institutions.

  • Conserve high-carbon-stock densities in old forests that are not in high-disturbance-risk areas. Older forests tend to contain more deadwood and habitat niches than intensively managed forests, and this would also help benefit biodiversity, while constraining the average increment rates.

  • Harvest mature forests that are at high risk of disturbance and already have low productivity. This would intensify the carbon sink only in the longer term. However, society would have to accept that forests may temporarily need to go through a net emissions phase––which they could also do without harvesting, if effected by disturbances––in order to safeguard long-term forest sinks.

  • Conserve high-carbon-stock forests on sensitive sites, high-soil-carbon sites and steep slopes.

  • Improve the management and protection of fire-prone forests to safeguard their carbon stocks. Also, reduce disturbance risks by moving increasingly away from monoculture forests to mixed forests. This would also tend to enhance biodiversity.

  • Switch to continuous-cover forest management, if economic and forest management conditions allow. This favourably adjusts the ratio of productive to unproductive time spans in the management cycle.

  • In forests primarily managed for wood production, optimise the silvicultural techniques (such as planting, tending and harvesting) to arrive at a carbon-efficient management scheme, and stimulate the recycling of forest raw materials and wood products.

  • When using forest biomass for bioenergy, use forest residues, biomass from thinnings, coppice forests, sidestreams of the forest industry (sawchips, bark, black-liquor, etc.) and post-consumer wood.

  • Continue afforestation and restoration schemes in Europe, particularly in less-forested parts. In addition, reduce deforestation, which would deliver immediate gains by avoiding emissions.

Reflecting on the developments since the Paris Climate Agreement, Verkerk et al. (2020) argued that CSF is a necessary, but still missing, component in strategies to decarbonise global society. The authors refined the CSF approach and focused on three mutually reinforcing components: (1) increasing carbon storage in forests and wood products, in conjunction with the provisioning of other ecosystem services; (2) enhancing forest health and resilience through adaptive forest management; and (3) using wood resources sustainably to substitute for non-renewable, carbon-intensive materials. Successful implementation of CSF would require policies that help to find the right balance between short- and long-term goals, as well as between the need for wood production, biodiversity protection and other important ecosystem services.

Verkerk et al. (2020) stressed the need to enhance global afforestation, and avoid deforestation and degradation, combine mitigation and adaptation measures in forest management, and use wood sustainably as a substitute for non-renewable carbon-intensive materials. The successful development of CSF calls for policy-makers to create incentives for the investment needed to activate forest-management and finance-mitigation and -adaption measures, including protecting biodiversity and other ecosystem services. Such a development requires holistic policy frameworks and action plans that incorporate the requisite innovations, institutions, infrastructures and investments (i.e. the four ‘I’s in Rockström et al. 2017). According to Verkerk et al. (2020), in order to implement these, it is important to develop economic instruments, such as taxes, subsidies and public procurement, as well as introducing extended producer responsibilities, incentives for retaining value in the circular economy processes, and supporting all the initiatives in the context of greening the finances.

In order to illustrate what role CSF could play in different regions of the EU countries in further detail, and how local circumstances may impact its measures, we turn to look at four case studies––the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany and Spain.