Forest-Related Climate Mitigation Options: Dialogues for Exploring Opportunities and Threats

  • Martin WelpEmail author
Part of the Managing Forest Ecosystems book series (MAFE, volume 19)


Climate change mitigation will require substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and, subsequently, considerable changes in the global energy system. When, how, and at what costs (or benefits) a transition to carbon–reduced or carbon-free economies can be achieved is subject to heated debates. Forest protection is, besides increased energy efficiency and different technologies for producing climate-friendly energy, a way to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Recent estimates published in the IPCC WGI Summary for policy makers (IPCC 2007) indicate that land use change contributes to greenhouse gas emissions to a considerable extent. Of the annual CO2 emissions of eight GtC (gigatons of carbon), about 1.6 GtC (20%) are associated with land use change, although the estimates are quite uncertain.1 This is more than what the entire transport sector emits annually. Part of this land use change is associated with global deforestation and forest degradation.


Mitigation Option Forest Stewardship Council Stakeholder Dialogue Dangerous Climate Change Global Energy System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Azar C (2002) Are the economic costs of stabilising the atmosphere prohibitive? Ecol Econ: 42:73–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Crutzen P (2006) Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma? Climatic Change (77):3–4, August 2006, 211–220(10), SpringerGoogle Scholar
  3. Deutscher Nachhaltigkeitspreis (2008) Nachhaltigkeitsbericht, December 2008Google Scholar
  4. Dyson F (2008) The Question of Global Warming. The New York Review of Books. 55(10) June 12, 2008Google Scholar
  5. Eliasch J (2008) The Eliasch review. Climate change: financing global forests. Office of Climate Change, UK; p 250Google Scholar
  6. European Forest Institute (2002) Forests in poverty reduction strategies: capturing the potential. Forests in poverty reduction strategies: Capturing the Potential. Tuusula, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  7. Garnaut R (2008) The Garnaut climate change review. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Global Carbon Project (2008) Carbon budget and trends 2007, 26 September 2008
  9. Global Forest Resources Assessment (2005) Chapter 5 “Productive functions of forest resources” FAO Forestry Paper 147 Progress towards sustainable forest management, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  10. Hellström E (2006) Science in support of the forest biodiversity programme for southern finland “working from the inside”, Stakeholder dialogues in natural resources management, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 241–260Google Scholar
  11. Hemmati M (2002) Multi-stakeholder processes for governance and sustainability – beyond deadlock and conflict. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. IPCC (2007) Climate change (2007): the physical science basis. summary for policy makersGoogle Scholar
  13. Jaeger C, Schellnhuber HJ, Brovkin V (2008) Stern’s review and Adam’s fallacy. Climatic Change (Special Issue on The Stern Review and Its Critics) 89(3–4):207–218Google Scholar
  14. Jesper G (1998) Corporate legitimacy in risk society: the case of the Brent Spar. Business Strat Environ 7:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Joss S, Bellucci S (eds) (2002) Participatory technology assessment: European Perspectives. Center for the Study of Democracy, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Kasemir B, Jäger J, Jaeger CC, Gardner MT (eds) (2003) Public participation in sustainability science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 311Google Scholar
  17. Lenton T, Held H et al (2008) Inaugural article: tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(6):1786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liss B-M (1999) The role of the tropical forests action programme and national forest programmes in sustainable forest development. Formulation and implementation of national forest programmes Volume I: Theoretical aspects. Glück P, Schanz H, Volz K-R (eds) EFI Proceedings 30Google Scholar
  19. Nordhaus W (2008) A question of balance: weighing the options on global warming policies. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 234Google Scholar
  20. Ostrom E (1999) Self-governance and forest resources, occasional paper No. 20, Center for International Forestry Research, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  21. Ramanathan V, Feng Y (2008) On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system: Formidable challenges ahead. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(38):14245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schellnhuber H (2008) Global warming: stop worrying, start panicking? Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(38):14239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sizer N (1994) Opportunities to save and sustainably use the world’s forests through international cooperation, World Resources Institute: 28.Google Scholar
  24. Sterman JD (2008) Risk communication on climate: mental models and mass balance. Science 322(5901):24 October 2008, 532–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stern N et al (2006) Stern review: the economics of climate change. HM Treasury, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Stoll-Kleemann S, Welp M (eds) (2006) Stakeholder dialogues in natural resources management…theory and practice. Springer Environmental Sciences, Berlin, Heidelberg 386Google Scholar
  27. SustainAbility (1996) Engaging stakeholders. Volume 1 – The benchmark survey. Series, SustainAbility Ltd. London.
  28. Tol R, Bohn M, Downing T, Guillerminet ML, Hizsnyik E, Kasperson R, Lonsdale K, Mays C, Nicholls R, Olsthoorn A (2006) Adaptation to 5 m of sea-level rise. J Risk Res 9:467–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vallejo N, Hauselman P (2004) Governance and multistakeholder processes. International institute for sustainable development.
  30. Van den Hove S, Le Menestrel M, de Bettignies H-C (2002) The oil industry and climate change: strategies and ethical dilemmas. Climate Policy 2(1):3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Welp M, Battaglini A, Jaeger CC (2009a) Defining dangerous climate change: the beijing exercise. In: Patt A, Schröter D, Klein RJT, De la Vega-Leinert A (eds) Assessing vulnerability to global environmental change. Earthscan, 286 pp 215–229Google Scholar
  32. Welp M, Kasemir B, Jaeger CC (2009b) Citizens’ voices in environmental policy: the contribution of integrated assessment focus groups to accountable decision-making. In: Coenen FHJM, Paterson R (eds) Public participation and better environmental decisions: the promise and limits of participatory processes for the quality of environmentally related decision-making. Springer, 209 pp 21–34Google Scholar
  33. Whitten TDH, MacKinnon K (2001) Conservation biology: a displacement behaviour for academia. Conserv Biol 15(1):1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Forest and EnvironmentUniversity of Applied Sciences EberswaldeEberswaldeGermany

Personalised recommendations