Conflicting objectives while maximising carbon sequestration by forests

Abstract

In the current debate on global climatic change, forests and forestry policies have gained much attention; in particular hope has been expressed that forestry policies have the potential to mitigate climatic change—at least partially (Sedjo and Solomon 1988; Sedjo 1989b; Johnson 1992; Kauppi 1992; Krapfenbauer 1992; Kurz et al. 1992; Marland and Marland 1992; Dewar 1993; King 1993; Turner et al. 1993; Wisniewski et al. 1993). Many issues however, are poorly understood and contradictory conclusions have been drawn by different authors (e.g., Harmon et al. 1990; Marland and Marland 1992). While some authors have demonstrated how much land would be needed, how great the economic costs of a full mitigation by such policies would be (Sedjo 1989a), and have even warned against costly premature actions (Sedjo 1989b), others have argued that any contribution is worthwhile (Marland and Marland 1992). Moreover, management options favouring carbon (C) sequestering are often discussed without considering potential conflicts with other objectives, such as wood production.